Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685053 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-12 08:57 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 08:57 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:55 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-12 18:55 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:03 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 15:16 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:52 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 19:02 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 19:13 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:35 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 20:06 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 17:43 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 21:01 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:53 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:12 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 18:57 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-14 22:40 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:00 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 21:59 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 06:05 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-20 13:13 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-20 23:54 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-21 09:08 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:47 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-26 09:11 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:12 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-22 00:27 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-22 07:59 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:29 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:00 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:17 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:36 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 11:11 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-26 08:48 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-26 08:51 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 00:22 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 14:31 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 14:39 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 00:50 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 15:04 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:22 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:54 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:58 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-12 15:14 -0600
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:12 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:28 -0600
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:35 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 23:57 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 10:48 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:05 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:30 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:54 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:19 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 13:34 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:40 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 13:58 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 11:09 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:46 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 19:54 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:58 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:48 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 18:55 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:02 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-14 00:43 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 17:45 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:30 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 18:32 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:36 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-14 03:43 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:53 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:48 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 08:56 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:20 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:25 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 09:32 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:02 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:33 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:32 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 12:01 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 19:57 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:24 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 10:46 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:58 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:19 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:21 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:34 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:45 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:49 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:47 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 01:43 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 14:35 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:37 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:19 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 19:45 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 21:03 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 18:09 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 01:19 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 18:24 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:29 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 18:30 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 01:58 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 11:54 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 11:14 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:01 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:14 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 19:59 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:14 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:25 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:36 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:46 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:49 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:19 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 21:40 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 02:01 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 22:41 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 02:56 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 01:42 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 01:52 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:37 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:40 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 10:42 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:33 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:12 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:36 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:17 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:17 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 15:17 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 22:55 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 20:19 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:39 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:11 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:06 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:15 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 05:38 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:37 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:17 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:35 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:01 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:06 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:06 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 11:57 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 11:22 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:19 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:08 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:15 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:01 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 03:12 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:29 -0600
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:05 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:09 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 21:42 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 23:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <OprMC.187013$RM2.182449@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #686362 |
