:lol: on the Gold Coast i'm currently sitting would have been 15km out to sea prior to the last eruption of Mt. Warning.

Water bodies move and change all the time. A lake drying out isn't really spectacular.

Did you walk on Lake Wendouree when it became a fire hazard and the council had to mow it?

climate change is fact throughout history
however i'm not convinced humans have anything significant to do with it

Climate change - Fiction.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

you dont speak for the whole forum afrodope and you're a serial liar
you should be the one apologising for your 77000+ posts

Btw, I'm still owed an apology for that accusation of plagiarism.

Yes, the whole forum disagrees with you and I'm the one who's wrong. Good job moron.

what a ridiculous and specious argument and now you're using non-sequiturs as your position is bankrupt
you're calling anyone who disagrees with your bullshit a troll

we both know you're trying to bullshit your way out of a corner. you might fool someone who hasnt been paying attention but you wont fool me.

ricecracks is always right, everyone else is always wrong.

Shit troll is shit.

Every source of energy requires energy to harness in some manner of fashion. Solar panels need to be manufactured, wind turbines need to be smelted, fossil fuels need to be mined.

Using "it requires energy to harness" as an argument is Abbot-esque level of flawed logic.

Edited by afromanGT: 28/3/2014 11:23:40 AM

no shit, its an isotope of hydrogen
requires energy to manufacture just as hydrogen does

afrodope was not referring to deuterium in his initial post and he's been back pedaling ever since

trust you to buy into his rubbish given your obvious hurt at being hit out of the park every time you stick your nose in it

Slam dunk!

Maintenance of anything using tidal energy is going to be inhibitively expensive for maintenance though.

It could be.

At uni a lecturer of mine was an offshore oil rig specialist and shared with us some of his research into generating energy by extracting hydrogen from sea water by electrolysis. This was a long time ago so I'm scratchy on details but apparently harnessing the wave energy would power the energy generation by electrolysis. The yield of energy would be relatively low but it would by 'green.'

So are you going to admit to lying like you accuse everyone else of doing? Or you're taking that accusation of plagiarism back?

I never said that. I said it INCREASES the damage caused by greenhouse gases owing to the fact that Methane is 21 times more potent in the greenhouse effect. :roll: Are you even literate?

You do realise that Deuterium is Hydrogen, right?

i already told you you paraphrased it after you searched for hydrogen in the article despite the fact that deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and completely irrelevant to your initial point. if thats the only piece of straw you have to clutch at then by all means go for it. climate change is caused by humans because afrodope paraphrased instead of cutting and pasting. wow you got me there =d>

so, how do you get from here...


to deuterium?

do you see how you've clouded the whole discussion after your failure on natural gas was exposed?

do you remember how you tried to tell me that burning natural gas was reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the environment because its converting CH4 into CO2?

and you mentioned that because you found it on a website put out by an oil&gas company, not realising that it was an oil&gas company, because you disputed my claim that oil&gas companies were jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon as it was to their ultimate benefit?

however you failed to realise that natural gas is mined from a carbon sink

then you tried to obfuscate (a favourite word of your pal but relevant here) by bringing hydrogen into the equation out of thin air?

now we're at deuterium

this is how your weasel strategy works, however i'm going to keep going back to your original failures which you have still failed to admit

Exactly how am I pretending that I didn't read it? Where did I suggest in any way that I didn't read it?

now you're pretending you didnt even read the article that you linked.
the lies keep flowing from you

Ah...yup...ok...That's a pretty big article, are you going to tell me where I 'cut and pasted' from? Or are you going to admit that you were wrong?

the one you posted #-o

Hydrogen power is such a broad spectrum of potential energy sources it's impossible to be specific in a single post without writing a thesis, and if you'd done even half the amount of reading you claim to have, you would know that. I simply stated that Hydrogen powered energy sources was the way forward, a statement which you took significant umbrage to for no reason other than the fact that you don't believe that one specific element of one specific hydrogen energy source is ever going to be practical.

From what wikipedia article? What part? You're talking shit. If you're going to accuse me of cutting and pasting you'd better have proof.

just STFU about the hydrogen. you know you're lying, please stop it.
if you had any idea what you were talking about in the first place you would've been quite specific.

your two pieces came from the wikipedia article. i did a search on "hydrogen" just like you did. one step ahead of you.

First I 'cut and pasted', now I've 'paraphrased'...after you accuse me of moving the goalposts (based off nothing more than your own very selective interpretation of what I've said) and you've done so yourself. You still can't tell me where those pieces allegedly came from and haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support a single claim you've made on this or any other topic in the last fortnight.

If you can tell me the thought process you used to determine exactly which means of energy production my use of the phrase "hydrogen as an energy source" pertains to I'm more than happy to hear it. But at no point did I specify a preference for any single individual method of Hydrogen sourced energy production.

Fiction

ha, you dont even know who you're quoting now :lol: you paraphrased the two paragraphs from wikipedia, tantamount to copying. you really dont understand what you're talking about here and whenever found out you look to google to bail you out.

you and i both know you were not talking about deuterium when you first mentioned hydrogen as an energy source.
i know you're lying, you know you're lying (which includes lying to yourself). others can decide for themselves.

The aftermath of Hydrogen fusion is more stable than something like Uranium or Plutonium powered fusion.

Hydrogen via Electrolysis is an energy intensive process but practicality is feasible through a solar powered process. It's one of the primary reasons for the large strides forward in solar powered technology over the last 5 or so years and as technology advances it will become increasingly viable, contrary to what ricecrackers may believe.

Do you want to provide links to the articles I pulled them from? With specific sub-headings for where in the article I allegedly plagiarised. Don't accuse me of being a liar and then blatantly lie the very next sentence.

Edited by afromanGT: 27/3/2014 11:16:08 PM

Given recent history in nuclear power, i'm not sure how fond countries like Australia will be with embracing a few new fusion reactors. Nuclear energy is reliable but when it screws up, it's catastrophic. High risk for high return. In saying that, Australia is less prone to seismicity than many countries with fusion reactors.

Hydrogen via Electrolysis is what i understand they use in those hydrogen prototype cars. It remains to be seen whether fit is economically viable and able to be mass produced to a commercial scale. I also understand that electrolysis itself is an energy intensive process.

you weren't even talking about deuterium in the first instance you liar
this is what shits me with you, whenever you're found out you try weasel your way out by diffusing the subject

nice job of cutting and pasting two paragraphs from wikipedia. :roll:

Deuterium, a hydrogen isotope is being used in research for a fusion powered reactor. Some scientists believe they're around 15 years away from developing a viable fusion reactor. The main issue is the potentially inhibitive costs, but they believe that ITER will be operational in 2027.

As for Hydrogen fuel specifically, solar-powered hydrogen electrolysis is being prototyped as the most feasible means of both improving the efficiency of solar power but also the most reliable and practical way of producing hydrogen fuel. It's plausible that it becomes a very realistic and wide-spread option for companies over the next decade or two.