Disqus - Latest Comments for luc

Re: http://www.doguhanca.com/2009/10/why-did-i-choose-my-current-template.html

luc — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:47:47 -0000

Good job doguhan this blog rocks IM YOUR FAN 2 HAHA

Re: http://www.tipsblogger.com/2009/01/major-blog-directories-do-submit-your.html

luc — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:11:28 -0000

i tried to use this

http://www.webceo.com/cgi-bin/go/clickthru.cgi?id=download

Re: http://www.tipsblogger.com/2009/08/100-top-make-money-online-resources.html

luc — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:14:09 -0000

i still need page rank for Sponsored Review Programs

long time :(

Re: Jesus Christ Vs Dieu

luc — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:26:45 -0000

mabrouk c est pas le nom d un chien ca?

Re: I’m Hiphopopotamus, my lyrics are bottomless…

luc — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:29:45 -0000

Merci de m avoir fait decouvrir ceci

Re: Apple et Google : En marche vers le Cloud Computing

luc — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:25:27 -0000

Hello,

éternel recommencement ... le terminal léger ... Bull, Wyse, Java, .... le retour du client - serveur en fait -> l'inverse de Microsoft, les applications hébergées, ... le search étant la clé de tout, en effet, google en fera son cheval de troie : cherchez sur google, sur pc, mobile, console, ... et ouvrir le contenu à distance sur une application hébergée ... reste -pour être totalement d'accord avec Fred- que la clé est le réseau ... ce que les opérateurs n'ont semble-t-il encore toujours pas compris en se fourvoyant dans la recherche d'un positionnement provider de contenus ...

La simplicité (et fiabilité) d'Apple (softwares)

La puissance de google

le déploiement et débit de Wimax

Un écran, un périphérique de saisie/mouvement (à la "Wii") et des HP

et voila.

Re: Une soirée sur la planète 3G+

luc — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:40:57 -0000

bah Fred, tu fais un rejet ou bien ?

Si tu comprends plus rien à ce qui se passe avec Apple, Google, etc., toi aussi ce soir c'est ton ce soir, personne n'y comprend rien et est bien content de se retrouver pour ne même pas prétendre le contraire.

Allez à lundi tous, bonne occasion d'oublier dès le 1er soir comment le mobile ne va pas nous faire gagner d'argent le reste de la semaine, puisque SFR a tout crâmé dans la soirée.

Re: Jesus the Musical by Javier Prato

luc — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:17:42 -0000

Excellent, je me relève la nuit pour en rire.

Re: unheardof

luc — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:36:00 -0000

Exacto! pero no coincido plenamente...

Sino participamos de una manera mas activa (no sólo a través del voto) esto no va a funcionar, en mi humilde opinión

Re: Who Killed the Gas Turbine Car?

luc — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:53:07 -0000

The exhaust heat problem has been solved by reusing that heat to heat up intake air...This also inproves fuel economy to that degree to be better then a common internal combustion diesel engine.But it complicates the engine itself and makes it more subject to brake down...

Re: Pablo Calculates the True Cost of Bottled Water

luc — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:01:36 -0000

For those who don't seem to understand the concept of "using" water, here is a simple explanation followed by an example:

Of COURSE, water is not "consumed" or "used-up." Just like with energy use, the term "using" water refers to the conversion of one form of water (potable and available for immediate use) to another (non-potable and or not readily accessible).

For instance, when you "use" water to wash your hands, you convert clean drinking water into dirty soapy water which must then be treated and then dumped back into the environment to be "scrubbed" by microbes and other organisms and/or evaporated into the atmosphere where it then falls back into reservoirs or makes its way into aquifers or ground-water. Unfortunately, this cycle takes a long time and much of the water runs into storm systems where it finds its way into oceans. It then becomes unavailable for use. Many aquifers cannot be replenished. There is a steady decline in the amount of available, land-based water for use by humans. This is a major problem as we have recently seen in areas such as Sidney and Atlanta. Anyone who would like to understand more should pick up the book, When the Rivers Run Dry by Fred Pearce.

And for the individuals wondering about cooling water, the way a cooling tower works is via the principle of evaporative cooling. Ambient potable water is pumped through a heat exchanger where it removes heat from another liquid stream (i.e. molten plastic aggregate). The hot water is then pumped into another heat exchanger similar to your car radiator where a large fan blows across the fins and physically evaporates the water. By every definition of the word, the water is "used." It is then not available for drinking or to ecosystems until it falls from the sky again. This often happens over oceans so this water is effectively removed from the land-based water reserve.

