Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Swine bio fuel/bacon farms.

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nuclear fusion. Once we get it working, we won't need anything else.

Either that, or there won't be anything else .

 loki old fart wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nuclear fusion. Once we get it working, we won't need anything else.

Or our solar system will have two suns. In either case your right, we won't need anything else.

See? Perfect!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nuclear fusion. Once we get it working, we won't need anything else.

Either that, or there won't be anything else .

Such sceptics, you lot...

 Jihadin wrote:
Swine bio fuel/bacon farms.

Can be done, via pyrolysis,

 loki old fart wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Swine bio fuel/bacon farms.

Can be done, via pyrolysis,

Swine bio fuel? I know a few hundred Right Honourable swine. Britain, has an untapped market for biofuel.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Swine bio fuel/bacon farms.

Can be done, via pyrolysis,

Swine bio fuel? I know a few hundred Right Honourable swine. Britain, has an untapped market for biofuel.

We already tried that, guy fawkes was his name.

So try again, this time with a nuclear warhead.

Nuke them all. It's the only way to be sure.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So try again, this time with a nuclear warhead.

Nuke them all. It's the only way to be sure.

I blame the IRA, If they were better at their job, they would have got them all at Brighton.

Cannot nuke them. You haven't heard? We lost the nuke arming protocols when the hard drives crashed

Valar Morghulis.

I want a spin off of Joquen

 loki old fart wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should have added an [/irony] tag there.

And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.

Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.

Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.

Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)

Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.

I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.

They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.

The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should have added an [/irony] tag there.

And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.

Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.

Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.

Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)

Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.

I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.

They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.

The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.

Yup saw that, I think. The biggest problem with it is cost. The vast areas of land needed to grow it, and the power needed to pump all that liquid around the system. Just think how much fuel is used in a day. A good by product is cattle feed though.

Good news for China then. Don't they have entire lakes, rivers and inland seas contaminated with pollution and algae? They could skim some algae from a lake, convert it to fuel, skim more algae.

Cleaning up the environment and producing a renewable energy all at once, bargain!

 loki old fart wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
Nuclear fusion. Once we get it working, we won't need anything else.

Or our solar system will have two suns.

That sounds like a neat idea. How would we create the second sun though?

Contain it a Dyson sphere lined with solar panels.

Then use the massive supply of electrical energy to split water molecules to produce hydrogen fuel.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should have added an [/irony] tag there.

And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.

Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.

Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.

Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)

Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.

I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.

They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.

The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.

Yup saw that, I think. The biggest problem with it is cost. The vast areas of land needed to grow it, and the power needed to pump all that liquid around the system. Just think how much fuel is used in a day. A good by product is cattle feed though.

I didn't think cost was an issue for the system. Other than needing copious amounts of water. And the value of diesel was good enough. It was literally the difficulty in extracting the diesel from the growth tanks. So once they found a good way to do that it would be smooth sailing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spoiler:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should have added an [/irony] tag there.

And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.

Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.

Indeed. There are only a few places on earth where you have consistent wind that can produce reliable power.

Solar and biofuels have much more promise(except Ethanol, which is grossly inefficient)

Wind solar works well together.
hydro could be utilised more.
Bio diesel is overated, because if your growing crops for diesel, your not growing crops for food.
Converting bio mass into energy shows promise.

I saw a presentation on a promising bioengeneering idea.

They had modified algae to produce diesel as a byproduct of their metabolism.

The biggest problem they had extracting the diesel without killing all the algae in the tank. So currently they have to basically kill all the algae in the tank to remove the fuel.

Yup saw that, I think. The biggest problem with it is cost. The vast areas of land needed to grow it, and the power needed to pump all that liquid around the system. Just think how much fuel is used in a day. A good by product is cattle feed though.

I didn't think cost was an issue for the system. Other than needing copious amounts of water. And the value of diesel was good enough. It was literally the difficulty in extracting the diesel from the growth tanks. So once they found a good way to do that it would be smooth sailing.

Needs to be near fish farm or sewage works to provide nutrients for the algae.
Take only a percentage of the algae out, the rest acts as starter for next batch. Can't remember which variant of algae they were using.
Anyway back to topic.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Contain it a Dyson sphere lined with solar panels.

Then use the massive supply of electrical energy to split water molecules to produce hydrogen fuel.

How would Scotty and USS Enterprise with Picard and crew play into this?

 Seaward wrote:
No. You have to pick a side. Nobody gets to be Switzerland.

But I want to be Switzerland. Switzerland won their match with the last kick of the game. My country lost 3-1, and is destined to get knocked out in the group stage, maybe without even getting a point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:
For gak and giggles-

http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

Uurgh... freakonomics. Such a promising concept so utterly wasted.

