If?

The coin is never balanced.

Order always prevails. Ergo---heads.

Your premise MUST be rooted in the FACTS of nature herself. It is not. Ergo faulty logic. As your science is faulty, we can clearly see the intellectual cowardice you have in full display.

Show me the data that says the coin is never balanced.

Show me the data were nature is unbalanced.

No coin is balanced. Heads is always slightly more heavy.

Show me the data were nature is unbalanced.

No coin is balanced. Heads is always slightly more heavy.

I repeat the question. Show me the data, not your assumption. And don't forget we do not all use US coinage.

My data is direct observation of events over my lifetime. Here blue skies prevail over clouds and harsh weather. In other parts of the world clouds prevail for most of the time. This is the natural ORDER of things. I have heard and seen with my own two eyes and ears--thunder snow in my lifetime.

Earthquakes are a natural happening of plate tectonics. Order always comes up. Order is the natural state of things.

Go back to the beginning of time. Order came from chaos. We would not have time or space if it wasn't for chaos but order is the natural state of things.

There is a saying in my state. "If you don't like the weather hang around for 15 minutes, it will change." Constant change is the natural order. I don't live in a desert nor a rain-forest.

Show me the data that says the coin is never balanced.

A balanced coin is technically possible only if the coin has an even number of atoms. ;)

I seriously doubt ID is correct of all US coinage and sure isn't for all coinage world wide. He is simply being a troll again.

After all there are several designs and sizes of each denomination of coin and a lot of denominations, $0.01, $0.05, $0.10, $0.25, $0.50, $1.00, $5.00, $10.00, $20.00, $100.00. I bet ID doesn't even know there are two sizes of quarters the US Mint is making. One he has in his pocket, the other he has never seen. I wouldn't be flipping that one either, too much chance to ding it.

---

Ergo the problem...

A man made experiment of man made objects, does not tell us of nature. Your premise is wrong and has made your logic, faulty.

Apple v Orange; other then both being round and from a tree, betwixt the two they never meet.

There is some data out there that says the Lincoln Memorial 1 cent coin is slightly biased.

And there are some people that say a person who practices a lot with the same coin can get 9 out of ten flips to end up on the same side.

There have also been some tests with several people involved and with several coins, that show with a 1000 flips the usual result is below 51:49.

Probably the best article is Magician-turned-mathematician uncovers bias in coin flipping By ESTHER LANDHUIS, Stanford University

Neat self description.

Neat self description.

Of course the ego...

The storage argument is really silly.

You can heat something while electricity is in excess. Dirt, rocks, bricks, take your pick. This heat can be later turned to steam as needed. Water vapor goes up, rain comes down. Becomes more water. Ta-da.. energy storage for alternative electricity.

There are many other ways to store electricity and use later. As we move more to electric vehicles (we are moving, not if.) then as they are garaged they also offer another storage medium. Large capacity, they can be drained(yes the technology is out there) and recharged to help even out the grid.

This is not rocket science, it is not even an interesting argument against wind and solar. It is in fact a rather pathetic means of distraction.

---

Janice

We will be burning natural gas in our cars and trucks, that would include diesel that gets a boost with natural gas, like nitro in gas burning cars.

We will be burning natural gas in our cars and trucks, that would include diesel that gets a boost with natural gas, like nitro in gas burning cars.

The only ones that want to continue using fossil fuels are fossils. We need to move beyond finite resources. Natural gas in our cars and trucks? There is no reason to. We are moving beyond that. Thank the gods.

---

Janice

Cost is the only factor.

You nor science has a battery sufficient to the task.

Cost is the only factor.

You nor science has a battery sufficient to the task.

Yes yes dear. That is why so many battery powered transportation options are hitting the market now. The batteries are of age, they are in use. To store the entire grids electricity? probably not. See a couple of posts up regarding "heat". Electric heat is not new. Neither is steam. Neither are generators powered by steam.

For cars? Batteries work just fine. The materials are recyclable. Storing an extraordinary amount of energy for when needed with them while garaged is CERTAINLY nothing small. For those mythical times when all wind and sun stops at the same time.

---

Janice

The storage argument is really silly.

Apply engineering. Not silly. Oh maybe you can store it for with the methods you suggest for a few minutes, not for use a few days later, unless you are willing to lose half or more of what you store. If you lose half, you need over twice the generating capacity as there are conversion losses both ways.

In any case you ignore safety. It is the total energy store that causes the safety issue. If the storage method allows quick extraction then there is the possibility of an uncontrolled release. Uncontrolled release is an explosion.

Now about all that heat. You do know the laws of thermodynamics don't you? That the heat you generate will escape one way or another. So all you are doing is creating lots of heat sources on a planet that is already getting to hot. I like your thinking.

I see you tout solar again. As someone else posted PV solar is just now getting to the point where you get 100% of the energy needed to make the collector out of the collector over its useful lifetime. Yep, use more energy to build it that is saves and call it renewable green.

Transmission is another issue. Our present coal and natural gas power plants are not where the wind blows and the sun shines. So you need miles and miles of new power lines criss-crossing the country. Environmentalists object to those high voltage lines. I don't know if you have ever stood under one, but it is a hair raising experience. Never mind all the land that would need to be taken by eminent domain. Then can we operate it? It wasn't that long ago we had some major blackouts. When you quintuple the number of power plants what is the factor of complexity in the switching you add? Come on, come up with the number - you are the one saying it isn't an issue. (Hint you need the factorial operator.)

as they are garaged they also offer another storage medium. Large capacity, they can be drained(yes the technology is out there) and recharged to help even out the grid.

