The Fallacy Of Alternative Energies

[Calrid]

It finally (after 130 years) came down to being stated as a "TENDENCY" (but still not a theory). And that is how it is stated now.

Mr. Saint, would you care to quote a single reference to a thermodynamics textbook or even an article from a reputable science journal that supports the proposition that the 2nd Law has been demoted to a "tendency".

It's exactly like saying quantum mechanics is useless because it uses probability not classical mechanics. James has a problem with quantum mechanics as well. He's kind of like a 21st century Luddite when it comes to anything that isn't exactly pictorial of reality, and hence any interpretation which innately has to arm wave because of the nature of it is nonsense in his text book. Tendency is actually not that damaging a term in quantum mechanics especially, as everything is technically a tendency, eg the chance of an electron occupying n orbital shells. Only James thinks it's an insult.

No matter how useful a theory is it should stop being philosophical right now, this is Science!

[James S Saint]

It finally (after 130 years) came down to being stated as a "TENDENCY" (but still not a theory). And that is how it is stated now.

Mr. Saint, would you care to quote a single reference to a thermodynamics textbook or even an article from a reputable science journal that supports the proposition that the 2nd Law has been demoted to a "tendency".

I don't have my texts any more, but my text books stated it in a much more condemning fashion (from the 70's).
But merely from Wiki;

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

[James S Saint]

Tendency is actually not that damaging a term in quantum mechanics especially, as everything is technically a tendency, eg the chance of an electron occupying n orbital shells.

"Tendency" and QM are the same thing and the Second Speculation of Thermodynamics doesn't even exist in QM.
As I have lectured many times, the ONLY time QM is actually valid is when they are using it in its original statistical form (hence "tendencies").

[Calrid]

I think to put it simply, how do you define chaos?

And if your cell works James why don't you patent it, not that it has to work to receive a patent but... at least then if anyone does notice it, you'll get intellectual property rights.

[James S Saint]

I think to put it simply, how do you define chaos?

And if your cell works James why don't you patent it, not that it has to work to receive a patent but... at least then if anyone does notice it, you'll get intellectual property rights.

You need to take "the red pill".

And I define chaos pretty much like everyone else.. a measure of disorder.

[Calrid]

Tendency is actually not that damaging a term in quantum mechanics especially, as everything is technically a tendency, eg the chance of an electron occupying n orbital shells.

"Tendency" and QM are the same thing and the Second Speculation of Thermodynamics doesn't even exist in QM.
As I have lectured many times, the ONLY time QM is actually valid is when they are using it in its original statistical form (hence "tendencies").

Quantum mechanics describes everything so yeah it does exist because it has to. If you can't describe something at the nanoscopic level then the chances are you can't describe anything at the macroscopic classical level that means anything either.

Let's say entropy is the combination of states that can occur in a gas, let's then say that the most disordered state is exactly 50/50 of two states, then entropy works as a statistical description in both qm and classical thermodynamics. However in classical mechanics you would be expected to show an exact integral of this situation if one existed. In quantum mechanics you can just use a dependent probability distribution, like oh I don't know Gaussian distribution or somit.

[James S Saint]

Quantum mechanics describes everything so yeah it does exist because it has to.

Bullshit.
Where did you get that religious claptrap?

If you can't describe something at the nanoscopic level then the chances are you can't describe anything at the macroscopic classical level that means anything either.

Not so. But you can't claim to know all things and be God if you can't also describe things on that nanoscopic level.

Let's say entropy is the combination of states that can occur in a gas, let's then say that the most disordered state is exactly 50/50 of two states, then entropy works as a statistical description in both qm and classical thermodynamics.

Emm.. let's not say that.

"The combination of states that CAN occur"??
That isn't what entropy means in physics. You must be thinking information theory.

Entropy is a thermodynamic property that can be used to determine the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, such as in energy conversion devices, engines, or machines. Such devices can only be driven by convertible energy, and have a theoretical maximum efficiency when converting energy to work. During this work, entropy accumulates in the system, which then dissipates in the form of waste heat.

[James S Saint]

Calrid, you have given me a thought though.
My last entry to my portfolio involved a proven Unified Field Theory where I used Jack to prove it.

I was expecting that to be my final entry but then I thought that I might go ahead and form a "Unified Behavior Theory" for psychology and sociology. I ran into the problem with that of having no means to prove to anyone that the theory was valid because the people to prove it to don't know enough to even know if such a theory has been proven. Psychology isn't anywhere close to physics for being a "hard science".

