A SOUTH Tyneside scientist has helped proved the region once basked like the Bahamas.

Professor Paul Younger, from Hebburn, is part of a team which has spent the past four months looking for a geothermal energy source.

And yesterday researchers struck hot water.

Their discovery aptly came on one of the hottest days of the year so far, with temperatures on South Tyneside soaring – although the heavens opened later in the afternoon. During the early hours, the giant drill hit a hot-water source 2,000m below the earth’s surface at the Science City site.

The £900,000 project, which began four months ago, marks the first deep excavation in the UK since the 1980s and the scientists now plan to pump the water back up to the surface so that it can heat local buildings.

Prof Younger, from Newcastle University, said: “This hot water could be available 24/7 because it doesn’t depend on the weather. It is as cheap and as low-carbon as it comes.”

The drill also went through a coal seam at a depth of 660m that nobody knew existed and uncovered fossils thousands of years old. Newcastle University geology student Laura Armstrong has been examining fossils that were discovered in a block of limestone more than 1,000m below the ground. “It is one of the most exciting things we’ve found,” she said. “These shells and corals suggest that Newcastle was once a tropical environment, like offshore Bahamas.”

The next step is for scientists to run tests on the sandstone, which acts as an insulator for the hot water.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/scientists_happy_to_be_in_hot_water_1_3521295

They plan to drill another hole, the two would provide enough power for the Uni and 11,000 homes.

Green might not at current tech meet all our needs. But with more investment we get cheap renewable energy. Planning permission seems to be the problem... causing delays to which certain energy farms although approved are yet to be complete.


I must say in the USA.. wouldn't small towns in the sunnier regions prefer to be virtually self reliant, and perhaps even sell energy off to the grid??

Artful Dodger:

> I know that there are BILLIONS of dollars just waiting for green energy producers. They are no different than other so-called greedy fossil fuel energy companies. And in spite of what the Geek claims, the question isn't between an energy source that produces LESS pollution, it's about one energy source that works, and another that is yet to prove it can meet demand (it can't - and you'll be dead before it can).

Are green energy producers greedy? Sure they are. It is greed that drives capitalism.

The question is, can green energy meet the demand?

In the UK 7% of electricity consumes is produced from renewable sources. In the USA electricity generation from renewable sources has now reached 10%. Japan also produces 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. Germany produces 18% of its electricity from renewable sources. France produces 14%.

In Denmark 29% of the energy is produced from wind power and renewable energy sources. The Danish transition occurred in the last 15 years or so, and "Green" energy generation is increasing at a rate of about 1% per year. It might seem like slow progress, but then their reliance on fossil fuels decreases every day.

In Canada 64.5% of the electricity consumed is produced from renewable energy sources. Considering Canada's long, dark winters, it is a good record. However, the public perception among Canadians is that the government is not doing enough.

Then, we look at Iceland where 100% of its electricity generation is from renewable resources with geothermal energy being the dominant form of green energy. Iceland can do this on account of high volcanic activity, high incidence of geisers and other surface geothermal vents, and a low population. Hower, it shows that where there is a will there is a way.

The myth that renewable (i.e. green) sources cannot meet the demand is probbly more true in motor vehicles. It is in this big sector that fossil fuels still dominate. However, if more electricity is generated from renewable sources, then consumers will slowly switch to electrical vehicles for daily transport while slowly phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles.

We should also note that the USA consumes a lot more electricity per person than many other countries. Renewable sources do have a difficult time meeting the high demand in the USA. Renewable energy will become the dominant form of energy production as oil becomes more expensive and North Americans begin to rethink their energy consumption habits.

China is another country that has a hard time adopting renewable energy. The fast rate of economic expansion has meant that demand for electricity is far in excess of the supply. To meet that demand China uses their main natural resource, coal, and imports vast quantities of oil from neighboring Kazakhstan and Russia.

What we can learn from this is that the situation is complex. The viability of green energy sources is affected by population distribution, weather patterns, geological patterns, geography, water availability, economic growth, etc. Under some circumstances green energy has worked very well. In other cases fossil fuels can meet the demand.

I suppose it is a matter of willingness to change and willingness to invest. One thing is certain. Whether global warming is true factor or not, we should make every effort to reduce pollution.

Artful Dodger:

> The reason is sounds like a hoax is because it is a hoax.

