CaptainPanic

I believe the rhythm is just: |---|-------|-|- With 16 characters in 1 repetition.

energy engineering isn't something that you can study everywhere. Often it's called "chemical engineering" or "mechanical engineering". Those fields will enable you to work and design in the energy business. What do you mean by "demandable"? Do you mean "the most difficult to study" or the "most in demand", meaning that it's most needed in the world? To design a relatively simple factory for (for example) biodiesel, you need: a chemical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a system control engineer, an electrical engineer, a legal guy, a financial guy (sorry for not using the proper terms). My point is: one cannot go without the other. So... which is the most useful? I don't know. They're all working in a team. EE can be Electrical Engineering and the previously mentioned Energy Engineering... or even Environmental Engineering. Writing an abbreviation can make you to look like a true expert... it can also backfire and cause everybody to ignore your post because nobody understands it. So, what is EE?

Atmospheric pressure = 101325 Pa, or 1.01325 bar, or 1 atm. (<-- all the same thing) Atmospheric pressure is considered a constant, and can therefore not be changed. But if you remove air, then you reduce pressure where you remove it... and the pressure is not "atmospheric" anymore... but instead is lower than atmospheric. Question #2 is phrased so poorly that I really hope that this isn't a homework question.

Let me wikipedia that for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha#Physical

100% ethanol will burn at higher temperature than 95% (wt, vol?). Also a comment: To all those who posted here, please write what kind of percentage you mean. There exist several options: weight%, volume%, molar%. These are not the same thing. Normally, in the ethanol industry, volume% are used. But you MUST write "%vol"...

Sounds like the Dutch system to me... that works fine. Monthly costs per person are about 100 euro for insurance, which covers all basic needs. Additions for special cases (densist, and some luxury treatments with extra care) cost extra. In addition, everybody must pay the first 250 euro of the sum of all costs per year themselves. The government pays people whose income is too low. the only thing I really dislike about this insurance system is that it is allowed to make profit. The whole idea behind insurance is that we spread the risk... why isn't that done by a non-profit organization? It can't be because non-profit organizations are less efficient - the paperwork produced by the current system is staggering. Anyway - healthcare costs a lot of money. Did you compare the 615 billion to the amount that is already being spent on healthcare today? Because, the relevant number is the increase in costs, not the total amount.

I've put this thread in my favorites.. So much "good" stuff, keep it coming!!!!!

If you really want to be involved, don't take the year off. Instead, you could consider to start your education, and study abroad for a year at a later stage. But if you really want to take the year off, go and travel. Traveling might not be scientific, but it's great for your personal development, which is also an important aspect of life and your future career. With a highschool diploma you could of course find a job in a company... but it's not likely that you'll do any interesting research that will be of added value at a later stage... although some work experience is always a good thing. For more detailed ideas, it might help if you tell us which field of science interests you most.

B-movie? I think you'll need a bit more of the alphabet than that for this movie

Robogeisha includes Geisha Chainsaw, fried shrimp and bleeding buildings... man, I gotta see this movie!! That was not a sarcastic "best movie trailer ever", some people actually have such a bad taste that they like this crap For people interested in very poor quality movies with even worse special effects, I can recommend the " " and " ". Both most likely get an average score of about 2 on IMDB, but once it's below 4, that's a compliment.

The underlined part affects us here on SFN. Most are not living in Germany, but I still wish to explain why: Often, people ask about explosives and other dangerous substances, usually on the chemistry forums. The way the German law is explained in the Dutch newspaper suggests that answering such questions is punishable. It's highly unlikely that the person answering will be prosecuted... we don't have manuals to build bombs. But often, the preparation of explosive material is one of the hardest parts of building a bomb... and these things are asked (but not always answered). I think that the days of free information about anything you want on the internet are coming to an end when laws like this are enforced. I think it's good to know that such laws exist in some countries (and perhaps in more countries than just Germany).