Anyhow, it strikes me that their methodology has a really strong structural assumption - that think tanks on both sides are equal, that the likes of Brookings has the same methods and aims as the Heritage Foundation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't find the BBC an example of the former. They most definitely do not look to be as objective as possible, and if they do, they fail at it. The BBC has a clear bias typical of all British media (that I know at least).

They have British bias, sure. They're British afterall, their reporters and editorial staff are going to see things with a specific point of view.

The first thing in understanding reliable news sources is understanding that there is nothing wrong with that per se. It means you need to look at multiple sources, but you shouldn't dismiss a source simply because you see a point of view (because all that will end up doing is having you dismiss sources with points of view different to your own).

The second thing in understanding reliable news services is that while all sources have some bias or point of view, they're not all equally honest. Some sources are trying to be as honest as possible, while others are manipulating information or even straight up lying. So you could read, say, the UK paper The Times and see a conservative point of view, but still some pretty reliable news, or watch FOX news and get a similarly conservative POV, but be presented with information that is likely manipulated or even straight up false.

As to RT, at this point I will have to admit that I do not often read their articles that do not have to do with the Ukraine crisis, but so far, I haven't found them to be any less factual, though just as biased as the BBC. Could you please provide some proof of RT spewing this 'distorted lying bs' you are talking about? Since I generally tend to agree with RT's opinion on the Ukrainian crisis, the bias might be harder to detect for me than it is for you.

They run conspiracy nonsense - birth stuff, truther stuff, and other insane nonsense. The only consistency in any of gibberish is the anti-US bent. There's nothing wrong with an anti-US bent, but there's a difference between actual failings of the US at home and in their foreign policy, and insane conspiracy nonsense.

During the conflict against Georgia RT set up a standard editorial line that Georgians were slaughtering South Ossetians. Not dissimilar to the charges they make against Ukraine right now. Their claims in the Georgia war were wildly exaggerated, and I see no reason to believe them this time around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I think the point was that the BBC has been known to be untrustworthy at times, to the point of criminality.

Any very large organisation, given a century of so of existence, will do something illegal or corrupt somewhere.

Many US banks operated in explicitly illegal ways that were exposed in the wake of the GFC - does that mean that no-one will open a chequing account with them because they believe the bank will just steal the money? No, that's insane. But it is no different than saying the BBC turned a blind eye to a sex criminal who worked in the music industry, therefore we can't believe their foreign reporting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...

how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!

Right now the college I work at has outstanding bills for payment with several multinational oil & gas companies. A couple are outstanding for more than a quarter million each, one is six months outstanding. It isn't much money to them, but it is a lot of money to us.

They aren't paying because they are disputing the total of those bills, and we are working with them to resolve those bills. Meanwhile other bills are being paid, and we are continuing to provide service.

That's how it works. You dispute a charge out rate, or dispute who should pay for some piece of equipment, and while that gets resolved you carry on with the rest of the deal.

Right now the Ukraine is disputing its bill with Russia. It's dispute is reasonable in principle - Russia doesn't get to maintain or remove its subsidy based on how much it likes the Ukrainian government of the day - but impractical in practice - it's Russia's gas and if the Ukraine had wanted a reliable subsidy it should have negotiated for one formally as part of the deal to have European pipelines pass through its territory.

But the point is that attempting to liken this to simply turning the gas off because a bill is unpaid is hopelessly simplistic narrative, and one that just doesn't work once you have any knowledge of how complex contracts work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putin pretty much has everybody, except the US, by the nuts.

The narrative in which Putin is this all powerful master manipulator is boring and silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hydro-electric works. Constant free energy from flowing water, as long as you don't have a very severe drought (and let's face it, it's Britain were talking about ).

Hydro is great, but the issue is that there's only so much good hydro opportunities around. Most of it was maximised in the developed world in the 20th century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Should have added an [/irony] tag there.

And even with subsidiaries, wind energy is horribly unreliable and inefficient, and needs to be backed up by fossil fuel stations.

Wind energy is a false economy except perhaps for individual households.

Like hydro, wind is a great source of power for specific locations. It isn't a complete answer to all our energy needs, but then no one technology has to be.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putin pretty much has everybody, except the US, by the nuts.

The narrative in which Putin is this all powerful master manipulator is boring and silly.

But he so looks the part

 sebster wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...

how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!

