Monday, November 30, 2015

Obligatory, 11.30.15; Mea Culpa with respect to Clean Coal

It looks like I overlooked something with respect to clean coal technology.  When coal is converted to coke, which is a valuable product of destructive distillation, not all that much hydrogen is produced.  Most of coal is carbon.  A significant proportion of the coal's energy comes from the conversion of carbon to carbon dioxide.

This is what I overlooked.  My idea was to not combust the carbon, but put it back into the ground.  This would in effect increase the cost of the coal by a significant amount, as much of its heat production potential comes from the combustion of the carbon, not the hydrogen.  The most valuable part of the coal then, would not be used.

A careful analysis may reveal that it would still be cheaper than other methods of energy production.  Just not nearly as cheap as before.  Without doing that careful analysis and just making a very quick guess, I'd say at least 3/4ths of the energy would be unavailable for use.  This would increase the cost by at least a factor of 3.  Or to put it another way, instead of being 20 times cheaper than oil, it would be about 7 times cheaper.  Of course, this rough ( and quick ) estimate is probably wrong as well.

Not only that, the practical consequence of putting a valuable product back in the ground would be to reject the idea.  There's no way that anybody is going to allow that.  It's like burying money, you might say.

So, I am going to walk back that rather brash statement that the destructive distillation of coal would yield a solution to the so-called AGW problem.  Perhaps it still could, but more extensive study would be required, and the industry would have to swallow hard and accept that a lot of their product could not be used anymore.

My fault here may not be absolute here.  It may still be possible to do what I proposed, but the probability of success isn't nearly as good as I thought.


The fault is absolute.  This is a bad idea.  You use up the fuel resource too fast and it doesn't produce enough energy.  Scrub this idea.


Not enough time for an entire post.  Reviewed energy ideas that I like.  Obviously, clean coal doesn't go on the list.  As for the contents of that list, it is still good.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Something Is Moving Out There

Free Republic

Dovetails nicely with what I've been writing.

However, the end result could result in anything.

Obligatory, 11.29.15; Why Globalization is failing

It will fail because it is secular humanist.   Such organizing principles do not last.  The reason being that they have no concept of future generations.  The people in these societies tend to think only of themselves, so they eventually must fail.  It is seen from the practical standpoint in the failure to reproduce.  If there are no children, there can be no society after just one generation.

Now the secular humanists think they've gotten this one beat- with immigration.  However, the Muslims will no assimilate into a Godless society.  Instead of doing that, they are going to overtake the secular humanists and take over power once their numbers get large enough.

The only way that Globalization can work if it incorporates a religion into it, which is against what drives globalization anyway--- money.  No religion will allow money to come before its conception of God.  Especially the Muslims.   Evidently, Christianity has lost that focus if it ever had it in the first place.  Christianity is other worldly and does not go well with Empires, as was seen in the late Roman Empire.

The Muslims most likely cannot hold their Empire either.  Their former Empires fell away after a short time.

Secular humanists will have to wipe out religions, but even if they do, they will die out anyway.  Nothing can sustain them over time.  With that also goes Globalization, and Globalization must fail.

Globalization must come to terms with religion if it is to survive, but it will kill itself off because it isn't compatible with religion.  Thus, it will try to exterminate religion and in doing so, will kill itself off.

Saturday, November 28, 2015


Perusing an article in Wikipedia on the subject.  It has made the news in recent years, and the impression from the news was that it was a negative thing.  According to the article, globalization is more popular outside the United States than within it.

Generally speaking, my impression is that the USA has been moving towards trade deals with much of the world.  Hence, you have the most recent attempt, the TPA and/or TPP.  One thing that has gotten my attention is the Open Borders component of this and its link to terrorism.  Not to mention the concept of multiculturalism and the decline of society and mores.

The rise of Donald Trump may be connected to this in the sense that he opposes Open Borders, and seeks a more aggressive negotiation stance with the rest of the world with respect to trade agreements.  I don't sense that Trump is opposed to Globalization per se, but doesn't tend to make a religion out of it.

There is an element in today's politics that does tend to make Globalization a type of religion and seeks to overturn national sovereignty.  That's what makes me suspicious of both parties.  Neither party is free from this, but Trump is challenging them, and that is driving their hysterical opposition to him, in my opinion.

What are the issues?

Well, to check that out, let's look at some polls, shall we?

According to Gallup ( Feb 2015 ) The top three were Government, The Economy, and Unemployment

ABC news ( Mar 2015 )  Listed 15 of top worries.  Amongst the top three: Healthcare, The Economy, and Terrorism.  A considerable number cited the size and scope of the government.

A more recent poll  ABC/WAPO ( Nov 16-19) poll:  Economy, Terrorism, Healthcare with Immigration not far behind.

Actually, Immigration and Terrorism are really the same thing.  If the terrorists can't get in, they can't do any terrorism.  If you control the borders, they can't get in.

The trouble with the GOP is that they think that cutting taxes is going to make the Economy roar.  Nope, don't think so, and I consider myself a pretty strong conservative. They should forget about that, as taxes are not high priority right now.

Some Democrats are obsessed with taxes as well.  They think taxes should be higher.

Trump has got it right on Immigration and maybe Terrorism too because the two are related.  So, why all the opposition?  The powers-that-be want unlimited immigration, but that only leads to Terrorism.  Trump is challenging them and he is likely to win, or he will bring the house down for the GOP.

Trump's ideas on the Economy is to get "better deals" on trade.  Well, I don't know.  I suspect that the deals we get aren't very good, but it won't matter all that much if we were more competitive.  You can't polish a turd.  It's easy to understand how Trump thinks, but it is disappointing that he doesn't push things like clean coal and molten-salt reactors as a way towards a competitive advantage in trade.