OK, let's say that global warming is a hoax. Does that mean that it is ok to continue to release carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the way we are doing now? Is it OK to continue to increase gas emissions from fossil fuels? It is a hoax, does that mean it is OK to continue polluting?

Artful Dodger:

> green energy can't produce anything without some sort of pollution for one.

Every industrial activity pollutes. The question is, what pollutes more or less? Green energy also generates pollution and waste. But does it produce more than fossil fuels? What is more desirable more or less pollution?

> And for two, there isn't ANY efficient green energy that can supply energy needs to huge populations. Period.

Can green energy outdo fossil fuels? It depends on environmental factors. In cold, long, dark winters it can't. In sunny, warm and temperate climates solar energy is viable. In other places wind turbines might be more appropriate, as could harnessing energy from tides, volcanoes, crops that produce ethanol or methanol.

The problem we face is that the fossil fuel industry wants no competition. They want to retain their energy monopoly. People who promote green energy are not blind or dumb. The objective is not to destroy the oil industry. The objective is to reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed to a sustainable level, rather than continue to increase the atmospheric concentration of pollutants. The public perception has shifted. People now want to see changes in the way we generate energy. "Drill, drill, drill" might have found resonance several years ago. Now people wonder "Drill and pollute what?"

In the future all this pollution will cause problems of agricultural production and human health. Trying to save plant and animal species is important. However, the real problem is going to be drier top soil, drought, desert expansion, and reduced grain production. That is the human impact of global warming. Like I said, 1 degree Celcius means 5 to 8% increase in the rate of water evaporation from the soil. The middle class will simply pay more for food. The poor will starve because they won't be able to afford it. We are not the ones who will pay the price. It is young people 50 years from now who will suffer and have to deal with the mess we leave behind. I certainly don't want my grandchildren to live in a wolrd like that.

Artful Dodger:

> Conservatives give of their own money.

Is that so? When Ronald Regan caused the largest percent increase in the deficit and the national debt, was he giving away "conservative money" or "liberal money"? What about Bush? When he bankrupted the American economy, did he give away "conservative money"? Get real, for all their talk, right wingers have caused the largest increases in the deficit and the national debt. Their "tax breaks" did not save the economy, they just sank it into a deeper hole.

> Liberals want to take money from others and distribute it. That is what most liberals mean by heart.

Yes, it is terrible to tax the rich and give to the poor. I mean, it is horrible to help poor people. We should just let them all starve to death. Then when they are poor and desperate we can have a revolution and let the communists take over. For all of their talk, right-wingers are incapable of admitting that without social programs that "redistribute wealth" we would have massive social unrest. If anything, all those social programs arose in order to stop communism from continuing to expand and gain support among the poor.

> Look at the Geek. He's so happy to vilify the big oil companies. Are those of you on the left so foolish to really believe that there isn't billions to be made on green energy as well? Even while the promises of going green are bigger than the reality, those in the green business are just as bad, if not worse, than those in the big oil companies. Only a completely gullible person would think a green CEO isn't in it for the money.

Like I said, who deserves my hard-earned cash, a polluter or a cleaner. You tell me. Do you truly believe that a company that encourages pollution (like Exxon has done by giving money to anti-climate change "experts") deserves your hard-earned dollars?

Yes, "Green CEOs" are in it for the money. This is supposed to be capitalism, or should the state openly work for the benefit of oil companies like the Bush admnistration did? Oh, just to remind myself, what does Arbusto Energy mean, who worked for Haliburton, who worked for Chevron? Should the state favor companies that pollute more or companies that pollute less?

Artful Dodger:

> you are so naive. Who do you think is driving the green energy? Non profits?

Let me see ... Who should profit from my hard-earned money? A company that pollutes more or one that pollutes less? I guess giving my money to oil companies that pollute more is OK. At least that is what right-wingers seem to think. If a solar-power company makes a profit it must be really bad compared to how many billions fossil fuel companies make.

Yes, i am naive for thinking that if the world is capitalist, those companies that want to clean it up should make a profit in preference to those that want to pollute it more. But then, Exxon never gave money to your anti-climate change experts.