So now, with this discussion, I'm thinking that I can use Jack to prove the KD cell (again) for sake of a book on Rational Metaphysics. I'll have to ask Jack, but it seems viable. Although doing the UFT left me a bit traumatized from the extreme details required by Jack.

[BUFFALO]

The SECOND LAW of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

[James S Saint]

The SECOND LAW of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

Emm.. yeah, a quote from Wiki... ?
What's your point?

[BUFFALO]

Lets try again. Your quote:

from Wiki

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

This seems self-defeating. Read it again (my emphasis):

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

What it doesn't say:

"We, the physicists of the world, have decided that the 2nd Law isn't really a Law at all, it's better described as a "tendency" (or a "speculation", or a warm-tingly feeling or a nice big hug)."

[FilmSnob]

Lol, BUFFALO, where have you been all my cyber-life?

[James S Saint]

Lets try again. Your quote:

from Wiki

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

This seems self-defeating. Read it again (my emphasis):

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time,...

What it doesn't say:

"We, the physicists of the world, have decided that the 2nd Law isn't really a Law at all, it's better described as a "tendency" (or a "speculation", or a warm-tingly feeling or a nice big hug)."

That was my point.
They had originally proposed it as a LAW and impossible to break even though Maxwell had explained that it couldn't be a LAW because he could see a way to break it but just didn't have microscopic technology enough to build his model. After they eventually got such microscopic technology, they began breaking it right and left, but due strictly to politics, they wouldn't revoke the "LAW", so they merely began rewording it while still claiming it to be a law. It was ridiculous. It reminded me of the Jews so often reinterpreting scriptures so that they could make a profit or the Christians reinterpreting the Bible so they could justify the creation story.

Now it has finally gotten to the point where they STILL call it a "LAW" (I don't think they call anything else a law anymore), but then state it to be merely a "tendency". Politics runs the world... including academia and science.

[Calrid]

Quantum mechanics describes everything so yeah it does exist because it has to.

Bullshit.
Where did you get that religious claptrap?

God or it might of been a text book, quantum mecahnics is the underlying TOE, everyone knows that get with the program dude.

If you can't describe something at the nanoscopic level then the chances are you can't describe anything at the macroscopic classical level that means anything either.

Not so. But you can't claim to know all things and be God if you can't also describe things on that nanoscopic level.

Let's say entropy is the combination of states that can occur in a gas, let's then say that the most disordered state is exactly 50/50 of two states, then entropy works as a statistical description in both qm and classical thermodynamics.

Emm.. let's not say that.

"The combination of states that CAN occur"??
That isn't what entropy means in physics. You must be thinking information theory.

Entropy is a thermodynamic property that can be used to determine the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, such as in energy conversion devices, engines, or machines. Such devices can only be driven by convertible energy, and have a theoretical maximum efficiency when converting energy to work. During this work, entropy accumulates in the system, which then dissipates in the form of waste heat.

No it is if you want to mathematicalise it, it's got its own name and everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%2 ... py_Formula

What's the difference between its use in information theory and in statistical thermo dynamics anyway, I mean think about it?

You want to say that totally organised is all the same, and maximally disorganised is maximal dissimilitude. a range between 1 and 0 I suppose.

[James S Saint]

God or it might of been a text book, quantum mecahnics is the underlying TOE, everyone knows that get with the program dude.

Sorry, QM isn't my religion.
Hell they can't even figure out why particles form. They just proclaim that the great god "Random" does it for the universe.
Idiots.

[phyllo]

QM ain't everything.

[Stoic Guardian]

God or it might of been a text book, quantum mecahnics is the underlying TOE, everyone knows that get with the program dude.

Sorry, QM isn't my religion.
Hell they can't even figure out why particles form. They just proclaim that the great god "Random" does it for the universe.
Idiots.

All hail Random and His Great Sister Goddesses, Coincidence and Chance.

(Though Luck was once actually revered as the Goddess Fortuna)

[Calrid]

God or it might of been a text book, quantum mecahnics is the underlying TOE, everyone knows that get with the program dude.

Sorry, QM isn't my religion.
Hell they can't even figure out why particles form. They just proclaim that the great god "Random" does it for the universe.
Idiots.

