Yet Another Energy Discussion
-
Not sure if whoosh or just adding on to joke. Probably the latter.
-
-
Based on this, we can see that one mol of CO2 takes up less space than one mol of CH4.
My point is: mentioning that you get one molecule of CO2 from burning one molecule of CH4 is idiotic. They don't take up the same amount of space! Stop trotting this stupid argument out like it matters!
The ideal gas equation is PV = nRT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is number of moles, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. If you hold P and T constant, you can see that V is proportional to n.
As they teach you at school to help remember, "Equal voles, equal moles".
At STP and neglecting the small differences due to intermolecular forces, one molecule of gaseous CO2 takes up exactly the same amount of room as one molecule of gaseous CH4. Flabdablet is saying this, but not perhaps in a way that will be obvious to non-physicists.
So burning methane to carbon dioxide results in the same number of molecules as before, which means that the carbon dioxide will take up the same amount of room at the same pressure. However, as the carbon dioxide has more mass, the pressure difference between the top and bottom of the well will be greater. So the carbon dioxide will have less volume, but by an amount which depends on that pressure difference. If the well pressure is high, the volume difference should be small.
-
The only way it would work in real life is if you broke the conservation laws.
Ideas?
You find a wormhole that takes in objects near the ground and spits them into the air. Then you wrap that in a tube, and throw in water and make hydro-power.
The problem?
These ideas always rely on us finding something that is already consuming and spitting out massive energy naturally. And thus isn't breaking conservation laws. It just happens to be a system with tons of stored energy.
Real life example?
Solar power.
-
Cancel this I was not done you piece of junk!
-
*whistle*
<don't mind me, I goofed.
-
As they teach you at school to help remember, "Equal voles, equal moles".
First, I've never heard that phrase. Perhaps because "vole" sounds nothing like the first syllable of volume. Further, that only works when talking about ideal gases. Funny thing about ideal gases: they're imaginary; they don't really exist. The closest things to ideal gases are high temperature, low pressure, monatomic gases. The further you vary from that, the further you're going to get from the model of the ideal gas law.
At STP and neglecting the small differences due to intermolecular forces, one molecule of gaseous CO2 takes up exactly the same amount of room as one molecule of gaseous CH4.
I haven't got enough information available to evaluate this statement specifically, but taken as a general statement, one of the things that causes real gases to differ from the ideal gas law is differences in molecular size. With that under consideration, and the fact that you used the word "exactly" I'm going to call you an idiot.
which means that the carbon dioxide will take up the same amount of room at the same pressure
Did you even look at my calculations? Take the known density and molar mass of each gas, and you can prove that they have different molar volumes. See:
```
CH4 | CO2
----------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------
0.716 kg/m^3 * (16.04 g/mol * 1 kg/1000g)^-1 | 1.977 kg/m^3 * (44.01 g/mol * 1 kg/1000g)^-1
0.716 kg/m^3 * (0.01604 kg/mol)^-1 | 1.977 kg/m^3 * (0.04401 kg/mol)^-1
0.716 kg/m^3 * 62.34 mol/kg | 1.977 kg/m^3 * 22.72 mol/kg
44.6 mol/m^3 | 44.92 mol/m^3Were you hit with the stupid stick this morning?
-
First, I've never heard that phrase. Perhaps because "vole" sounds nothing like the first syllable of volume.
I thought of the rodent.
-
@abarker said:
First, I've never heard that phrase. Perhaps because "vole" sounds nothing like the first syllable of volume.
I thought of the rodent.
@accalia! @boomzilla found your dinner!
-
You find a wormhole that takes in objects near the ground and spits them into the air.
Except that you don't, because it's already exploded, or is continuously exploding and is practically indistinguishable from a star.
-
Total protonic reversal.
-
Or any hadron, really.
-
As they teach you at school to help remember,
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
Filed under: you argue with the forum members you have, not the forum members you wish you had
-
@accalia! @boomzilla found your dinner!
Good. With any luck she'll stop eating our chooks and ducks now (nine of twelve chooks and one of two ducks taken in the last three months).
-
You know,
There are often multiple ways of solving a problem.
For example,
A man is hungry, teach him to fish.
A man is hungry, teach him to fish, and give him a fish only when he fails.
A man is hungry, give him a fish every day for the rest of his life.Each one solves the problem. You can point to numbers and say, there are less hungry people.
But each one creates a different social landscape, and creates new problems.
Giving him a fish every day, causes more strain on productivity, and drives the standard of living down.
Teaching him to fish every day, causes more strain on supply, and drives prices up.So the outcomes seem similar.
