Stupid World

[bogan]

Welcome to my world. It is possible to build the required facility's for regions hit by disaster, windymills, power stations, photovoltaics etc... are all available and the need is most definitely there, yet they don't have any money so they can't have what they need. Money being the infinite resource that it is, after all they were talking about minting a $1 trillion platinum coin to pay off some of the US debt, but they refuse to make the money available to help people who need it. It doesn't get much more stupid than that... and so we quibble over the efficiency of a mechanism for generating water and even that isn't afforded to those people.

Share your irony, it'll be amusing for the others if nothing else ... I may even smile myself

What I'm saying is its ironic that you call the world stupid, then have such stupid ideas on how to 'fix' things yourself, completely ignoring reason.

[mashman]

What I'm saying is its ironic that you call the world stupid, then have such stupid ideas on how to 'fix' things yourself, completely ignoring reason.

Like what for example?

[bogan]

Like what for example?

The last few pages of you saying hydrogen generation is a method worth using to distill water; in disaster relief situations no less.

[Ocean1]

Money being the infinite resource that it is

Money is not a resource, idiot.

It doesn't get much more stupid than that...

Yes it does, suggesting electrolysing water to make hydrogen to make water beats the fuck out of it.

and so we quibble over the efficiency of a mechanism for generating water and even that isn't afforded to those people.

... when what they really need to make fresh water is a camp fire and a pot.

[mashman]

The last few pages of you saying hydrogen generation is a method worth using to distill water; in disaster relief situations no less.

Sigh. In situations where every little helps, it could make a difference. As energy inefficient as it may well be, it could make a difference.

[Ocean1]

Sigh. In situations where every little helps, it could make a difference. As energy inefficient as it may well be, it could make a difference.

Yes. It would waste energy that could otherwise help 10 times as many people.

[mashman]

Money is not a resource, idiot.

Yes it does, suggesting electrolysing water to make hydrogen to make water beats the fuck out of it.

... when what they really need to make fresh water is a camp fire and a pot.

The great god wiki says it is as does the Oxford English dictionary.



coz wood will be freely available in a disaster area eh... especially with 10's of thousands of people all looking to do the same.

[mashman]

Yes. It would waste energy that could otherwise help 10 times as many people.

So I keep hearing. So why isn't that happening in Haiti? Bet those dying of cholera would be happy to put in the effort to produce the power required to split the water is that's all they had available to them. Obviously you'd rather sit and die.

[Ocean1]

Are you saying that the title of the graph is incorrect? as there is no mention of the associated costs having been taken into account. I would assume one of the main reasons for the drop in "efficiency" is that the oil being harder to find and get at?

Fair enough.

In fact the article does discuss changes in the depth of attributed investment costs. It doesn't mention anything at all about cost increases associated with the scarcity or otherwise of the product. So I'm going with the former as at least a part of the explanation for the scarcely believable increase in investment costs from 1% to 30%

[Ocean1]

The great god wiki says it is as does the Oxford English dictionary.

Yes, CAPITAL as a resource, as REPRESENTED by money. The money for any given budget isn't plucked from a fairies arse as you keep insisting, it represents value generated by someone. Y'know, earned.

coz wood will be freely available in a disaster area eh... especially with 10's of thousands of people all looking to do the same.

I believe a fair wack of forest was in fact destroyed in that disaster, yes. That'd suggest a fair bit of firewood should be fairly readily available, no? In any case the cheapest effective method of producing heat would seem to be the best approach, yes?

[bogan]

So I keep hearing. So why isn't that happening in Haiti? Bet those dying of cholera would be happy to put in the effort to produce the power required to split the water is that's all they had available to them. Obviously you'd rather sit and die.

Bet they would.

Bet the rest of the world would also think you're an arsehole if you gave them a machine that could only save one in ten instead of a machine that could save all ten though.

[Ocean1]

So I keep hearing. So why isn't that happening in Haiti?

I'd say that's because they weren't clever enough to become something more advanced than a stone aged society completely unable to take advantage of the possibilities offered by the 20th century let alone one capable of responding to any sort of disaster.

Bet those dying of cholera would be happy to put in the effort to produce the power required to split the water is that's all they had available to them.

But it's not all that's available to them. In fact a massively inefficient water maker is probably one of the very last things they'd want.

Obviously you'd rather sit and die.

Nope. I'd rather use whatever I had at hand to survive, and that's exactly what would happen.

[mashman]

In fact the article does discuss changes in the depth of attributed investment costs. It doesn't mention anything at all about cost increases associated with the scarcity or otherwise of the product. So I'm going with the former as at least a part of the explanation for the scarcely believable increase in investment costs from 1% to 30%

Which linky did you follow?

Yes, CAPITAL as a resource, as REPRESENTED by money. The money for any given budget isn't plucked from a fairies arse as you keep insisting, it represents value generated by someone. Y'know, earned.

I believe a fair wack of forest was in fact destroyed in that disaster, yes. That'd suggest a fair bit of firewood should be fairly readily available, no? In any case the cheapest effective method of producing heat would seem to be the best approach, yes?

The money when it is created is plucked out of thin air. There may well be an asset that its creation can be valued against, but given that you end up paying back approx x times the value of a house or $x of interest, those x's are plucked out of thin air and created as debt. That debt has to go somewhere and it usually goes towards creating more money x times over i.e. plucked out of thin air time x. Believe what you will, but it is an infinite resource.

I wonder how much the wood costs? I wonder how long it will last? And yes, as I have stated repeatedly, the cheapest effective method would be the best... and from my perspective given that they're "cleaning" water to drink/survive, I care not how efficient the method is. Get it yet?

[mashman]

Bet they would.

Bet the rest of the world would also think you're an arsehole if you gave them a machine that could only save one in ten instead of a machine that could save all ten though.

ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... I'm sure they wouldn't if noone had given them anything else to use .

[blue rider]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/...on-production/

an interesting read, again