Prove the idiots wrong then.

[James L Walker]

Authority, I just want to say that avatar of yours where Hitler is shaking hands with a alien is so you.

Supposedly this is a real picture.

Doubtful.

[James L Walker]

Oil is on the way out, I don't need a telescope or a microscope to know that. However I don't think it's soon enough to say we are all doomed because of it. I don't think we can envision the next 50 years of tech and just claim we are fucked. Hell prove me wrong.

See no one within their right minds thinks we can coast on oil and converting coal to oil forever, but then no one within their right mind is thinking that.

Were beyond the Hubbert curve and it has been thoroughly proven that when it concerns petroleum as a global resource where on the decling plateau of it's complete disappearance altogether or at the very least to the point where there is so little available that we can't use it anymore as a energy. Please actually read peak oil arguments instead of making shit up just for the sake of argument.

[James L Walker]

To Buffalo on oil fracking:
OK, here's the plan:
(1) Buy up mineral rights from the desperate folks who have lost their jobs and otherwise seen their home values disappear;
(2) Frack the shit out of the underlying ground and rock structures by pumping huge quantities of the most toxic cocktail of chemicals imaginable into the ground;
(3) Permanently and irreversibly contaminate all groundwater supplies for miles in all directions from each fracking well;
(4) When anybody bitches about the water coming out of their faucets catching on fire, and their hair falling out, explain to them that it is a natural phenomenon only coincidentally related to the nearby fracking activity;
(5) If that doesn't convince somebody, tell them to prove that any particular gas well owned by any particular company polluted their water well;
(6) Go to Congress and lobby for a law exempting fracking activity from all federal regulation. No...wait...scratch that one...it's already been done.
(7) Run commericails in prime time explaining that fracking is a novel, safe, and non-polluting technique that will provide energy independence for America;
(7) Get rid of the toxic shit in your effluent pools by misting it into the air on sunny or windy days, and channelling it into nearby streams in the middle of the night;
(8) Sell natural gas and its by-products, keep all the money for yourself, and shift the clean-up costs, and the costs inherent in making huge parcels of American lands uninhabitable except via trucking in clean water, to the taxpayers.
(9) Suck all the money out of the dummy corporations actually doing the fracking and then shut them down before anybody actually wakes up and files suit.
(10) Form new dummy corporations to frack the shit out of the ground somewhere else in the USA.
This should work really well for us until folks have to start trucking in water from 500 miles away.

I'll not dwell on the fact that you seem to have a problem counting to ten. That's a nice script idea for another global conspiracy movie (but Gasland has already been done, or perhaps that's where you got it). But it has nothing to do with reality (in this particular universe). I certainly can't speak for the oil industry in the USA, but nothing on your list is the least bit credible wrt Canadian practices. I'll just start with a few of your first points:

#1) Unemployment here in Alberta is up a bit due to the recession, but very few are losing their homes and mineral rights are pretty much owned by the Crown anyeay. In no areas of the province have home values been detrimentally affected by petroleum development; in fact prices up in Ft. MacMurray (where the tar sands are) have gone through the roof.
#2) Hydraulic fracs are designed (i.e. using computer models) to make sure they fit for purpose - i.e. the fractures produced propagate mainly within the intended zone(s) of interest. Few of the frac chemicals used are particularly toxic; most are benign, but they constitute less than 1% of the fluid used.
#3) Alberta has some of the best drinking water in the world. If your scenario was valid you would think it hard to find clean water here (given that fracs have been done in literally thousands of wells across the province going back 60 years). That simply is not the case.
#4) Here we are back to scenes from Gasland. Although Gasland is pretty much just pure sensationalism, there have been incidents and the industry needs to ackowledge them; make reparations and adjust operating procedures/practices to prevent them from happening again.

I am reminded of that saying, "If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything." It seems to me that the "global conspiracy" crowd have taken up such theorizing as a replacement for the supernatural. Methodological naturalism is the underlying and implicit philosophy of science - never attribute anything to supernatural causes. The conspiracy crowd have replaced "God-Did-It" with "BigOil-Did-It" or "Big-Pharma-Did-It".

Canadian practices like destroying the natural environment with the tar sands around Alberta? Get fucking real!