But either choice changes how that person views responsibility.
And that's the point of contention.
One might say we go to Iraq to get oil.
Otherwise, we might start drilling off of our coast and compete with the people who are taking oil that is easy for us to get to.People sit back and say, I don't want to start a war for oil. But fail to recognize that inevitably they will resist any measure that changes their lifestyle. They might vote for higher taxes on someone else to produce income to drill in China, so they can forget about the consequences.
So, terms like reality-based community and truthiness simply cover the fact that everyone is really making the same decisions for the same outcomes. They are simply choosing which bucket to hide the consequences in.
Ultimately I find it hard to believe there weren't weapons in Iraq. I've heard it from soldiers on the ground and seen pictures of dismantled bombs in Iraq, and seen traffic of trucks leaving Iraq loaded up with equipment and headed for Afghanistan.
Against that, I have a bunch of people saying there weren't weapons, Britain and America lied about weapons.
I have to sit here and say, there are two sets of information that contradict.
And I think most people simply pick the side that hides the problem in their preferred bucket.
The outcome is the same, inevitably we will have to act in the Middle East, and we hope that all of our actions have results that favor us. The only difference is what each person believes is an outcome that favors us.
The President claims we are more respected around the world. But after drone bombing and going to war without congress approval in two different countries, I fail to see how Obama has done anything different from Bush.
-
Teaching him to fish every day, causes more strain on supply, and drives prices up.
Depends on which supply you're talking about. If the supply of fish to fisherman was tight, then probably. If it wasn't, then price goes down because supply of fish from fisherman probably went up.
...and seen traffic of trucks leaving Iraq loaded up with equipment and headed for Afghanistan.
More seems to have gone to Syria.
-
I haven't got enough information available to evaluate this statement specifically, but taken as a general statement, one of the things that causes real gases to differ from the ideal gas law is differences in molecular size. With that under consideration, and the fact that you used the word "exactly" I'm going to call you an idiot.
The more you write, the more you give away that you don't actually understand chemistry.
Note that I said "disregarding intermolecular forces". It is mainly these in real gases that cause the density to diverge from ideal.
The methane molecule has a diameter almost exactly 0.4nM. The carbon dioxide molecule is linear and actually a bit smaller, in very rough terms 0.3 by 0.2nM. So I have to agree that there will be a tiny difference at STP; your nitpicking that the equivalence is not "exact", however, is just that.
Your calculation shows that methane works out at around 44.6 moles/m3 and carbon dioxide, 44.92 at 273K/1at. That's a difference of well under 1%, and of itself is obviously not going to affect well replacement - if you're that worried, add a little air to the CO2. In the context of @flabdablet 's comment about maintaining gasfield pressure, this is insignificant. On the other hand you wroteMy point is: mentioning that you get one molecule of CO2 from burning one molecule of CH4 is idiotic. They don't take up the same amount of space! Stop trotting this stupid argument out like it matters!
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space and yes, it does matter - if burning methane resulted in the hypothetical molecule dioxyethene O=C=C=O, then the result would be only half the volume and well replacement wouldn't be very practical. A 0.7% difference in volumes, however (though it will be different at higher pressures) really doesn't matter.
So you may think I am an idiot because I used the word "exactly" instead of "almost exactly", but your own obvious lack of understanding of physical chemistry doesn't exactly cover you in glory. Nor does your inability to respond without abusive language. Being able to use the word "idiot" doesn't actually add any validity to anything you write.
-
I thought of the rodent.
You were meant to.
While at U one of us came up with a replacement system of units that would be popular with bankers, based on the unit vole. The unit of length would be nose to tail, the unit of mass would be the mass of the vole, and the unit of time, its respiration rate. The unit vole would be kept in a temperature-controlled cage and fed on a carefully regulated diet.
Even so, every day the units would be slightly different, the prices of commodities would therefore vary, and quants would spend their time trying to predict the behaviour of the vole and so benefit from market movements.
(The catch, of course, is that measurements of the vole would have to be carried out in something else, such as the SI system, to permit transfer from standards lab to the real world.)
-
I fail to see how Obama has done anything different from Bush.
Well, he didn't give nearly as much money to Halliburton, there is that.
-
Had to pay those greens fees somehow.
-
That's a difference of well under 1%
A 0.7% difference in volumes, however (though it will be different at higher pressures)
First, review your math. 0.7% is not "well under" 1%. Try to be consistent when being an ass.
Second, yes the 0.7% difference in volumes will be different at higher pressures. At higher pressures the differences will be greater. Moving on.