Right now the college I work at has outstanding bills for payment with several multinational oil & gas companies. A couple are outstanding for more than a quarter million each, one is six months outstanding. It isn't much money to them, but it is a lot of money to us.thats a very simplistic way to look at it... your colledges' measly quarter mill, not even a house-worth of debt, is not at all comparable to 4.5 BILLION with a B, nor does it being "a small" amount to the creditor matter at all. Goods and services must be paid for for there to be an expectation that they will continue to be supplied.At any point the creditor can refuse to issue new credit, especially if old credit is well into arrears. If you cannot pay your mortgage, a debt similar to your 250grand example, they might offer re financing options (none of which reduce the amount owed, just how you pay that amount back, and failing all that, they take back the house. No bank, EVER, will just say "oh, you cant pay 250grand for that house? you want to pay 100grand for it instead? yeah, ok, just pay that, its cool bro *brofist*"

They aren't paying because they are disputing the total of those bills, and we are working with them to resolve those bills. Meanwhile other bills are being paid, and we are continuing to provide service.

That's how it works. You dispute a charge out rate, or dispute who should pay for some piece of equipment, and while that gets resolved you carry on with the rest of the deal.No, thats really not how it works... you sign a contract, you fufill the obligations of that contract, or you are breaching that contract. Just because you change your mind, after the fact, about prices, does not releive you of your contractual obligations. That is the ENTIRE point of having a contract written up.. to prevent people from changing the rules/prices/ect in the middle of a deal.

Right now the Ukraine is disputing its bill with Russia. It's dispute is reasonable in principle - Russia doesn't get to maintain or remove its subsidy based on how much it likes the Ukrainian government of the day - but impractical in practice - it's Russia's gas and if the Ukraine had wanted a reliable subsidy it should have negotiated for one formally as part of the deal to have European pipelines pass through its territory.again, simplisitc, and not actually true, russia very much does get to set the price for their gas, and once that price is agreed upon, and the gas delivered, the agreed upon price must be paid. RE-negotiating a lower price after the fact, is the height of bad business, and a breach of contract. It is a crucial part of business between countries that they very much give better prices based on better relations, the concept of "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" works for a reason. the concept of "you scratch my back, I promise to scratch yours, but I dont actually" doesnt work for obvious reasons. Changing the agreed upon price, after the contract is signed, is not a legitimate business practice, although it is one often attempted. You might want to look at all the favorable prices the US gets on commodities before you go toting stupid ideas like commody sellers not being able to set prices based on relationship status between them and the buyer.

But the point is that attempting to liken this to simply turning the gas off because a bill is unpaid is hopelessly simplistic narrative, and one that just doesn't work once you have any knowledge of how complex contracts work.the only thing "simplistic" is you trying hand waive away a 4.5billion dollar debt as meaningless because, hey, your colledge is in debt for 250 grand, since that is OK, so this debt must be ok too. Its not a complicated contract, its an agreed upon price, that has not been paid. Claiming that because one side now wants to change the price after the fact somehow grants legitimacy to not paying the agreed upon price, is just silly, and a text book definition of breach of contract.

Ahh yes... the professor professes!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Putin pretty much has everybody, except the US, by the nuts.

The narrative in which Putin is this all powerful master manipulator is boring and silly.

But he so looks the part

Putin just the main actor in Power small fries

 easysauce wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
I wonder how long it will be before russia is the "bad guy" for turning off the gas...

how audacious of them, to expect payment for their natural gas!

Right now the college I work at has outstanding bills for payment with several multinational oil & gas companies. A couple are outstanding for more than a quarter million each, one is six months outstanding. It isn't much money to them, but it is a lot of money to us.thats a very simplistic way to look at it... your colledges' measly quarter mill, not even a house-worth of debt, is not at all comparable to 4.5 BILLION with a B, nor does it being "a small" amount to the creditor matter at all. Goods and services must be paid for for there to be an expectation that they will continue to be supplied.At any point the creditor can refuse to issue new credit, especially if old credit is well into arrears. If you cannot pay your mortgage, a debt similar to your 250grand example, they might offer re financing options (none of which reduce the amount owed, just how you pay that amount back, and failing all that, they take back the house. No bank, EVER, will just say "oh, you cant pay 250grand for that house? you want to pay 100grand for it instead? yeah, ok, just pay that, its cool bro *brofist*"

They aren't paying because they are disputing the total of those bills, and we are working with them to resolve those bills. Meanwhile other bills are being paid, and we are continuing to provide service.

