Earlier this year, the state Legislature passed a law that would qualify the waste-to-energy system as a renewable energy technology complying with the state’s green-power mandate. At the time, Gov. Jim Doyle said the technology has real potential to help us address the growing need for clean renewable power."Gasification -- particularly ultra-hot plasma gasification such as is being planned for Milwaukee -- reduces waste to its component atoms and plasma. Environmentalists may lack the brain power to understand the difference between simple incineration and plasma gasification, but most humans would perceive the distinction fairly quickly.
But bill was opposed by environmentalists who objected to the trash-to-energy project and its potential impact on air pollution. Environmental groups that are actively opposing these types of projects in other states have branded them as “incinerators in disguise.”
Josh Morby, a spokesman for Alliance Federated Energy, said that characterization is unfair because no incineration is involved in the plasma gasification process.
Under this technology, the municipal waste is not burned but is instead converted into a syngas that can be used to generate electricity, steam or biofuels. _JSOnline
In New York state, SUNY Cobleskill plans to install a gasification plant on campus as part of a research and training program for the new Environmental and Energy Technology Program. Not a bad idea, given how much garbage is generated at the average institution of higher
Tampa Electric will be installing a 250 MW IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) demonstration plant in partnership with RTI. Not a bad idea. But what genius is forcing them to incorporate CO2 sequestration as part of the demonstration? Don't they know they will lose up to half the generated energy and do no one any good at all by sequestering the plant food otherwise known as CO2? Oh, yes -- the
And to prove that gasification is nothing if not versatile, companies in Israel, Colorado, and elsewhere are developing solar powered gasification plants, using concentrated sunlight to gasify biomass and waste.
Faux environmentalists, deep down, want to reduce the human population of Earth by at least 90%. You do not expect these neo-Luddites to be looking for solutions to real world problems such as potential energy shortages. No, they oppose every form of energy that might possibly work -- including nuclear, biomass gasification, IGCC for clean coal, shale gas, and so on.
It requires a lot of energy to support heavily sub-specialised civilisations such as those in the developed world. If your goal is to reduce the human population of the planet well below 1 billion members, cutting off the energy supply to civilisation would be one of the more obvious steps. Clearly, these quasi- half-baboons will not hesitate to take that step and any others they feel necessary to reach their goals.
Cross-posted to Al Fin Energy
In reality, you would have to remove at least one half a baboon's brain for the primate to be as unintelligent as the average (faux) environmentalist
ReplyDeleteits a sickness, caused by a sort of prion, a jellyfication of the brain.
Instigated no doubt by watching too much TV as a child. A TV Prion.
Al Fin you are a very smart guy , but please explain to me why exactly you consider human population as a boon and the best thing ever happened?
ReplyDelete90% of population (and I am being generous here) do not contribute anything and are a net loss of resources. Civilization is moved forward by few exceptional geniuses and a bit more of engineers and enterpreneurs ,the rest are there for free ride.
I do not agree with a lot of what considered mainstream environmentalism ,as its mostly political movements without any real regard to environment and imho they done so far more harm than good.
But why you disagree with malthusian conclusions is beyond me.
I would not so near to a baboon. They are very aggressive.
ReplyDeleteBruce: There is little doubt that a large number of faux environmentalists are functionally insane. Some of them will grow out of the insanity, but for others it will only get worse with time.
ReplyDeleteMax: Malthusian conclusions are valid within certain situations. In SubSaharan Africa or most Islamic nations, for example, there is little hope for better general conditions without continuous outside intervention.
Although I am skeptical of Ray Kurzweil's singularity timeline, I do expect to see some incredible technological and scientific developments, which will have even further impacts on Malthusian dynamics than those which have occurred.
Eliminating 90% of the human race is very bad karma. The enterprise presumes a greater wisdom and higher moral standing than actually exists, in anyone who would participate in such a scheme.
J: Yes, and so are people.
[quote]
ReplyDeleteMax: Malthusian conclusions are valid within certain situations. In SubSaharan Africa or most Islamic nations, for example, there is little hope for better general conditions without continuous outside intervention.
[/quote]
You do consider western world somehow much better? 90% of people in western world would be unable to maintain anything as well had they not had the top contributing members.