So, if Americans invest in sustainable energy, that costs trillions of dollars. That's true. That is an investment. Please note the difference between oil and a wind turbine. One is a fuel, the other is a generator. One is consumed and then gone forever, the other produces something... and with some maintenance will keep doing that for 20+ years. What happens if you spend money on some infrastructure in the US? Say, a bridge? It costs money. Then why is it built? Perhaps because it has added value? You'd be right to think that it has added value. It increases mobility (shortens travel time). It even creates jobs in construction and maintenance. Perhaps, the country gets better, not worse, from certain investments. Perhaps investing in sustainable energy is not exactly the same as throwing money into a black hole. Perhaps you agree that it will create jobs. It will actually reduce money thrown away to desert states that don't do anything for you Americans. I have no problem with the discussion about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). But your motivation (or fear) to have this discussion is just weird. I don't understand why you'd rather give money to other countries than invest it in your own country. I repeat that wind energy has a payback time. That means that you get your money back. (At least, the investor - which should be a US based company in your case). Ever tried to get your money back from some Saudi oil sheik? It's quite difficult. So, let's continue this interesting discussion, but please stop screaming about the trillions of dollars lost. It is money invested, not lost. And I would really appreciate it if you would be so kind to link to the fact that the statistics of the climatologists is flawed.

I posted this thread out of simple curiosity, but also because I always wondered about all the US-politics topics in the politics forum... any topic about Europe seems less popular. I was wondering if that's because Europeans don't know much about each other's politics (quite likely) or simply because there's so few Europeans on the forum. And yes, I agree that Europe is quite awesome. I've seen a lot of it, and I loved almost all of it. I've also seen bits of Africa, and it's perhaps even more impressive. I should check out the other side of the Atlantic soon.

iNow, I was not saying that no investments in sustainable energy will be made at all with our capitalist system. We're discussing some kind of a war-economy. I was saying that if you want to turn the country upside down into a war-economy for sustainable energy, you need a different system. The investments in sustainable energy are now approaching a point where a payback time can be reached within the life time of the application (wind power already has that for a number of years, solar is getting there soon). That does not mean that existing production lines that build other items will now change their product to sustainable energy. Boeing is not going to build blades for turbines in their 747 factory. That's only possible if you ignore profit, and turn the place upside down... and that won't work in a capitalist system, because Boeing would be bankrupt within the year. I agree with your last paragraph as the best way forward in the "real world" that we live in right now.

Although it's not exactly on topic, I wish to make a statement about "handing over the wallet". That's a classic argument against sustainable energy: money. We're all transferring billions and billions of dollars/euros to some dictatorships in the Middle East... and nobody questions that. I consider that money "lost" or "gone". It's used to construct palm islands in Dubai and highways through the deserts. Sustainable energy, like wind and solar power do have a payback time (.pdf - check table VII (note that the table is split over 2 pages))... wind power in Denmark has a payback time of 8 years. Imported oil has no payback time at all... assuming you don't actually own an oil field, or live in an oil-rich country. From experience I know that very often first the financial argument is brought up. Then later the fact that "we can't store energy" is mentioned. We can store energy. Hydro power and smart grids are two realistic options, but more options exist. Somehow, everybody thinks that money spent on sustainable energy is money thrown away. The simple facts are however that sustainable energy investments are always done in your own country: it will therefore (1) generate jobs, in construction, operation and maintenance, (2) keep the money in your own country and (3) actually make profit as I showed with the link. Also for the consumers, this is interesting. Using solar, you can have your own payback time (which admittedly is still too long, but which goes down all the time). The kWh prices of solar and wind are rapidly approaching the fossil prices (note: you do need to use the right technology - solar in the arctic won't work). If you're worried about the financial situation about your country, then there are worse things you can spend your money on than on clean energy. Climate has really a lot to do with statistics. In fact, you can't study climate without statistics. If you can show me that climatologists actually make mistakes in their statistics, or if you can show me that you have some evidence that the majority of climatologists have insufficient experience in statistics, then I'd value that information a lot. I would assume that the rest of the scientific community would value that information a lot too. Science is not belief. If there is a sound reason to discard previous results, then that's what will happen. So, please provide a link or reference... Of this whole discussion, the remark that a statistics study was done about the methods of the climatologists (IPCC?) is the most interesting. However, I do think that plenty of statisticians and other mathematicians were involved in the calculations and models of the IPCC. In fact, I think you cannot be a climatologist without a strong background in statistics. It's part of the job. That's the whole point indeed. So, a skeptic will question both studies that say that the climate changes, and the studies that say that climate change is either not proven or not true. You, however, seem to question only the climate change, but you do not question the book you referred to. In addition, being skeptic does not mean you cannot reach a conclusion based on the facts that are presently available. I question the climate change. I see evidence that it is true, and I see evidence that it's not true. However, the evidence that there is a climate change seems much stronger, and therefore I conclude that I have to act as if it is true. I do realize that I am not 100% sure.