So yes, water, like all matter, cannot be destroyed but it can be contaminated by other matter or converted into a different phase making it unavailable for future use. Effectively, then, it is "gone".

It troubles me that there is such a wide lack of understanding about the concept of water use and conservation.

Luc

Re: Pablo Calculates the True Cost of Bottled Water

luc — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:02:24 -0000

For those who don't seem to understand the concept of "using" water, here is a simple explanation followed by an example:

It troubles me that there is such a wide lack of understanding about the concept of water use and conservation.

Luc

Re: Another Scandal for German Clean-auto Zones

luc — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:54:46 -0000

Willy,

I totally agree. I drive a 2000 VW Jetta TDI manual transmission. According to TerraPass, it emits 7,545 lbs or carbon dioxide every 15,000 miles driven. The equivalent gas version would emit 10,662 lbs. That's almost 30% less carbon emissions for the diesel. Sure, that particular model may be a little more sooty and have slightly higher NOx emissions PER GALLON, but it burns less fuel per mile than a gas model. And with the new 2008 "clean diesels" with common rail technology and particulate traps, not to mention 55 mpg highway fuel economy for the new Jetta, diesels are poised to be the cleaner option even over hybrids.

I also agree that the fallacy of the the US-centric view that "diesels are dirty" is completely skewed. Sure, US diesels are! That's because US the automakers never took the time to refine the technology. Thankfully diesels have been developing quite nicely in Europe over the past few decades and now the time has come for this superior, more thermodynamically efficient internal-combustion technology to go mainstream.

Luc

Re: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories

luc — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:26:33 -0000

Needless to say, it is important to distinguish between biofuel production (which is feedstock neutral) and agricultural practice (which is the real problem). Like bird kills for the wind industry, rising food prices is yet another decoy detractors will use to distract the public from the real issues.

Not so sure about the ethanol industry, but in biodiesel the feedstock (vegetable oil) is typically the by-product of meal-production. Shouldn't the over-production of soybean oil, if anything, be driving soybean meal prices (and hence food prices) down?

Luc

Re: Florida Counties Consider Test Of Murphy's Law With $200 Million Dollar Offshore Desalination Plant

luc — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:24:38 -0000

My question is, why doesn't Florida simply put the millions they would spend on this project into water conservation and re-use efforts? Wetland treatment and recovery such as in Clayton County, GA (covered on TreeHugger) is a viable and effective way of generating additional usable gallons. If anyone argues the 'less land for real-estate' angle, the simple fact of the matter is that the land-boom is OVER in Florida and, besides, we should be looking to stop unbridled growth in the first place.

Luc

Re: The Power of Rain: Alternative Energy

luc — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:04:52 -0000

This sounds like an idea I had to install gutter systems on buildings in a large, dense urban center which all funnel rain water runoff into a hydroelectric turbine. The rain water could then flow into an underground storage tank and be used for flushing toilets and irrigation for that same urban center.

Luc

Re: Anti-Wind Farm Group Heavily Criticized for Distorting the Truth

luc — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:39:14 -0000

rob, I'm all for free speech, but perhaps the US would benefit from a similar agency. Freedom to voice your opinions without fear of government retribution is one thing, but spreading lies in order to control people's opinions with fear is another. All advertisers have the responsibility to report accurate and reliable information about what they are trying to sell. They can be held liable if they do not. RUNGA is no different. Though they are not selling a tangible item, they are still responsible for reporting truthful information. None of what they claim was based on facts and has the potential to do much harm, not only to Ecotricity, but to the alternatives movement in general. For that, they should be silenced.

Luc

Re: Anti-Wind Farm Group Heavily Criticized for Distorting the Truth

luc — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:43:46 -0000

Luc

Re: Anti-Wind Farm Group Heavily Criticized for Distorting the Truth

luc — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:13:24 -0000

Legodrabonxp, those are some interesting observations from someone who actually has experience with them. It is unfortunate about the land use restrictions and the pay-offs, but in the scope of things, it doesn't really sound that bad to me. Landowners are constantly being exploited by utilities and governments through eminent domain and outright extortion. At least these people are being paid for it. And they aren't being paid to cover up some horrible pollution source or political corruption, they are merely being paid by the farms to cooperate.