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space
Strange, you said they take up exactly the same space before. Care to make up your tiny little mind?
So you may think I am an idiot because I used the word "exactly" instead of "almost exactly"
That would be a dose of nitpicking. Often a useful ingredient in pedantry.
Nor does your inability to respond without abusive language. Being able to use the word "idiot" doesn't actually add any validity to anything you write.
That would be the "dickweed" portion of "pedantic dickweed". YMBNH.
your own obvious lack of understanding of physical chemistry doesn't exactly cover you in glory.
Yeah, you haven't really refuted any of the chemistry related points I made, so I'm not sure what your point here is.
<trolling is fun
-
Try #1
Spending went up a magnitude between Bush and Obama.
I wonder how relevant a marginal amount Bush gave to a business is, compared with the new spending level.
Try #2
Bush didn't give money to bail out failing banks.
Try #3
I'm sure Obama hasn't given money to any businesses he likes, you know, like oil industry in Brazil.
-
Bush didn't give money to bail out failing banks.
That's because he spent it on a war in Iraq instead.Oh, and the bailout? Wouldn't have happened without the 2008 sub-prime collapse. Which happened under Bush.
-
That's because he spent it on a war in Iraq instead.
Spending went up a magnitude between Bush and Obama
That's all I have to say when people bring up Bush and war spending.
And the wars didn't stop with Obama, he just didn't talk about them.
-
Which happened under Bush.
Which happened under the eyes of a committee of corrupt congressmen overseeing Fanny and Freddie.
I'm not saying who is better or worse than the other, I'm saying they are more alike than people act.
I don't know how left of moderate Bush was, but he wasn't a conservative.
-
I don't know how left of moderate Bush was, but he wasn't a conservative.
Bush was a Republican; they're very much right of moderate. And, more or less by definition, they are conservative.
-
Bush was a Republican; they're very much right of moderate. And, more or less by definition, they are conservative.
Then the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) will Blow. Your. Mind.
-
First, review your math. 0.7% is not "well under" 1%. Try to be consistent when being an ass.
0.7% is 70% of 1% or in round figures 2/3. Would you say that $700 wasn't "well under" $1000? Let's try it; you give me $1000 and I'll give you $700 back; on your way of thinking it's not much less (whereas apparently if carbon dioxide has only 99.3% of mole-for-molecule methane, that's a significant difference which would affect well refilling. So in your world, 99.3% is very different from 100% but 0.7% isn't significantly less than 1%.)
You seem to have an obsession with numerical exactitude without considering for a moment whether the things being compared are significantly different. This reminds me of a board meeting once with a new CEO. The finance director put up a lot of historical figures, all to 1dp. The screen was full of them. The CEO strode over to the screen, pretended to pull out a magnifying glass, and said "So last month labor was 27.3% of overheads and this month it's 27.4. Do I really need to wreck my eyesight looking at teeny tiny differences? I just want to know, is that good or bad".
I side with the CEO. Ass perhaps, idiot perhaps (you do seem to have quite a thing about name calling), but I leave it to the other readers of these posts to decide who is actually making the most sense.
My point was that yes, they do take up very nearly the same amount of space and yes, it does matter - if burning methane resulted in the hypothetical molecule dioxyethene O=C=C=O, then the result would be only half the volume and well replacement wouldn't be very practical
Yeah, you haven't really refuted any of the chemistry related points I made, so I'm not sure what your point here is.
I think this makes my point - you clearly don't understand my explanation, or how it "refutes" your claim that the formula of carbon dioxide is irrelevant. Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, so I guess on that basis I'm winning on the happiness stakes.
-
@xaade said:
I don't know how left of moderate Bush was, but he wasn't a conservative.
Bush was a Republican; they're very much right of moderate. And, more or less by definition, they are conservative.There's plenty of Progressivism in the Republican party. Always has been going back at least to Teddy Roosevelt.
-
Shit, Lincoln was a Republican too.
So, really, anyone who has at least two brain cells to rub together
realizes that the whole Red Team / Blue Team thing is a distraction.
-
But that's getting a bit too far from today to do a good comparison. Modern Progressivism, I think, didn't really get going until the 1890s or so.
Obviously, I reject the Progressive's "good = Progressive" argument, or even that there's any necessary correlation between progress and Progressive.
-
@xaade said:
I don't know how left of moderate Bush was, but he wasn't a conservative.
Bush was a Republican; they're very much right of moderate. And, more or less by definition, they are conservative.Relevant quote:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/conservatives_quotes.html#LVZ6sUWUoDX6y17w.99
-
@RaceProUK said:
Which happened under Bush.