Unemployment is just the Economy, so those two can be merged.

Size and Scope of Government?  There's not a whole lot to go on with Trump on this one.  I need to research it.

Nominations are around the corner

Things will begin to happen fast as the new year approaches.  Once the nominating process begins, the nominee will quickly emerge, and then the discussion will move on towards the general election prospects.

Just read some reasonable analysis from not necessarily a conservative source of information.  The general opinion is that Trump can win the nomination.  Funny thing is that nobody in general seems to think that he has it locked up.  He has consistently been in the lead for months, now.  Who else would get the nomination?

We'll see.

What is the general mood of the nation?  The same as it has been, it seems.  Obama has his solid support from amongst about 43%.  These won't abandon him no matter what, it seems.  The polls weren't much different back in 2012, and he won anyway.  It would seem that the GOP could easily beat him if they could get their act together.

The key, it seems, is unity.  The Democrats can stay unified, but the GOP cannot.  Hence, the outcome in 2016 largely depends upon the candidate that can unify the party.  That prospect doesn't look good to yours truly right now.

There are those who say that they won't vote for Trump if he gets the nomination.  It may be a lot like that for Cruz as well.  If either of those two win, they will have to do something to bring these people back.  Then, there's Rubio.  Rubio seems to be the alternative to Bush.  But the conservative wing may not trust him, especially because of immigration.  The party seems fractured.  Can they put it together and win?

We'll see.

As for the Democrats, it is likely to be Clinton.  Her husband was the candidate of change, but she has to defend the status quo that few people outside of her party seem to like.

Friday, November 27, 2015

With respect to the latest Trump accusation

The dude on CNN claimed that the "thousands of Muslim cheering the 9.11 was debunked."  Not so fast.  There's the article itself that is what Trump was referring to with his gesticulations, in which brought forth the latest accusation.

The thought I had was this:  Isn't this a way to deflect the issue away from the truth?  Trump was saying that the article was never retracted in which it stated that there were Muslims celebrating the attack.  He was saying this while he was gesticulating.  So, instead of hearing Trump's defense of himself, one hears another accusation that he was making fun of a handicapped person.

In my opinion, he wasn't clearly doing that, and besides, what's getting lost in this latest accusation is corroboration of Trump's previous claims about celebrating Muslims on 9.11.

I'm going to embed it this time...

Now, I took a screenshot of the man they are referring to as being ridiculed:

If you watch, Trump gesticulates in an exaggerated way in which this guy may not be able to do.  In other words, the claim is just that, it isn't proven that Trump was trying to make fun of the guy.  There's no video of the guy talking.  That might provide stronger evidence than this picture.  If they had something stronger, why not use that?  If this is the best they've got, then they've got nothing.

Not only that, there's the motivation to distract away from the real issue that Trump brought up and that was the fact that this reporter wrote that there were cheering Muslims and that Trump pointed that out, and that the media doesn't want people to think about that, but about this phony trumped up accusation.

Calculating the square root

Interesting thing I found on Free Republic.  The discussion was about math and how it has been taught over the decades.  Of course, it has been dumbed down considerably.  One would hope that this is not so, but I suspect that it is.

I found this link on how to calculate square roots.  Actually, I used to do this myself a long time ago.  I forgot how to do my own method, which differed from this a bit.  Or did I use another method to calculate something else?  Anyway, I found some useful things that you can do with numbers.  Kids these days?  Who knows?  I'm not sure that they know enough about how to wipe their own backside.

Once upon a time, I wrote a software program I attempted to market.  The software program taught math through the use of simple arithmetic-- which is something similar to what is being done in calculating square roots in this example at the page link.  I sent the program to a publisher who wrote back saying that I should make it a "too easy" as opposed to "too informative" because people would give up.

You wouldn't give up easily if you are sufficiently motivated.  Nuff said.

Liberals make things "too easy".  The good things in life require some effort.  You don't get something for nothing.

Ted Cruz is right on climate change

Yes, he's probably right.  But...  You have to ask yourself a question:  How does this help him win?  The issue can be obfuscated out the wazzoo, so what's the Average Joe supposed to think?  You can argue the point till the cows come home, but you may not get anywhere.  People might do what my sister does and that is trust her feelings on the matter.  Then you lose an election.  The other guys who are wrong win elections like this.  What do you do about it, then?

Force them to defend positions that are hard to defend.  Show that there are solutions to the problems, but that instead of embracing them, the climate alarmists oppose them.  Solutions such as nuclear power.  Solutions such as clean coal.  Instead of these, we get windmills and solar panels.  You cannot run a high tech, high energy economy on windmills and solar panels.  Show how their opposition to these solutions hurts the Average Joe.  Then you can win over their vote and win on the issue, which is only right because these other guys are dead wrong.

Ted Cruz hasn't said anything other than climate science is a religion.  Even if he is right, it doesn't matter if they believe in it anyway.

Probably worse than I thought

Those who have read this blog probably are aware of what I think of this government.

I just read something on Next Big Future's comment section that leads me to believe that it is even worse than I thought.

No links to be added, just saying what I saw.  People are aware of this garbage and posted to that effect.  Yep.  They are screwing us because they can.  It's the Tiberius Syndrome in full flower.  Or perhaps not that exactly, but a government that is corrupt through and through.

What can be done about this, or is it to be expected?

Supposedly, the press investigates this stuff and the voters hold the politicians accountable.  That's the theory.  The facts are quite different as the media has been captured and serves the interests of the politicians.  It also known as "media bias".

Not so sure that the GOP doesn't gain something from the corruption, too.  They don't seem to want to oppose Obama, either.