Sounds good, but .08kWh per liter is 80kWh per M³. Desalination is as low as 2-3kWh per M³. That makes this technology very inefficient by comparison. Useful where absolutely no other source is available.
It bears noting that no where can I find the cost of his machine, only estimates of operation energy costs. Others that make 250 liters per day (with enough humidity) cost around $8500 on eBay. That makes me think his larger unit is likely 10 times that cost or more.
Also, he didn't invent this technology, Arye Kohavi is credited with that, but he may have made it more efficient. Essentially it's an industrial dehumidifier and nothing more.

Utter Russian/Ukrainian separatist propaganda bullshit Bob. Not a single letter of truth in how it's presented.

The Burisma investigation began before Biden was hired, and was not being investigated by Shokin before or at the time he was fired for being corrupt himself.

April 18, 2014: Hunter Biden, 44, son of Joe Biden, joins the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company. Biden’s directorship attracts attention because Burisma is owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a minister under Yanukovych. Zlochevsky and subsidiaries of Burisma had faced accusations of money laundering, fraud and tax evasion. (Zlochevsky and the company have denied the allegations.)

Feb. 10, 2015: Ukraine appoints Viktor Shokin as prosecutor general. Shokin inherits some of the investigations into Zlochevsky and his company. But Vitaliy Kasko, who serves as Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation until he resigned in protest, told Bloomberg in 2019 that, under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma remained dormant. Kasko said the matter was "shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," and Bloomberg reported that documents backed up his account.

Winter 2015-16: Many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, view Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of Yanukovych’s and Poroshenko’s circles. A frustrated Biden threatens to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin is fired. (He would later brag that his pressure tactics succeeded.)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/03/timeline-trump-impeachment-inquiry/


Well son of a bitch....Bob's Russian style cranial rectosis flares up again.

Biden used sanctioned government pressure with international support to publicly route out corruption, Dumb Donald's corruption gets more difficult to ignore daily, and is ALL about personal enrichment, and is done through secretive unsanctioned back channels like his personal attorney who has no business interfering in foreign affairs, then hidden in super top secret servers where they have no business being hidden.

How much money have Trump's children taken from other countries in the last 3 years? All accounts based on their own filings indicate it's hundreds of millions, much through new business dealings created after Trump took office and gifts like dozens of patents from China worth tens of millions.

I'd much prefer Dilithium Crunch cereal, packed with so much energy, your kid will be warping out all day.

Yeah! Ditto.

I have no idea what it feels like to have that much energy.

this is a great song with an absolute shit animation. I have seen rule 34 with better animation. Actual animation frames replaced with tweening looks hella awkward. Also the story of the video..

I dont get it. There have been MANY music videos that have replicated the exact same setting. A music performance in a mad max post apocalyptic world. But instead of actually showing a performance they throw a ton of scenes that make no sense, no reasoning. Why would a performance be held with so few people? Why would a performance be held near a riot situation where people are lobbing cocktails? Who the hell would do such a thing?

And yet here we are, another music video who thinks they can pull the same story board and creates yet another ridiculously believable video. Many videos feed off the energy of a live event and synergize with the crowd, and they rock. Then there are those videos who think they are a 4 minute movie and F_ it all up.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*

Statistically nuclear is by far the safest means of energy production, even when it goes wrong the main impact is people panicking. No one died from radiation in Fukushima and there isn't expected to be any statistically detectable radiation health effect.

The figures that say Chernobyl killed thousands are extrapolations based on the LNT model, which assumes cells are unable to repair DNA damage. In fact the cell DNA repair mechanisms are a well established fact these days. Yet we still use LNT as a model, even though at low doses there has never been any real world data to support it.

Deliberate scaremongering is basically what it is.

Please site your sources for this information.
I'm assuming they mean the estimated radiation from a properly functioning nuclear power plant and not the average actual radiation, which includes meltdowns, leaks, transportation accidents, etc. I can't imagine any geothermal plant ever contaminating like Chernobyl or Fukushima did.

It bears noting that coal ash is apparently 3-6 more radioactive than properly functioning nuclear power plants emit for the same energy generation, and it gets absorbed both directly from particles and indirectly in food and water.

Aladdin was one of my favorites in the 90s, and unlike many others, I've been perfectly content with Disney making live-action versions of all their old cartoons (just don't get me started on the atrocity that was the new Beauty and the Beast).

This movie was perfectly fine, except that Robin Williams's incredible performance was completely besmirched (as in it had poop rubbed all over it).

Aside from the great range in Williams's acting performance, his singing performance was so fun and exuberant and enthralling, as were all the songs in general.

They took those masterful Disney songs from the classic and just butchered them. I just felt disappointed at all the moments where I expected to feel an explosion of energy but instead fell flat.

I had to stop when he showed a pie chart that said 4-8% but the sliver in the chart represented close to 2%.

I'm a supporter of an accelerated move to low carbon emission energy sources. However, this video used too many manipulative tactics and I couldn't even figure out the thesis. Is it, "company promoting itself is bad?" If you're consuming corporate promotions as if it's hard news, then you're failing a basic test of critical thinking skills.

For some idea of how much energy could conceivably be extracted this way, see:

https://www.withouthotair.com/c16/page_96.shtml

In a nutshell, the numbers in this video sound extremely bogus. It's unlikely that anything like our current fossil fueled lifestyle would be possible using only geothermal energy.