Which happened under the eyes of a committee of corrupt congressmen overseeing Fanny and Freddie.
I'm not saying who is better or worse than the other, I'm saying they are more alike than people act.
I don't know how left of moderate Bush was, but he wasn't a conservative.
Don't forget that many of the policies that may have prevented the collapse were actually repealed under Clinton. :P
-
To be conservative requires no brains
whatsoever. Cabbages, cows and conifers are conservatives, and are so
stupid they don’t even know it. All that is basically required is
acceptance of what exists.
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/conservatives_quotes.html#AvVqFs7h0hGWkLh0.99To be liberal requires no brains whatsoever. A spinning top is a liberal. All that is basically required is the desire to blindly change things, and regardless of outcome, claim victory simply because they believe the change is necessary.
-
And Bush and party actually pointed out twice that it was going to happen, and was promptly ignored by the oversight committee.
-
Don't forget that many of the policies that may have prevented the collapse were actually repealed under Clinton
Which ones are those?
-
0.7% is 70% of 1% or in round figures 2/3. Would you say that $700 wasn't "well under" $1000? Let's try it; you give me $1000 and I'll give you $700 back; on your way of thinking it's not much less (whereas apparently if carbon dioxide has only 99.3% of mole-for-molecule methane, that's a significant difference which would affect well refilling. So in your world, 99.3% is very different from 100% but 0.7% isn't significantly less than 1%.)
Ok, i've had enough. I'm going to show you something from my last post:
<trolling is fun
It was right there at the end. What, you didn't see it? You couldn't tell you were being trolled? The tips about "pedantic dickweedery" and the jab about YMBNH didn't make it clear? Go home before you have an aortic infarction.
-
To be liberal requires no brains whatsoever. A spinning top is a liberal. All that is basically required is the desire to blindly change things, and regardless of outcome, claim victory simply because they believe the change is necessary.
Sheeeit. Do you know any AT&T premises techs who are also liberals? I had one over yesterday who, in the process of "fixing" my TV service, decided to revamp my in-house "network infrastructure," and in so doing, not only fucked up my Internet connection but didn't even fix the fucking TV.
-
Only if he was actually revamping your system so he could redirect your cable to his professional victim buddy next door.
-
Stolen from AoSQH ONT:
Instapundit » Blog Archive » POWER: Law Loosens an Efficiency Standard But Boosts Grid Stability. The story goes like this: B…
POWER: Law Loosens an Efficiency Standard But Boosts Grid Stability. The story goes like this: Back in 2010, the U.S. government formulated regulations to improve the efficiency of many types of appliances, including electric water heaters. The new standards were slated to go into effect in April...
For example, it makes it illegal to “unlock” a grid-enabled water heater so that it can be used without being part of a demand-management or thermal-energy storage program
@William F. Buckley said:
A Liberal is someone who is determined to reach into your shower and adjust the water temperature for you.
-
@abarker said:
Don't forget that many of the policies that may have prevented the collapse were actually repealed under Clinton
Which ones are those?
- Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (done in November 1999). The Glass-Steagall act enforced a separation between bankers and brokers.
- Redesign of the regulation for enforcement (1995) of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This was based on a 1992 study performed by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank that hinted that loan officers may have been giving whites preferential treatment. The study's methodology has since been questioned.
- After the regulatory rules were changed, banks couldn't just say that they were looking for qualified buyers anymore, they had to show that they were making a certain percentage of their loans to low and moderate income (LMI) borrowers.
- Under the new regulations for the CRA, the banks also had to show that they were using "innovative and flexible" lending practices to accommodate those LMI borrowers with credit issues. This change in the rules effectively castrated the CRA which was supposed to promote safe lending practices.
I'm sure you could find some more if you looked.
-
Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (done in November 1999). The Glass-Steagall act enforced a separation between bankers and brokers.
I've never seen a convincing argument on this one. The firms who benefited from this generally came out healthier.
Redesign of the regulation for enforcement (1995) of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).
Now I'm going to complain about your use of "repeal" because it seemed to me that you weren't talking about this, but I agree that it's crap.
-
The firms who benefited from this generally came out healthier
Well, yeah. The ones who came out worse didn't benefit, by definition
-
Right, should have said, "affected by."
-
Now I'm going to complain about your use of "repeal" because it seemed to me that you weren't talking about this, but I agree that it's crap.
Ok, I'll admit, "repeal" wasn't the best word.
-
TIL Clinton repealed the chance to capture Osama.
