Here is Bill Nye's answer:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIQ5iBTkvMw&index=2&list=TLl5fE6oHFOC8
P.S. Tesla gets a hat tip.
I love that guy. His philosophy of science is similar to Bruce Lee's thoughts on martial arts: Use what works. And he is a firm example of someone with a cool head -- unlike a hothead, such as myself -- when it comes to ecological matters.
His description of fracking seems to be the classic definition. I believe that protests of the procedure are because of fracturing that uses high pressure water to expel and separate hydrocarbons from shale, leaving the water polluted, and hundreds of feet below the natural water table it was drawn from. That would be bad.
I forget which Greek god had to roll a boulder up a hill every day... I wonder if he knew a battery system would be developed by mortals using the same principle, so that they could watch 'THE AMAZING RACE' during prime time... But yeah, something must be done, on an industrial scale, to store energy for distribution in a clean fashion. Until that happens, we are lucky that the same principles apply on a residential scale if one wants to get off the grid entirely.
They use a high pressure fluid, not necessarily water.
And this subject is about Tesla and it's products, how ?
Guess you come here to spout, cry, and stand on your soap box and preach your religious beliefs...
Party on Garth
Apparently you didn't watch the video.
Bill Nye is awesome. Used to watch him as a kid. Thanks for sharing CZ.
Sisyphus is the boulder rolling dude of Greek mythology fame.
Interesting idea on the giant water plunger "batteries". There was a thread here recently that someone was trying to describe a similar way to store energy.
Don't let vperl piss on your Cheerios. He's like the forum Oscar the Grouch.
Red, it was Sisyphus.
Is there an echo in here?
Should have added that I have recently rediscovered Bill Nye. Great stuff!
Ah. So... That would make Sisyphus the patron deity of perpetual motion?
Hadn't thought about it that way. But, yeah, pretty much!
His comments are beyond stupid. NO instance of fracking gas showing up in well water has turned out to be true. There is generally about a mile of INPERMEABLE rock between gas fields and the water table. Doh. That's what keeps the water table there!
The man is an abomination.
Do you have unbiased scientific proof to back up your claims? I doubt it. The tobacco companies fed us lies for decades about smoking being harmless and that nicotine levels weren't being manipulated to up addiction. Greedy corporations will lie as long as they can get away with it.
Proof only exists in mathematics. Science only disproves, there is no such thing as proof. If enough attempts to disprove something fail, that something is thought to be true, but is always subject to being disproved.
But this study http://www.pnas.org/content/110/28/11250.abstract
shows a strong correlation between gas contaminated drinking water wells and proximity to a fracked gas well. Correlation is not proof, but is supporting evidence that fracking may be causing contamination.
He talks about blowing a huge hole in the ground to store the energy. What environmentalist would be OK with that? Then he wants to transmit the power with direct current. DC is only efficient short distances. That's the argument Nikola and Thomas has all those years ago.
All he is taking about building is an accumulator. Only oversized and extremely inefficient, if it worked at all. Accumulator's exist in hydraulic systems currently. Every home could have its own little accumulator. No big hole in the ground, and direct current is actually efficient for short distances. Plus no grid. His idea is very dependant on a grid.
High voltage DC is commonly used for long distance transmission and can be more efficient than AC:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
The Bill boy is a proven climate hoaxer and religious weather hoaxer fanatic. But, insert your head in hoaxing, religious, fanatic dung, party on...
A waste of investments. Solar and batteries (like Tesla's PowerWall) to prevent GW is where the World is headed to the detriment of CCDD interests.
As I said... Bill Nye is smarter than I am. Rather than tell someone else they are wrong, he'd rather provide them with the means to prove his points correct. The Grid is needed -- by government, commercial, industrial, and agricultural concerns. So they are the ones who should front the dough to clean up The Grid. Those who are able to independently generate their own electricity for residential applications should not be forced to participate in Grid expansion and maintenance. Our nation, our world, needs distributed power generation just as much as remote power transmission.
Wow. Insults. Anonymously on the internet. How... Unique.
LOL. it is just who know who.
Flagged vperl two last posts as inappropriate to forum.
I am disappointed your in a hating mode, and as such.... Shame on you.
I forgive you.
The Grid is a great good but one that could and should be vastly improved in many ways.
The problem is that it is predominantly managed and controlled by corporate monopolies to optimize return on investment in order to maximize executive compensation. There is very little in that model to provide motivation to best serve customers, society in general or the local and planetary environment. This is mitigated solely by government regulatory oversight.
It is a wonder that it works for most of us as well as it does.
I am FOR Fracking, until something better comes along. In the meantime, it has kept our energy prices reasonable with very little cost to the environment. The faucet water catching on fire events are a result of natural gas seepage. This has been going on long before the age of Hydraulic Fracturing.
Guess those Oklahoma cluster earthquakes are a result of natural seismic seepage?
The filmed faucets were enhanced with NG feeds for the gullible.
The Oklahoma earthquakes were insensibly small, and at most served to ease underground stresses. NBD.
Joined Timo in flagging VPerl. Reason adds to the discussion. Condescension and name calling do not.
Guy2095 noted, "It is a wonder that it works for most of us as well as it does."
Yup. Hence, why I am a proponent of individual independence from the grid, even if short term cost is rather high. To me, there is a difference between cost and worth. And it is certainly worth it to not have to rely upon an electric utility.