As far as distractions go, I think roadside billboards are far worse than large spinning blades. And as for the lights... I'm sure city dwellers have to deal with similar disadvantages of living in a dense, civilized, urban center. But I think the advantage outweighs the slight annoyance factor. Guess star-gazers will have to go somewhere else.

Many technologies destroy beauty. Wind-farms are no exception. But it all boils down to a cost-benefit comparison. What's worse? Oil platforms in the gulf or wind farms? 300 dead birds a year from blade impacts, or 3 million from fossil fuel related pollution?

In a world where all of the earth's beauty is threatened, I think an occasional hill-side obstructing or horizon-blotting wind-farm is the best or many choices

Luc.

Re: Anti-Wind Farm Group Heavily Criticized for Distorting the Truth

luc — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:31:02 -0000

Jajohnson, I certainly wasn't' being 'dismissive' of beauty. It is a terrible shame that human development often destroys the beauties of the world. What I am saying is that we can destroy beauty by building dirty, polluting coal plants or petroleum refineries, or we can do it by building wind turbines or solar farms which will provide clean, renewable power for years to come.

When you really look at it, wind farms aren't THAT bad. In fact, I think they are kind of interesting looking. Urban sprawl kills beauty. Power transmission lines kill beauty. Cell phone towers kill beauty. I think wind farms are wrongly implicated in this. The only disadvantage they really have is that they are relatively new so people aren't used to them. And the impacts that they have are almost purely aesthetic (contrary to Victor's comments above).

As far as Victor's comment:

"The amount of energy required to manufacture and transport the airplane-sized machines across hundreds of miles on trucks and all of the resources and man-power that go into erecting the turbines seems rather wasteful when there are other technologies out on the market that can provide energy with much fewer resources and in much more passive manners."

What technologies? Treehugger published a post recently that says that a wind turbine will pay back the power used in its manufacture and construction in 6.3 months. MONTHS! The power generating capacity of wind-turbines is IMMENSE. Sustainable practices and solar rooftops will help, but you must understand the MASSIVE amounts of power that the industrial and transportation sectors use. There is no "silver bullet" and we must adopt an array of purpose-built technologies to get us out of the predicament we are in. Land is not a renewable resource, but at some point, wind development will cease. The total suitable land for wind development is relatively small compared to total land mass. Take this quite from Wikipedia as perspective:

"Wind power available in the atmosphere is much greater than current world energy consumption. The most comprehensive study to date[48] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MToE (million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world's current energy use in all forms." - Wikipedia, 'wind power'

That's huge. Simply huge. Other nations have embraced wind power while the smear campaigns and nay-sayers in the states continue to make it a perceived negative. Almost ALL of the arguments against wind are false. And a peeve of mine is when people start talking about bird kills. That is total BS. Birds are just as likely to fly into the side of a sky-scraper or a radio tower than they are to fly into a turbine. Wind turbines aren't spinning like blenders. They rotate relatively slowly with high torque which is geared up to high RPM for the generators. Turbines would be an obstacle like any other high structure. It's not like there is a fine mist of bird blood spraying across the prairie 24 hours a day. Did you know that cats and cars have been estimated to kill in the billions of birds per year? Turbines kill in the hundreds.

In any case, I'm tired of arguing this point. I pitty the people who fail to "see the forest for the trees" as quoted from a recent Treehugger post. The benefits of wind power FAR outweigh these relatively petty arguments about aesthetics and land development.

Luc

Re: Anti-Wind Farm Group Heavily Criticized for Distorting the Truth

luc — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:42:19 -0000

As far as Victor's comment:

Luc

Re: 3 Big Ideas to Avoid Recession AND Green the Economy

luc — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:07:32 -0000

As for the "small government is better" comment, this is totally erroneous. If you take power away from government, you give it to corporations. You let markets control things that should be moderated through regulations. The key is to 'give the people back the power over governement.' The government is supposed to be a body that 'serves' its people.

Start with true campaign finance reform. Make ALL political campaigns be funded by 100% taxpayer money. Severely limit lobbyist access to public officials.

Give the power of governance back to the people. Only then can we be a truly 'free' society.

Re: New York Police Anti-Terror Task Force Acting Like Environmentalists

luc — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:52:01 -0000

Great! Now the terrorists know exactly how to launch such an attack. This is akin to the media announcing to the world that US port security is substandard at best and as full of holes as fake swiss cheese made out of C-4.

