« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 31   Go Down

.....

  • 916 Replies
  • 269713 Views
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #660 on: February 24, 2013, 09:49:41 AM »
no im not im standing hear with the in front of the whole forum asking you for a straight answer to my question. you said hydrogen powers these stations but wont tell us how or where they get the hydrogen from. feel free to enlighten us all. but so far you are trying your hardest to avoid answering.
why is that....... ???
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #661 on: February 24, 2013, 09:54:43 AM »
wow you must relay be struggling to keep this up musnt you. lol this is quite amusing.

i will explain again. how do they extract the hydrogen from the sea?
Logged
*

Dr.Nor

  • 2196
  • +0/-0
  • Yes, i am a guru
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #662 on: February 24, 2013, 09:55:42 AM »
 :-B
Logged
Sir Th*rk is a sexy hero. And his voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate.
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #663 on: February 24, 2013, 10:20:44 AM »
We use far more electricty now than even a few years ago....Where do you get these mythical ideas from?

A small amount of proof....
A typical house in the Uk used to have one ring main, they dont now ;)
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #664 on: February 24, 2013, 10:30:09 AM »
wow you make this so easy. thank you sceptic. so where shal we start?......

problem one

in the source you provided it describes how the ENERGY PRODUCED by nuclear power stations is used in electrolysis to create the hydrogen. didn't you say nuclear power plants dont create electricity? ???

problem 2

the hydrogen produced isnt a form or energy because it uses more energy to create than it will ultimately produce. its what they call in the industry a energy transporter.
its energy density is higher than modern day batteries which means its a more efficient form of energy to propel our cars. if we can produce the hydrogen cheaply in the 1st place.

and sceptic. enrgy consumption has gone up by many magnitudes in just the last few decades unless you have a source that says other wise. but i wont hold my breath :-X
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #665 on: February 24, 2013, 10:33:33 AM »
Ive just given you an example of how we use more electricity, and it alters the requirements for wiring a house

Did you not read that line??
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #666 on: February 24, 2013, 10:38:38 AM »
I5 years or so since it was advised to have two ring mains one for upstairs, one for down....

Its hardly the stuff of Conspiracy to realise that the average home uses far more juice than it did in even the recent past
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #667 on: February 24, 2013, 10:42:30 AM »
so where does the electricity used for the electrolysis come from? im can only go from your source which clearly says they are using nuclear power stations to create electricity for electrolysis. so in you world what produces the electricity? and why not just use the electricity from that. why produce hydrogen because i have just shown you how you lose energy in the conversion. you realy need to think your next answer through a but because you sounding all kinds of crazy right now
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #668 on: February 24, 2013, 10:49:53 AM »
 :o

I'll take a wild guess (and a fervant hope) you are not an electrician ?

Its not the "house" that uses the electricity its the multiple gadgets within it, just think how many electrical items a typical house has that it didnt have even ten years ago...
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #669 on: February 24, 2013, 10:56:27 AM »
simple question sceptic you should be good at theses. what produces the electricity for the electrolysis?
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #670 on: February 24, 2013, 10:59:02 AM »
exept that as  I said, we now need two ring mains :D
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #671 on: February 24, 2013, 11:01:05 AM »
Quote from: sevenhills on February 24, 2013, 10:59:02 AM
exept that as  I said, we now need two ring mains :D
So what.
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #672 on: February 24, 2013, 11:02:49 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: Pythagoras on February 24, 2013, 10:56:27 AM
simple question sceptic you should be good at theses. what produces the electricity for the electrolysis?
Candles?

lol you have no real answer what a surprise. but in the absence of a answer from you we will continue.

why do they produce hydrogen with the electricity you dont know how they produce?
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #673 on: February 24, 2013, 11:05:26 AM »
because the power requirement is a lot higher.... Because we use a lot more electricity.........
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #674 on: February 24, 2013, 11:09:23 AM »
awww dont be upset sceptic this was going to happen eventually. you being wrong is like death and taxes. a certainty in life.

so we can take from you cop out answers that you are indeed wrong. thank you pleasure doing business with you.
if you want to try and prove you are right then answer my questioner properly.
untill then all we can take from this is that your are wrong.
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #675 on: February 24, 2013, 11:11:05 AM »
What do you mean Wrong"??

Its obvious we do use more electric, you only need to add up the Kw rating of things in your own bedsit to work that one out
Logged
*

f.o.g.09

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #676 on: February 24, 2013, 11:15:09 AM »
Quote from: sevenhills on February 24, 2013, 10:49:53 AM
:o

I'll take a wild guess (and a fervant hope) you are not an electrician ?