Dreamland. Unawareness of deep infrastructure.
Brian you are here there and everywhere. Take a break and read some science and then come back
Dreamland? Perhaps one day you will join us, and the world will live as one.
Every. Single. Prediction. Or Projection. Of AGW. Has. Failed.
Yet Believers still believe. Dreamland, indeed.
No. Every single projection that there is no possibility of a clean, sustainable future without burning carbon based fuels or otherwise polluting the environment on a local, national, or worldwide scale is incorrect. That is the dream we all dream of... The one that you would deny us, with pragmatism that looks to the past, rather than optimism that has hope for a better future.
"Clean" has nothing to do with it, it's just changing the subject. Removing CO2 is not "cleaning"; there are many vastly cheaper ways to do "clean". It is futile, desperately expensive nonsense, pushed by BSing scare-mongers.
Blah, blah, blah... Wha, wha, wha.... Yadda, yadda, yadda... Whatever. Who cares who's lying to you, if you decide which lies you are going to believe?
Dude. Either you dream the dream, or you live the nightmare.
Go burn something. When the world is not observably damaged during your lifetime, you'll feel better. Have cookie, or a beer afterward, just to make sure.
Came to this party late ... But @Brian H: IMPERMEABLE
Combustion is like decay, part of the carbon cycle. You can't just choose the half of the cycle you prefer.
So, lemme see if I understand you properly...
There is no such thing as pollution
Nothing needs to be clean, green, or sustainable
Whatever can be burned cheaply is a good thing, especially when there is profit to be generated as a result
Nothing mankind does is of any consequence to the world ecology
There is nothing to save for future generations
Everyone that hopes for something better is deluded
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar
Is that about right, from your point of view?
No, that's silly nonsense.
-Of course there's pollution, but effective controls are available for actual toxins.
-Buzzword nonsense. Eg, nothing is infinitely sustainable.
-varies, but in general returning organic debris to CO2 is desirable and inevitable; time scale varies.
-Landform changes can be significant, but otherwise effects are part of the game, usually.
-We know as little about what "future generations" will use and need as Victorians knew about what we require.
-"better" has many dimensions; loaded double-talk
-Some are, most imagine stasis or reversion to yesteryear is desirable or viable, and fear the future.
Liberals wallow in a swamp of stereotypes.
There are legitimate opposing views regarding the human impact global climate change.
Here is just one example.
It would be nice if all who comment on these forums used these kinds of facts instead of acting like a 10-year old having an argument with a 6 year old.
To answer the forum question: Until we can phase out in a sensible way, the use of petroleum products, and to avoid reliance on nations that hate us, fracking is just one means to an end.
my 2 cents.
The most recent EPA study (4 year) on fracking determined there is no inherent risk to water. Combined with the economic benefits seems clear that fracking is positive.
(Basically saying that all predictions based on anthropogengic global warming (AGW) have failed.)
Let's start with just one: The earth is, overall, getting warmer.
There is a warming trend dating from the 19th C, the recovery from the LIA. Other than that, nothing.
Continued fraudulent interpretation of global warming evidence is obvious. Yet the liars continue to post opinions that are opposite of the reality of the scientific data.
Fool. The fraudulent effort to assign natural trends to "man's fault" is transparent. The Null Hypothesis means you MUST accept any pattern as natural until you have exhaustively established that it is not and derives from something else. The only evidence so far offered is that models with heavily biased parameters can't replicate the trend. Considering that the models have been tested exhaustively for validity and found to have "no skill" on all time scales means their 'evidence' is worthless.
Some case studies. Pro's and con's.
You said "Every. Single. Prediction. Or Projection. Of AGW. Has. Failed." You are incorrect. Have a read of this link:http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/
You repeatedly post utter nonsense which is easily falsified, move from thread to thread, month by month, year by year, and never tire of being shown to be incorrect and ignorant. You almost always give your opinion on a topic with no supporting evidence. When that opinion is shown to be false you simply move onto your next ridiculous assertion. Are you so enamoured with seeing your posts displayed on your screen that you don't actually care whether what you post is correct or not? An example which demonstrates your ability to blatantly post nonsense, and not care or realise it is wrong, is this thread http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/who-pays-effects-global-warming?p...
You are probably the most post happy person on this forum. Your spelling and grammar posts are at least edifying, and sometimes even amusing. Your posts of gleaned information about Tesla are often useful too. But your posts about Global Warming are singularly ignorant and incorrect opinion. Two out of three isn't bad, but the third is terrible.
That last post of mine sounds like a bit of a rant. It was. I was minding my own business, reading some threads I hadn't read before, and come across BrianH posting things which he has posted before, and which I have previously made the effort to research and debunk. This particular time the whole groundhog day mixed with whack-a-mole got to me :-(
Those predictions of "warming" ignore the recovery of the planet from the LIA, which is a demonstrably natural process. There wasn't enough emitted CO2 until 1950 to even slightly affect temperature, even if the (false) warming mechanism were operative. In fact, negative feedbacks have been demonstrated to rein in any such influences, to the point that a doubling of CO2 would have less than a degree's impact, and there is no prospect of even a single doubling. http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray... http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/search?q=humlum
And even one failed prediction falsifies the thesis/hypothesis. If A, then B. If not-B, then not-A.