=== author's response follows ====

The generation of gaseous chlorine from a few percent ammonia solution mixed with aqueous bleach would lead to little chlorine - certainly not enough to disperse over a wide area at high concentration - and the liberation of chlorine gas from such a mixture would be instantly stopped via a dispersing explosion (aqueous reaction stopped). In other words, lets focus on the high hazard, not some imaginary threat thrown out to infer over-reaction by those who desire risks to be properly managed.

Now to the nub of the issue. The NYPD team has effectively established that proper controls are not in place across the chlorine supply chain. For that they are heroes.

The world's developed nations have formal regulatory controls on sales of guns, ammunition, tobacco, alcohol, medical drugs, non-medical drugs, vehicles, nuclear materials, and so on. Yet, according to evidence offered by the NYPD, there are either insufficient or ineffective controls on sale of elemental chlorine in the US. Arguably this is an unacceptable risk.

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the NYPD efforts? Do you feel that no further controls on the distribution and sales of chlorine are needed? If so, please explain why.

Inferring that I have introduced greater risk by amplifying a story that needs attention strikes me as missing the above points.

Re: New York Police Anti-Terror Task Force Acting Like Environmentalists

luc — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:14:02 -0000

John,

I think that the people who need to know about it already know. My point is that by giving these types of security risks attention, you are effectively spreading the information to potential attackers. Thanks to the article that first exposed this, and now your post, anyone reading could similarly exploit this hole in security.

I think the media often does further damage to national security by "digging" up these little tidbits for their own commercial reasons. If these investigative reporters truly wanted to help the public, they would focus their efforts on working with security agents to help undermine these activities instead of using the "shock" factor to increase ratings under the guise of promoting "public awareness."

Luc

Re: The Footprint of Gmail: How Much Energy Would Deleting Email Save?

luc — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:28:54 -0000

I think the true point here is that the more emails stored, the more storage capacity Google will have to add to its data banks. This is not a continuous progression, rather it will occur in "steps" or "bursts." When a threshold of users is reached, Google will purchase more capacity. When this capacity comes online, that is when the energy increase will occur, not when you delete the message.

The idea is the same with almost every "cause" related conservation method typical consumers choose to support. Want to reduce methane emissions and water usage by not buying steak? You may be surprised that your individual choice has absolutely ZERO immediate impact because that tantalizing slice of ruminant rump you painfully pass up has already had its impact. What you are doing, however, is influencing consumer demand. If say 10 - 15 people make this same choice consistently for a sustained period of time, maybe 6 - 12 months later, the price of steak will fall by 1/300,000 of a percent. This will cause one less steer to be purchased for breeding a few months later. This will in-turn reduce the number of meat cow births to fall by 1 - 2 head that year. Then 3 - 4 years later, there will be that much fewer cows in circulation. So about 5 years after you make your choice to stop eating steak, the ripples it creates in the open market will have some type of effect. Only then will you save that 2,000 gallons of water you were hoping to conserve right there in the supermarket.

The point of the above paragraph is that there is so much market momentum pushing back against individual user choices that it requires a large number of people to make a difference and that even then there will be a multi-month to multi-year lag before it has any sensible impact. And then you have to understand that this impact is going to cost jobs, which when weighed against the environmental impact may be acceptable.

So, don't think individual buying choices are going to make an immediate impact. By all means, do them. But expect that markets must reach equilibrium before the true impact will occur.

As for the Google data farms, delete your emails or download them to your own computer via. a local email client such as Thunderbird of Outlook. If 100,000 other users do this too, then Google won't have to buy that extra 100 TB sector 6 months from now and you will have been part of a movement to stop Google from buying energy on your behalf.

Lucas

Re: Product Review: Enviromower (Solar Lawn Mowing)

luc — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:59:07 -0000

Or you could go with a Robomower. Do a google search, these things are awesome!

Re: Paying for One's "Carbon Sins" May Cost Pennies

luc — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:10:02 -0000

The short answer is, yes. There can only be so many carbon offsetting projects. At some point, it will be impossible to add more carbon reduction capacity to the mix. Couple that with the fact that many of the projects that the offsets fund would be have been completed without the offsets, then the overall effectiveness of the concept is in question. Basing the analysis on offset market value is not a true representation of the overall environmental costs of the carbon released.