[BUFFALO]

A very poor video with an (as usual) almost completely one-sided view of tar sands development. For equal time try this http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8042.pdf

Look, contrary to what certain first nations and evironmentalist would have you believe (and by the way, all of the opposition groups have their own political, and in the case of the natives, financial agendas), the developers of the oil sands are eager to ensure appropriate environmental stewardship. And we are moving towards that with the implementation of more stringent monitoring, by independent agencies. There is absolutely no reason the tar sands cannot be developed with minimal environmental impact and the oil companies that I know doing this work are very serious about environmental stewardship.

Permanent pollution? Do you realize that the tar sands outcrop along the Athabasca river? The river has been flowing over the loosely consolidated bitumen-laden sand for thousands of years. To characterize this river as pristine is ridiculous. Does that mean we should add to the contaminants already there - NO, of course not, but any evalution of current pollutants needs to reference pre-development levels.

Have you ever seen the forest in this part of Alberta? I think each and every visitor should first be taken to Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Waterton national parks to see what the forest can really be up here. Then go up to MacMurray and realize that there are 100s of thousands of square miles of scrub bush and perched water tables (muskeg). It isn't pretty and there is a lot less wildlife than you might think. Does that give us the right to mess it up? Certainly not, but if we are going to make compromises (and there are always compromises and risks involved in the development of any resource) this is an area where you might not feel quite so bad about it.

[James L Walker]

A very poor video with an (as usual) almost completely one-sided view of tar sands development. For equal time try this http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8042.pdf

Look, contrary to what certain first nations and evironmentalist would have you believe (and by the way, all of the opposition groups have their own political, and in the case of the natives, financial agendas), the developers of the oil sands are eager to ensure appropriate environmental stewardship. And we are moving towards that with the implementation of more stringent monitoring, by independent agencies. There is absolutely no reason the tar sands cannot be developed with minimal environmental impact and the oil companies that I know doing this work are very serious about environmental stewardship.

Permanent pollution? Do you realize that the tar sands outcrop along the Athabasca river? The river has been flowing over the loosely consolidated bitumen-laden sand for thousands of years. To characterize this river as pristine is ridiculous. Does that mean we should add to the contaminants already there - NO, of course not, but any evalution of current pollutants needs to reference pre-development levels.

Have you ever seen the forest in this part of Alberta? I think each and every visitor should first be taken to Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Waterton national parks to see what the forest can really be up here. Then go up to MacMurray and realize that there are 100s of thousands of square miles of scrub bush and perched water tables (muskeg). It isn't pretty and there is a lot less wildlife than you might think. Does that give us the right to mess it up? Certainly not, but if we are going to make compromises (and there are always compromises and risks involved in the development of any resource) this is an area where you might not feel quite so bad about it.

Are you trying to blow smoke up my ass? You are not doing a very well job.

[Calrid]

Oil is on the way out, I don't need a telescope or a microscope to know that. However I don't think it's soon enough to say we are all doomed because of it. I don't think we can envision the next 50 years of tech and just claim we are fucked. Hell prove me wrong.

See no one within their right minds thinks we can coast on oil and converting coal to oil forever, but then no one within their right mind is thinking that.

Were beyond the Hubbert curve and it has been thoroughly proven that when it concerns petroleum as a global resource where on the decling plateau of it's complete disappearance altogether or at the very least to the point where there is so little available that we can't use it anymore as a energy. Please actually read peak oil arguments instead of making shit up just for the sake of argument.

Please, we're seeing new oil fields discovered all the time so its not quite as dire as you like to think but that said, I simply said oil will run out, where the hell did the idea come from I was making shit up? If anything I was agreeing with you?

[BUFFALO]

I'll make another attempt to get this thing back on topic. Mr. Walker questions whether alternative energy sources can produce enough actual energy to replace the current use of hydrocarbons.I think this is a legitimate question. To answer this we need to do the following:

1) find data concerning how much hydrocarbons are currently consumed in terms of total energy (this should be a relatively easy figure to estimate).

2) compare that with the energy that could be generated by alternative sources (and for the sake of argument, let's leave out the "fantasy" sources and just stick with reality: nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, biofuels... what am I missing?) - this will be a lot more tentative, but maybe someone out there has already written a paper?

As mentioned, my intuition is that there will be no problem finding enough energy, but the infrastructure and technology is currently not even close to generating enough power to replace hydrocarbons. It will take years, but as the price of hydrocarbons increase, the alternatives will become more and more viable.