Difference is Africa never had those top members to begin with as with their median IQ they are way too rare to make any impact
You need at least 130 IQ to be competent engineer (e.g. one smart enough to not screw up following already invented and tested concepts) - and you need quite a bit of those to simply maintain and expand existing infrastructure, to actually invent stuff you need be at very minimum one standard deviation above that (plus plethora of other factors besides IQ)
So 90% of people are simply freeloaders with net contribution negative or zero. Its a question of optimization. Imagine you have large datacenter, doing some task. 90% of your power, cooling and rack space goes to useless obsolete hardware, which does absolutely nothing except consuming resources. Would you call that efficient?
[quote]
Although I am skeptical of Ray Kurzweil's singularity timeline, I do expect to see some incredible technological and scientific developments, which will have even further impacts on Malthusian dynamics than those which have occurred.
[/quote]
Most everyone looks at singularity as some trans-humanist utopia (with brain upgrades , uploading etc). I do wonder whether such egocentric point of view is correct though
Singularity is AI smart enough to rewrite itself. It will obsolete everything existing thus far
Just like humans made obsolete every other species on earth, same way humans will be obsolete by advanced AI. Post singularity humans will be as obsolete and irrelevant as ,say ants. Sure they do have some relevance, but do you care whether you destroy ant hill when you start building new house?
[quote]
Eliminating 90% of the human race is very bad karma. The enterprise presumes a greater wisdom and higher moral standing than actually exists, in anyone who would participate in such a scheme.
[/quote]
you religious or something?
One thing I continue to be confronted with is the negative attitude of high IQ individuals. Its like they achieve a positive self awareness when they negate others. Granted I don't have the facilities they do, so a good deal of what they say is lost on me.
ReplyDeleteBut that is neither here nor there.
There is plenty to overlook in the banality of human kind. Perhaps its the nature of dim witted people to think a savant will arise from its genes. In reality the likelihood is greater that the high IQ parent will have a middling offspring. I would like to think the parent of either would nurture their child.
Again I miss the point, the real issue I see has more to do with declining birth rates than rising. Maturing societies, example Europe can't replicate themselves. Correction, won't replicate themselves and this looks to be a signature of happy well adjusted and successful societies. If this is a genetic function of personal excess (a state in which worry of ultimate failure ceases) or just selfishness is moot, its absolutely conceivable the native European population will die off.
Once the worlds population has reached a similar living standard who is to say humans will survive?
At least with an enormous base to withdraw from humans will last a thousand years longer.
I would argue from that huge population you will find the greatest achievements, dwarfing the intellectual level we glimpse today.
I can dream can't I?
In the old days of Teddy Rooseveldt, there were conservationists. They wanted to preserve selected natural places, so that human beings could enjoy them (and maybe even hunt a few animals).
ReplyDeleteModern environmentalists have nothing in common with real conservationists. Environmentalists are happy to ban DDT, and let several thousand African children die unnecessarily each year from preventable malaria. Those people have blood on their hands.
But if environmentalists wish to demonstrate their sincerity by offing themselves to set a good example on population reduction, let them get on with it!
Max: As an engineer (a female one at that) I do agree about a lot of the minimums required, but you are forgetting one thing. Really smart men are borderline autistic, they lack the social skills required to communicate beyond their field of expertise. Also as an engineer I have been able to observe men in their natural environment and can attest to the fact that without maids or wives most men would wallow in a pit of their own filth. Also do you really think the Teslas of the world need to waste their time cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, dishes..... Think of non engineer members of society as zero force members. Not needed most of the time, but missed when the winds of change blow, and oh how often and hard those winds can blow.
ReplyDeleteA lot can also be said for genetic diversity, you never know what genes your species might need. So these 90% undesirables, mostly female, as women typically do not become engineers and the like, are needed too. Who will pass the genes of the top 10% to the next generation? Should she also be an engineer, not really because the odds of two engineers having a full blown autistic child is twice as high as for the base population. Again support infrastructure is really important. We do not need a world of engineers, we also need doctors, lawyers, chefs, janitors, constructions workers, house wives, accountants, hair dressers, seamstresses, nurses and yes burger flippers. Some of us like being able to go to the drive through and some one with an IQ of 130 is not going to do that job.
gtg wins the thread.
ReplyDelete