Its not the "house" that uses the electricity its the multiple gadgets within it, just think how many electrical items a typical house has that it didnt have even ten years ago...

yes we use more gadgets , but they are way more efficient nowadays...i can now light my whole house using the same wattage as it used to take to light 1 bulb
Logged
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #677 on: February 24, 2013, 11:19:19 AM »
and now go and check out your Frost Free Refrigerator ;)

Lighting isnt really the issue is it - Though if you can light a whole house on 100W its either a very small house or rather dark in the corners
Logged
*

f.o.g.09

  • 48
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #678 on: February 24, 2013, 11:33:34 AM »
Quote from: sevenhills on February 24, 2013, 11:19:19 AM
and now go and check out your Frost Free Refrigerator ;)

Lighting isnt really the issue is it - Though if you can light a whole house on 100W its either a very small house or rather dark in the corners
Frost free Refrigerators have been around for years ..and are way more efficient now than 10 years ago

LED's  ;)
Logged
*

Pythagoras

  • 3274
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #679 on: February 24, 2013, 11:44:53 AM »
graph of energy consumption over time




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

can we put this to rest now. fact we use ever more electricty than before and will contiue to do so for the forseable future.

source
http://timeforchange.org/prediction-of-energy-consumption
Logged
*

kevinagain

  • 527
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #680 on: February 24, 2013, 01:32:33 PM »
Quote from: sevenhills on February 24, 2013, 10:20:44 AM
A typical house in the Uk used to have one ring main, they dont now ;)

i use different codes where i live.

what's your amperage for a standard residence?

what's a "ring?"
Logged
true wisdom is always concise
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #681 on: February 24, 2013, 01:48:18 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
You are using world wide energy consumption Thaggy. This includes industry and all of the rest.
I'm talking about normal household usage.
So you're saying that industry and the rest don't count?  And don't forget that as the population increases, there are more and more "normal households" that need energy. 
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

FlatOrange

  • 2458
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #682 on: February 24, 2013, 02:39:41 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 24, 2013, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
You are using world wide energy consumption Thaggy. This includes industry and all of the rest.
I'm talking about normal household usage.
So you're saying that industry and the rest don't count?  And don't forget that as the population increases, there are more and more "normal households" that need energy.
My stance was on households using less energy.
I agree, it can appear that we use more but technology has made appliances 50/60/70/80 % more efficient in the home, so even with more gadgets, we don't use them all at once and also, a large proportion of people are scoffing their meals at Macdonalds etc these days and many don't even know their way round a proper kitchen.
That's all I was getting at.
I was saying that we have built many more power stations and can easily keep up demand, which isn't a problem.
The problem is when demand falls...power stations needs to dump electricity. (waste it) because they cannot overload the system and cannot just turn it down like a simmering pan on the stove.

Where do you get this info?  Do you just make it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
Logged
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
?

sevenhills

  • 219
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #683 on: February 24, 2013, 03:52:02 PM »
no its not, they can alter the amount to suit demand.....thats what the Hydro Power station in North Wales is used for..... peak tea time demand


Its interesting that when you talk about something I really do know a lot about, how stupid your reasoning really appears :D
Logged
*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #684 on: February 24, 2013, 04:29:09 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 03:19:32 PM
No I don't just make it up.
Excess electricity from power plants is hard to control. There is only so much that can be stored, so it has to be dumped.


During the day, it's not a problem but during the night when people are relaxing or asleep, the energy is still produced at full pelt,
I don't suppose you'd mind sharing your source for this info would you?
Logged
*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #685 on: February 24, 2013, 05:39:59 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 05:20:35 AM
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.

Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #686 on: February 24, 2013, 05:44:49 PM »
Quote from: Dog on February 24, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 05:20:35 AM
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.



I missed Sceptimatics reply. He deleted I guess.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Bollybill

  • 398
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #687 on: February 24, 2013, 06:03:09 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2013, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: Dog on February 24, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 05:20:35 AM
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.



I missed Sceptimatics reply. He deleted I guess.

I bet it was funny. :(
Logged
Why use evidence
Ok
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #688 on: February 25, 2013, 05:05:08 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2013, 03:25:01 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2013, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: Dog on February 24, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 24, 2013, 05:20:35 AM
and I try not to be ignorant as regards replying to them.



I missed Sceptimatics reply. He deleted I guess.
That was my reply, what he quoted. Funny eh? ;)

Yeah
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Idreyn

  • 23
  • +0/-0
Re: Stars and light years.
« Reply #689 on: February 25, 2013, 05:40:44 AM »
Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.

Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.

NEXT QUESTION
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 31   Go Up
« previous next »