People don't get the problem with global warming. It is not floods, or tornadoes, or temperture extremes, or melting of ice caps, or sea levels. All of that is important, but not the key. The real problem is one of the vapor pressure of water. Near room temperature (25 degrees celcius) an increase of 1 degree leads to an increase of 5 to 8% in the vapor pressure of water. That means that water evaporates at a rate 5 to 8% higher just by increasing the temperature 1 degree Celcius. If the entire atmosphere of the planet increases in temperature by 1 degree Celcius, then evaporation of water from the top soil will increase by 5 to 8%. That means that the soil will become drier than it already is. That spells a catasprophe in agricultural terms because some of the most fertile areas of the Earth (the Prairies) will yield a lot less grain if soil humidity decreases. This will lead to a terrible shortage of grain worldwide. As it is, grain prices are already at an all time high. A furthe increase will leave hundreds of million of people hungry. We will see famine on a scale that has not been seen since the 19th century. That is the real problem with global warming, the spectre of famine. Sea levels and ice caps are nice to worry about, but nobody seems to worry much about the poor of the world who will go hungry if something is not done. The problem is that those who speak of global warming do it from their own comfortable middle calss stance, and those oil, gas and coal companies that oppose global warming do it thinking only of their profit without caring about the fate of the poor. Nobody wants to talk about this because in our capitalist world thinking of the poor goes against individualistic, selfish profits for individuals.

hahahaha...

http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

Artful Dodger:

> It's not worth ruining our economy over something that isn't necessary.

Is it your economy or Exxon's economy? Who benefits from oil consumption and who makes the profit?

Of course, those who do not believe that CO2 is bad could explain to people whether smog in cities is bad or not. After all, all that smog is coming from motor vehicles, factory exhausts, HVAC systems, etc. I wonder if those who think that global warming is a joke would agree that living in polluted cities is good. Well, it is easier to say that global warming is a hoax than to accept that reducing energy consumption and waste is necessary. I wonder if those who are trying to debunk global warming ever got money from oil companies.

"One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations.
In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming."

What a coincidence what Exxon (the biggest cotributor to the Bush election campaigns, and biggest profiteer in Iraq) wqould fork out money to oppose global warming.

Yes we laugh at such paranoia.

Iamon lyme: Are you sure.... I understand that water vapour (actual percentage between 36% and 85%) lasts just for a few days, while CO2 can go for centuries.

Maybe people need to check more the validity of those they read saying nay to our impact on this world. So many big businesses are just interested in the next few years of profit and not the long term effect on our planet and our descendants.

Oh well. money is more important than the planet, it's just one planet in billions.

After we fix the CO2 crises, then we can take on the other gases. Water vapor alone accounts for about 95% of all (that's right, all) designated gasses attributed to causing the greenhouse effect (hence the name "greenhouse"), but I think maybe we should leave that one alone. However, it shouldn't take long to reduce the remaining trace gasses that have been giving so many ppl here the vapors.. pun intended.

Blimey.... people that think our Planet can't be upset by our existence. Maybe they should remember Castle Bravo and the Bikini islands.

Oh.. The islands have been deemed uninhabitable due to radiation poisoning. Maybe the radiation dosage was a little high.

I mean... a few extra billion tons of CO2 or other chemicals (agent Orange for one) have no effect on us at all...... N' if you believe that then you might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

Artful Dodger: Anytime I think ol' ma earth is actually speaking to me, I know it's probably time to up the dosage.. (I post, therefore I am on lyme)

Artful Dodger: We shouldn't pick on Mom like this. She's had a tough life. Earth is basically just a rock with stuff growing on it, but don't tell Ma earth that.. she's kinda gettin up there in years, and don't always know whats a going on.

Artful Dodger: Well, I post therefore I have nothing better to do. Except to come here and have ppl explain to me that pop rocks aren't really rocks, or that popcorn brain has nothing to do with corn. Did I say corn or.. yeah, I did say corn. (whew!)

Artful Dodger: Look, I'm sorry mother earth is going through global menapause right now, but I have my own problems to deal with.

Tuesday:

> What were the political charges against Jesus?

According to the Gospel of Matthew, when jesus was born, Herod the Great set out to kill every infant in Bethlehem. The Massacre of the Innocents occurred because the Magi announced that a new king of the Jews had been born. Herod wanted to kill the infant so as to protect his throne from an usurper. This is the first attempted killing of Jesus on political accounts, since Herod saw the new king of the Jews as a political threat. It must be noted that biographers of Herod the Great deny the event took place since there are no records of it outside the gospel of Matthew.