So the empty car is charged when? At night when the sun don't shine. It is driven empty when? In the day when demand is highest. Another brilliant idea.

And people are going to plug their car in and instead of it charging have the last drop of electricity sucked out of their battery. A real brilliant assumption there, but it will be for the greater good so they will do it.

This isn't a hand wave by John Luc Picard, "Make it so number one problem." There are far too many people who think it is.

---

Yes yes dear. That is why so many battery powered transportation options are hitting the market now. The batteries are of age, they are in use. To store the entire grids electricity? probably not. See a couple of posts up regarding "heat". Electric heat is not new. Neither is steam. Neither are generators powered by steam.

For cars? Batteries work just fine. The materials are recyclable. Storing an extraordinary amount of energy for when needed with them while garaged is CERTAINLY nothing small. For those mythical times when all wind and sun stops at the same time.

Batteries work just fine if you only use your vehicle for short trips to the shops. Batteries do not have the capacity for any more than 100kM of driving.

Those "mythical times" when sun and wind stops at the same time ? Research what happened in Europe during the cold snap that happened there earlier this year.

No sun because it was cloudy and no wind because of a large high pressure system parked over the English Channel. The German grid nearly collapsed as they had taken all their nuclear power stations off line in a post Fukushima knee jerk reaction and they reached the limit on what they could buy in from France and Italy. Afterall, we all know how susceptible to tsunamis Germany is.

S^S, I love you like a sister but please read my post above regarding the amount of land required to build a Solar Farm with the equivalent capacity of a "standard" coal fired power station and take into account that due to environmental factors, wind and solar power stations only operate at a fraction of their nominal capacity.

You also ignore the fact that wind and solar power stations create their own negative environmental impact.

If only we could find a way to tap the Warm, Fuzzy feelings that the technically ignorant get whenever "alternative energy" is discussed we really could save the planet.

T.A.

You can heat something while electricity is in excess. Dirt, rocks, bricks, take your pick.

You can still buy things called night storage radiators (heat banks) that use off peak electricity to store heat for use at other times. We used to have white meters (economy 70 as well, but its mainly two tier tariffs these days.

The main reason to move to renewables is to reduce the carbon footprint, apart from the fact that oil and gas are running out. Wind, solar, and wave power all help, but the way forward has to be nuclear.

There are various storage systems available and in use. Hell, we've had pump-storage schemes for peak electricity demand for so long here in the UK that the power stations there are due for renovation/renewal! Various solar-thermal generators use heat storage to allow them to continue generating through the night. And so on. There are many other better ways for energy storage for bulk electricity generation than the use of chemical batteries.

Nuclear fission is certainly a good option but unfortunately that is vulnerable to cost compromises and corruption causing disaster.

Nuclear fusion is far better yet, and inherently safe, however that can be expected to be expensive for some long time even when the ITER prototype at Cadarache proves to be a success. (We've had greater than break-even nuclear fusion at JET Culham many years ago now.)

Meanwhile, there are other more immediate and more obvious solutions that can solve the problem pretty much now.


The real problem is that of politics, lobbying, corruption, and largely how fossil fuels generators do not pay anything like the full cost of the resources they squander, nor any of the costs of the pollution they produce. Fabulous for their industry. Ever more costly for everyone and everything else...

If you add up the acreage of fuel and pollution consumed and produced by fossil fuels generators, you get a horrific expanse. The problem is, that true cost is partly hidden from thousands of years ago. The cost of the pollution is hitting us now...


All on our only world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Is coal seam gas really the saviour of the planet or just more "green" hype ?

An interesting article from the Australian ABC website with links to further stories on the subject.

T.A.

There isn't a battery operated car out there that get over 100 miles a charge. Chevy ripped off the tax payer for the Volt and NO ONE wanted the damn thing. It cost 40,000$ to own one. We now own a Hyundai Accent and have had it about a year now. Even that company lied about the mileage.

There are hybrid cars that do rather well but I'll not own one of them either. I happen to know how much it cost to replace a battery. They also use the break calipers to recharge while the gas operated engine is working. I asked about how much a break job would cost--you don't want to know. Did you know that a battery is explosive?

I love to fish, there isn't a battery operated car or truck that is going to pull my bass boat. Nor is there a battery operated tractor that will help a farmer plant or move crops to market.


You can always invest your money in Solyndra. Oh wait, Barry did that for us, how did that work out for the tax payer?

Cost is the only factor.

More of Martin's FUD?

(We've had greater than break-even nuclear fusion at JET Culham many years ago now.)

Are you reading the same article I am? The one you linked ...

Six years later, in 1997, another world record was achieved at JET: 16 mega watts of fusion power were produced from a total input power of 24 mega watts – a 65% ratio.
...
During a full D-T experimental campaign in 1997 JET achieved a world record peak fusion power of 16 MW which equates to a measured gain Q, of approximately 0.7. Q is the ratio of fusion power produced to input heating power. In order to achieve break-even, a Q value greater than 1 is required. A self-sustaining burning plasma requires at least Q=5

It would be really big news to get more out than they have to put in. FUD.

---