Ah, yes... if you put it like that, you're absolutely right. Allow me to rephrase: In the discussion about whether climate change is true or not, the opinion of a politician is not so relevant... and the opinion of a meteorologist or climatologist is more valuable. Obviously, politicians have their own discussions where they are the experts. So, in a perfect world, the politicians would have some expert climate advisors who have reached consensus on the question whether climate change is true or not, and who can advise them on the possible effects of a new policy. Then the politicians enter their debate, aiming to reach consensus about the kind of policy that is required.

Consensus among people who are clueless is not important. Consensus among experts is vital. Of course there is crossover. There are physicists, chemists, meteorologists, climatologists, biologists, and a whole lot more professions involved in climate research. These people all add their share to either support or disprove the climate change studies. They ask tricky questions or add new measurements/experiments. It's just that politicians, carpenters, doctors and some other professions have very little experience with all the factors and parameters involved in the climate. Therefore their opinion is valued (a lot) less than the opinion of the experts. Would you allow a lawyer to build your house? I sure would not. I'd ask a construction worker.

The real question is: "What color is the cow?" I might have missed it, but what's the question?

I'll change my opinion when a study of the same magnitude as the IPCC is conducted that suggests that the trend is changing. For your information, the writer of the book is a geologist with expertise in mining. I'll change my opinion when the scientists who are the experts in this field (climate) change their opinion. We're talking about thousands of highly skilled scientists here (not: "a few climatologists"). Politicians are known to blow wherever the wind blows. If they need to adopt/promote a religion to keep their power, they will also do that. Their opinion about the climate is completely worthless. I might as well listen to the pope's ideas on birth control. They'll impress me about the same. And you're safe to assume that we did not read the book. This thread is only about 8 hrs old... and the book is 504 pages. May I suggest we move this thread to "General discussion" > "Book talk"?

Yep. So now we need an idiot who is not afraid to bring that message to the masses. But it sure as hell isn't going to be me.

Most likely you need to take "organic chemistry" before "advanced organic chemistry".

You're right that the workforce is available. However, under the capitalist system, you need to find money to make an investment. The entire sustainable business is struggling to get loans for investments. So, the workfoce can't wait to get a job, but it's really hard to create jobs. Creating jobs isn't just a matter of motivation. It's a lot about convincing investors that it will make profit. So, yes, the population wants to work. Yes, it wants to be green. No, investors don't care, they just want profit. No, people won't work for free. That's why I said (point 4) that you'd have to scrap the capitalist system and go to some Soviet plan economy where you simply tell people to do this, do that. Change the flow of resources (causing scarcity somewhere else)... But I am not sure that I would like that. A revolution probably isn't the solution either.

The tunguska meteoroid or comet was believed to be "a few tens of metres across". So, Apophis is quite a bit larger.

Shall we vote about the direction of gravity too? I'd like it to point a bit more north, so that I can fall to work in the morning, and climb home in the evening. People who studied the relation between CO2 and climate change seem to agree. There is a climate problem. However, the worldwide blogosphere can generate so much noise that they start to believe themselves. They all link to each other's websites and anything can become "mainstream science" that way. I compare blogosphere science to 15th century people who thought that the earth was flat. Facts are irrelevant. Not only are the ones suggesting that there is a CO2 problem wrong, they are also evil and part of a conspiracy to get more money. However, half the blogosphere also directly relates today's weather to climate change ("it's cold and rainy, how can there be global warming?").