When Jesus was captured, the Sanhedrin (Council of the Jews) accuse him, find him guilty and sentence him to death because Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God. Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate for trial. Pontius Pilate sends him to Herod Antipas (son of Herod the Great) because Jesus fell under Herod's jurisdiction. Herod Antipas mocks Jesus for not wanting to perform miracles for him, and sends Jesus back to Pilate. Pontius Pilate found Jesus innocent of any crime under Roman Law. However, the mob demands the release of Barabbas (a rioter, revolutionary and criminal) instead of Jesus. Politically, Barabbas opposed the Roman occupation, so to the crowd he would have been a favorite. The killing of Jesus was orchestrated by Caiphas, a Roman-appointed Jewish high priest.

What would be the political reasons for killing Jesus?
1. Pontius Pilate wanted to give the mob what it wanted instead of dealing with a rebellion caused by the incarceration of Barabbas.
2. Herod Antipas (like his father Herod the Great) would execute anyone claiming to be the King of the Jews. Otherwise the people could accept somebody else as king rather than himself.
3. Caiphas would execute anyone claiming to be the son of God because that would mean that there was somebody with a closer relationship to God than Caiphas had in his role as high priest.
4. The mob wanted a known rebel and rioter like Barabbas freed because he was more likely to oppose Roman domination than a pacifist like Jesus.

> Was anyone else crucified for claiming to be who he was?

The Gospels mention false prophets living during the time of Jesus. There were men performing feats of magic and claiming to be the Messiah. The Gospels do not indicate the fate of those men because the focus of the Gospels is on the life of Jesus. In all likelyhood, men like that would be incarcerated or killed for opposing the power of the Herods and the high priests. Jesus would not have been the only one to claim to be the Son of God or the Messiah. Of course, to Christians Jesus is the true Son of God and the Messiah, but to the Jews in Judea of 2000 years ago Jesus would have been one more heretic making grandiose claims.

It must be noted that neither the Massacre of the Innocents, nor the existence of Jesus Christ or Jesus Barabbas, or the practice of freeing prisoners during Passover are mentioned anywhere else outside the New Testament. Historically, none of the events can be proven by corroboration with historical records from that era.

As an aside: Coincidentally, Barabbas was actually called Jesus bar-Abbas. Jesus was a common name. The actual Hebrew is יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua), Jesus being the latinized version of the Hellenic transliteration of the name.

Artful Dodger: I'm sorry that one of my messages to uber didn't make it to the board. I already know he doesn't believe in God by the way he talks about it. I wanted to point out that if people speculated over which version of uber really matters or not, or even if it did matter that perhaps he really doesn't exist except in our imaginations, uber would know right away if any of that was true or not. We can't control what people say or believe about us, but we at least know who we really are and if we even exist or not.

Bernice: gidday Bernice.. btw interesting pic you have up there. If a woman looked at me like that it would scare the (something) out of me. lol

Tuesday: Aye.. I thought it very much a hollywooooood excursion. I've also watched "The Life of Brian", "Dogma", "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ", and many other serious and non serious spoofs on Christ and Christianity in film, on TV and in books. I suppose in the UK we tend to laugh more at ourselves and our relationship with religion then you guys in the USA.

Tuesday:

> The Jews didn't reject Jesus? He was beaten beyond looking human, and hung on a cross. It was mostly because they couldn't accept a poor man and one of their own as the Son of God.

That is a blanket statement. First, it was not every Jew that did this. Second, crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. Jews would most likely have practiced stoning to death. Third, from the point of view of the Jews of that era, Jesus was a heretic, someone who did not follow traditional Judaism.

Would the Jews accept Jesus as the Son of God? Some guy walks out of the street and tells you: "I am the true son of God". Would you believe him? You are thinking in terms of how modern Christians see Jesus. To the Jews of that era Jesus would not have been the only man to claim to be the Messiah or the son of God. Many religious zealots made that claim, just as today we have many preachers who claim to talk to God, or who claim to know when the Final Judgement will come, etc. Jesus was lost among all the false prophets and zealots. Of course, what would later become Christianity accepted him as the Son of God. However, people forget that Christianity did not exist when jesus was alive, and Jesus did not think of himself as the originator of a new religion. Jesus was first and foremost a Jew who preached a different message. The Bible says that he was executed wrongfully and cruelly. However, it is obvious that his execution was political. The mob wanted Barrabas released, and the Romans always gave the mob what it wanted in order to avoid strife and dissent within the empire. Jesus was executed not out of rejection of his teachings, but as an execution by an angry mob. He was paraded around to give the mob a spectacle as well as to terrify the mob into submission first to Rome and second to the power of the Pharisees.