That's how it works. You dispute a charge out rate, or dispute who should pay for some piece of equipment, and while that gets resolved you carry on with the rest of the deal.No, thats really not how it works... you sign a contract, you fufill the obligations of that contract, or you are breaching that contract. Just because you change your mind, after the fact, about prices, does not releive you of your contractual obligations. That is the ENTIRE point of having a contract written up.. to prevent people from changing the rules/prices/ect in the middle of a deal.

Right now the Ukraine is disputing its bill with Russia. It's dispute is reasonable in principle - Russia doesn't get to maintain or remove its subsidy based on how much it likes the Ukrainian government of the day - but impractical in practice - it's Russia's gas and if the Ukraine had wanted a reliable subsidy it should have negotiated for one formally as part of the deal to have European pipelines pass through its territory.again, simplisitc, and not actually true, russia very much does get to set the price for their gas, and once that price is agreed upon, and the gas delivered, the agreed upon price must be paid. RE-negotiating a lower price after the fact, is the height of bad business, and a breach of contract. It is a crucial part of business between countries that they very much give better prices based on better relations, the concept of "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" works for a reason. the concept of "you scratch my back, I promise to scratch yours, but I dont actually" doesnt work for obvious reasons. Changing the agreed upon price, after the contract is signed, is not a legitimate business practice, although it is one often attempted. You might want to look at all the favorable prices the US gets on commodities before you go toting stupid ideas like commody sellers not being able to set prices based on relationship status between them and the buyer.

But the point is that attempting to liken this to simply turning the gas off because a bill is unpaid is hopelessly simplistic narrative, and one that just doesn't work once you have any knowledge of how complex contracts work.the only thing "simplistic" is you trying hand waive away a 4.5billion dollar debt as meaningless because, hey, your colledge is in debt for 250 grand, since that is OK, so this debt must be ok too. Its not a complicated contract, its an agreed upon price, that has not been paid. Claiming that because one side now wants to change the price after the fact somehow grants legitimacy to not paying the agreed upon price, is just silly, and a text book definition of breach of contract.

Ahh yes... the professor professes!

Russia's claming there's a breach of contract, Ukraine is claming there's not. If you've not breached a contract and yet whoever is the other party in the conflict says you have, is it reasonable to demand that you pay just because the other side claims you have?

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that Ukraine is in the right, just their point of view which, if correct, can hardly be blamed.

its actually a very easy fact to verify,

the contract stipulated gazprom would recieve money for gas,

gas was delievered, no money has been recieved. The contract is factually, verifiably, now breached.

its very reasonable to expect to be paid the amount set out before hand in a contract after goods or services have been rendered... it is the cornerstone of civilized economies that you actually fufil contractual obligations. 4.5 billion isnt some token amount that gazprom can do without.. it actually needs that money...

this is the equivelent of driving up to a gas station, filling your tank, and driving away... except that you also signed a contract saying you would pay for that gas before you drove away.

 easysauce wrote:
its actually a very easy fact to verify,

the contract stipulated gazprom would recieve money for gas,

gas was delievered, no money has been recieved. The contract is factually, verifiably, now breached.

its very reasonable to expect to be paid the amount set out before hand in a contract after goods or services have been rendered... it is the cornerstone of civilized economies that you actually fufil contractual obligations. 4.5 billion isnt some token amount that gazprom can do without.. it actually needs that money...

this is the equivelent of driving up to a gas station, filling your tank, and driving away... except that you also signed a contract saying you would pay for that gas before you drove away.

And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.

so now the goal posts are moving from "we demand a fair price before we give you any money"

to

"we already paid you all the money, even though we have no receit, no proof we paid, and you are out 4.5 billion in delivered goods.

the check is TOTALLY in the mail dude"

I heard a report that NATO satellites have identified Russian tanks crossing the border. Anyone else hear it or source it yet?

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And who's saying that no money's been recieved? Gazprom. Hence the whole conflict. It's not about whether or not Ukraine SHOULD pay, it's about whether they HAVE paid or not.

so now the goal posts are moving from "we demand a fair price before we give you any money"

to

"we already paid you all the money, even though we have no receit, no proof we paid, and you are out 4.5 billion in delivered goods.

the check is TOTALLY in the mail dude"

No, more like:

"We feel Z is the price you should pay according to agreement X, you've not paid Z so we're cutting the gas"

vs.

"We feel Y is the price we should pay according to agreement X, we've paid Y so cutting the gas isn't fair".

You're assuming from the get-go that it's Ukraine and not Gazprom that's breaking the contract, assume for a second that it's Gazprom and the Ukranian response becomes completely logical.

That said, I think we all agree that it's pretty damn likely that it's Ukraine fething about, especially considering past events.

Russia has surplus gas to use now Easy