On 5/20/2018 1:13 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >>>>> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >>>>> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >>>>> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >>>>> to humans all over the world. >>>>> >>>>> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >>>>> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >>>>> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >>>> >>>> Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >>>> equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >>>> as well. Here's just one improvement: >>>> distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >>>> with multiple potential benefits: >>>> reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >>>> reduced danger of disruption of power grid >>>> by natural or human causes >>>> Local production sources meaning local jobs >>>> to build/maintain each source. >>>> (And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >>>> remaining fossils fuel sources.) >>>> >>>> So please just at least try to be objective. >>>> Ed >>> >>> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >>> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >>> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. >> >> And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? >> >> I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >> micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >>from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >> number of points of failure. > > Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance > personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it > less likely that there will be failures at the points of > vulnerability. > > The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of > experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of > the utility. > >> City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >> needed does not require isolating the plant far away. > > Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that > existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the > commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. > >>> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >>> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >>> >>> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. >> >> If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. > > The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they > were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the > 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming > horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there > are no horse droppings in the street. > >> But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >> I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >> current fossil fuel economy. >> >> We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >>from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >> fossil fuels run out. > > Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." > > Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are > indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has > an expiration date. > > The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." > > The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time > frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" > source ... or move to a different dimension. > > For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil > fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." > > If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current > scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a > "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. > >> Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >> it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >> human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >> 1 million year history of homo sapiens. >> >> For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >> Ed > > Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? > > By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better > way to power civilization. Absolutely true. But it's worse that that, because long before energy sources run out prices rise as the commodity gets scarcer. This will begin to put severe stresses on civilization long before wells run dry. > We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time > remaining. Which shows why the "Green" fraudsters are not only criminal thieves trying to rake in a trillion in taxes for no purpose but which they plan to waste by giving a lot of it away to the Third World. Their propaganda of wind and solar CANNOT, repeat CANNOT run civilization at the levels we are used to. Trying to do so will create enormous social upheavals and disasters. Going to a new dark age is hardly a solution. And the worst aspect is that with limited time the waste of additional funds while actual true environmental problems go unaddressed is criminal enough, but to then fight against extending our current resources like coal and nuclear by developments that make them safer and more compatible with our present civilization so that our grace period is shortened much further is an activity that deserves jail time. > Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a > good use of resources toward solving the problem. No not just simply "not a good use" but a looming disaster. One simply cannot schedule an invention. To listen to greens who thinks their fantasies are real is to doom us all. We have 300 years MAX to come up with some sort of PRACTICAL alternative power source that can produce energy AT THE LEVEL of fossil fuels. To try to undermine that effort which takes careful coordination and skills to succeed is simply a excellent attempt to win the Darwin Award for all of us. This is truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 09:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <81h5gdd4hfsmneo63qqqqfd9qt0cpbk1o6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686423 |
On Sun, 20 May 2018 23:54:14 -0400, benj wrote: >On 5/20/2018 1:13 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >>>>>> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >>>>>> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >>>>>> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >>>>>> to humans all over the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >>>>>> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >>>>>> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >>>>> equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >>>>> as well. Here's just one improvement: >>>>> distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >>>>> with multiple potential benefits: >>>>> reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >>>>> reduced danger of disruption of power grid >>>>> by natural or human causes >>>>> Local production sources meaning local jobs >>>>> to build/maintain each source. >>>>> (And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >>>>> remaining fossils fuel sources.) >>>>> >>>>> So please just at least try to be objective. >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >>>> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >>>> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. >>> >>> And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? >>> >>> I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >>> micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >>>from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >>> number of points of failure. >> >> Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance >> personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it >> less likely that there will be failures at the points of >> vulnerability. >> >> The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of >> experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of >> the utility. >> >>> City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >>> needed does not require isolating the plant far away. >> >> Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that >> existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the >> commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. >> >>>> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >>>> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >>>> >>>> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. >>> >>> If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. >> >> The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they >> were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the >> 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming >> horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there >> are no horse droppings in the street. >> >>> But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >>> I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >>> current fossil fuel economy. >>> >>> We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >>>from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >>> fossil fuels run out. >> >> Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." >> >> Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are >> indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has >> an expiration date. >> >> The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." >> >> The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time >> frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" >> source ... or move to a different dimension. >> >> For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil >> fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." >> >> If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current >> scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a >> "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. >> >>> Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >>> it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >>> human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >>> 1 million year history of homo sapiens. >>> >>> For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >>> Ed >> >> Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? >> >> By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better >> way to power civilization. > >Absolutely true. But it's worse that that, because long before energy >sources run out prices rise as the commodity gets scarcer. This will >begin to put severe stresses on civilization long before wells run dry. > >> We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time >> remaining. > >Which shows why the "Green" fraudsters are not only criminal thieves >trying to rake in a trillion in taxes for no purpose but which they plan >to waste by giving a lot of it away to the Third World. Their propaganda >of wind and solar CANNOT, repeat CANNOT run civilization at the levels >we are used to. Trying to do so will create enormous social upheavals >and disasters. Going to a new dark age is hardly a solution. And the >worst aspect is that with limited time the waste of additional funds >while actual true environmental problems go unaddressed is criminal >enough, but to then fight against extending our current resources like >coal and nuclear by developments that make them safer and more >compatible with our present civilization so that our grace period is >shortened much further is an activity that deserves jail time. > > >> Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a >> good use of resources toward solving the problem. > >No not just simply "not a good use" but a looming disaster. One simply >cannot schedule an invention. <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/855485-genius-doesn-t-work-on-an-assembly-line-basis-you-can-t> Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant." - Kirk "The Ultimate Computer" stardate 4731.3 > To listen to greens who thinks their >fantasies are real is to doom us all. We have 300 years MAX to come up >with some sort of PRACTICAL alternative power source that can produce >energy AT THE LEVEL of fossil fuels. To try to undermine that effort >which takes careful coordination and skills to succeed is simply a >excellent attempt to win the Darwin Award for all of us. > >This is truth. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e91c124b-1e68-4094-bdd7-f8fdf8df18f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686423 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 11:54:25 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 5/20/2018 1:13 PM, Wally W. wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: [] > >> Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, > >> it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded > >> human history and miniscule compared to the roughly > >> 1 million year history of homo sapiens. > >> > >> For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. > >> Ed > > > > Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? > > > > By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better > > way to power civilization. > > Absolutely true. But it's worse that that, because long before energy > sources run out prices rise as the commodity gets scarcer. This will > begin to put severe stresses on civilization long before wells run dry. Exactly. Thanks for the help benj. > > > We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time > > remaining. > > Which shows why the "Green" fraudsters are not only criminal thieves [rest of unsupported rant deleted] > > Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a > > good use of resources toward solving the problem. > > No not just simply "not a good use" but a looming disaster. One simply > cannot schedule an invention. thanks again benj. you are right, we do not have the time to wait for a magical fusion reactor to be invented. > To listen to greens who thinks their > fantasies are real is to doom us all. Political fodder for benj's followers. > We have 300 years MAX to come up > with some sort of PRACTICAL alternative power source that can produce > energy AT THE LEVEL of fossil fuels. To try to undermine that effort > which takes careful coordination and skills to succeed is simply a > excellent attempt to win the Darwin Award for all of us. > > This is truth. that's right benj. You've been a great help today. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 09:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmrjgrF9slpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686423 |
On 21/05/2018 1:54 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/20/2018 1:13 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to >>>>>> deliver >>>>>> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision >>>>>> course. >>>>>> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >>>>>> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology >>>>>> available >>>>>> to humans all over the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >>>>>> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. >>>>>> That >>>>>> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >>>>> equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >>>>> as well. Here's just one improvement: >>>>> distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >>>>> with multiple potential benefits: >>>>> reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >>>>> reduced danger of disruption of power grid >>>>> by natural or human causes >>>>> Local production sources meaning local jobs >>>>> to build/maintain each source. >>>>> (And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >>>>> remaining fossils fuel sources.) >>>>> >>>>> So please just at least try to be objective. >>>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >>>> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >>>> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. >>> >>> And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? >>> >>> I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >>> micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >>> from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >>> number of points of failure. >> >> Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance >> personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it >> less likely that there will be failures at the points of >> vulnerability. >> >> The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of >> experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of >> the utility. >> >>> City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >>> needed does not require isolating the plant far away. >> >> Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that >> existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the >> commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. >> >>>> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >>>> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >>>> >>>> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. >>> >>> If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. >> >> The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they >> were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the >> 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming >> horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there >> are no horse droppings in the street. >> >>> But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >>> I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >>> current fossil fuel economy. >>> >>> We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >>> from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >>> fossil fuels run out. >> >> Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." >> >> Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are >> indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has >> an expiration date. >> >> The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." >> >> The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time >> frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" >> source ... or move to a different dimension. >> >> For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil >> fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." >> >> If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current >> scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a >> "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. >> >>> Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >>> it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >>> human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >>> 1 million year history of homo sapiens. >>> >>> For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >>> Ed >> >> Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? >> >> By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better >> way to power civilization. > > Absolutely true. But it's worse that that, because long before energy > sources run out prices rise as the commodity gets scarcer. This will > begin to put severe stresses on civilization long before wells run dry. **Good. We agree that renewable energy is the answer. It's right there in the name: RENEWABLE energy. > >> We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time >> remaining. > > Which shows why the "Green" fraudsters are not only criminal thieves > trying to rake in a trillion in taxes for no purpose but which they plan > to waste by giving a lot of it away to the Third World. **The cost to the planet's GNP is estimated to run to more that TWELVE TRILLION Dollars, if temperatures are allowed to rise to 2.5 degrees C. A trillion spent today might be cheap insurance. What's worse, is that if we do nothing, the planet cannot EVER afford to deal with the problem. Spend a little now and we might be able to scrape through. Spend nothing and the cost will be so high that it is unaffordable. Their propaganda > of wind and solar CANNOT, repeat CANNOT run civilization at the levels > we are used to. **Absolute bullshit. FWIW: I did some back-of-the-napkin calculations for my own nation of Australia. A Solar/PV or Solar/thermal array occupying less than 3% of our land area (don't forget: 65% of Australia is classified as desert) could supply the entire planet's electricity requirements (at today's figures). Of course, there are other places, where land can be used for similar purpose. And, to prove the point, one of our states has managed to operate for several days on entirely renewable energy sources. Then, or course, we have the considerable advantages of geo-thermal energy, wind energy, tidal and all the others. A mix of technologies can deal with the problems of base-load requirements and redundancy issues. Trying to do so will create enormous social upheavals > and disasters. **Except it need not, nor is it doing so in places where renewables are a major energy source. Going to a new dark age is hardly a solution. **And constructing idiotic strawman arguments is no solution either. And the > worst aspect is that with limited time the waste of additional funds > while actual true environmental problems go unaddressed is criminal > enough, but to then fight against extending our current resources like > coal and nuclear by developments that make them safer and more > compatible with our present civilization so that our grace period is > shortened much further is an activity that deserves jail time. > > >> Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a >> good use of resources toward solving the problem. > > No not just simply "not a good use" but a looming disaster. **Here's where I get to say: PROVE IT. As usual, you will fail to provide a shred of evidence to back your claim. One simply > cannot schedule an invention. To listen to greens who thinks their > fantasies are real is to doom us all. We have 300 years MAX to come up > with some sort of PRACTICAL alternative power source that can produce > energy AT THE LEVEL of fossil fuels. **We already have them. Wind, tidal, geo-thermal, Solar PV Solar/thermal and the others alreadly in use and challenging the conventional paradigms. To try to undermine that effort > which takes careful coordination and skills to succeed is simply a > excellent attempt to win the Darwin Award for all of us. > > This is truth. **No. It's just the insane ramblings of someone who knows little about the topic. You need to do a LOT more reading. As does Wally, as his ideas are as whacky and idiotic as your own. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18facceb-6a8d-493b-b52a-4a7256fb51a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686362 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:13:26 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > > >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >> >On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> >> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver > >> >> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. > >> >> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the > >> >> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available > >> >> to humans all over the world. > >> >> > >> >> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make > >> >> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That > >> >> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. > >> > > >> >Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the > >> >equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits > >> >as well. Here's just one improvement: > >> > distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) > >> >with multiple potential benefits: > >> > reduced or eliminated transmission loses. > >> > reduced danger of disruption of power grid > >> > by natural or human causes > >> > Local production sources meaning local jobs > >> > to build/maintain each source. > >> >(And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last > >> >remaining fossils fuel sources.) > >> > > >> >So please just at least try to be objective. > >> >Ed > >> > >> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too > >> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division > >> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. > > > >And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? > > > >I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily > >micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost > >from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small > >number of points of failure. > > Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance > personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it > less likely that there will be failures at the points of > vulnerability. > > The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of > experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of > the utility. > > >City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure > >needed does not require isolating the plant far away. > > Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that > existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the > commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. > > >> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have > >> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. > >> > >> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. > > > >If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. > > The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they > were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the > 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming > horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there > are no horse droppings in the street. > > >But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. > >I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our > >current fossil fuel economy. > > > >We have to be able to produce at least the same total power > >from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the > >fossil fuels run out. > > Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." yes, I enjoy the duck tape motto: In the end all solutions are temporary. > > Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are > indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has > an expiration date. True, but do you really want to claim the exhaustion date of fossils fuels is any close to the order of magnitude of the expiration date of solar energy? Or is it you really only care about your expiration date and after that you don't care if every thing falls apart after that? > > The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." that one is still an open question. > > The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time > frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" > source ... or move to a different dimension. And you don't think solar power is "practically inexhaustible", but fossil fuels are? > > For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil > fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." The scale is somewhere between decades and a few centuries. But that is precisely where we disagree. You call that a "practically inexhaustible" source of energy. I contend that is whay too short a horizon. If we compare the remaining time for fossil fuels (50-300 years) to recorded human history (about 10,000 years), then we have at most 3% of recorded history left. making it more personable, using 40 years as a generation, fossil fuels will be exhausted 2-8 generations from now. IOW, if you have grandchildren born in the last 5 years or so, then your great grandchildren may be in that generation that no longer has fossil fuels. You really think that is a "practically inexhaustible" time frame?????????????????????????????????????????? > > If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current > scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a > "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. So what method do you think is available in a 50-300 year time frame that comes from ocean sources? > > > Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, > >it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded > >human history and miniscule compared to the roughly > >1 million year history of homo sapiens. > > > >For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. > >Ed > > Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? You argue against changing from fossil fuels in the near term. > > By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better > way to power civilization. yes and that is a SHORT time frame as I described. > > We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time > remaining. > > Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a > good use of resources toward solving the problem. And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. Your only suggestion is some magical energy from the oceans. You complain the solutions offered by others are not useful. Worse is you think insulting offered solutions is a useful argument in a scientific/technological discussion. And yet you offer only vague solutions of your own. Your position may be popular with some people, but I find your position useless. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sr37gdll37805qv1c9jd6v8ormcgbstooa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686475 |
On Mon, 21 May 2018 06:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:13:26 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> >> >> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >> >> >> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >> >> >> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >> >> >> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >> >> >> to humans all over the world. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >> >> >> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >> >> >> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >> >> > >> >> >Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >> >> >equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >> >> >as well. Here's just one improvement: >> >> > distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >> >> >with multiple potential benefits: >> >> > reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >> >> > reduced danger of disruption of power grid >> >> > by natural or human causes >> >> > Local production sources meaning local jobs >> >> > to build/maintain each source. >> >> >(And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >> >> >remaining fossils fuel sources.) >> >> > >> >> >So please just at least try to be objective. >> >> >Ed >> >> >> >> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >> >> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >> >> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. >> > >> >And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? >> > >> >I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >> >micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >> >from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >> >number of points of failure. >> >> Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance >> personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it >> less likely that there will be failures at the points of >> vulnerability. >> >> The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of >> experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of >> the utility. >> >> >City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >> >needed does not require isolating the plant far away. >> >> Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that >> existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the >> commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. >> >> >> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >> >> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >> >> >> >> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. >> > >> >If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. >> >> The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they >> were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the >> 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming >> horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there >> are no horse droppings in the street. >> >> >But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >> >I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >> >current fossil fuel economy. >> > >> >We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >> >from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >> >fossil fuels run out. >> >> Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." > >yes, I enjoy the duck tape motto: >In the end all solutions are temporary. >> >> Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are >> indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has >> an expiration date. > >True, but do you really want to claim the exhaustion date >of fossils fuels is any close to the order of magnitude >of the expiration date of solar energy? I didn't. Just being clear that "renewable" energy sources are not. >Or is it you really only care about your expiration date and >after that you don't care if every thing falls apart after that? Am I going to be here in the 300-year time frame I used at your suggestion? >> The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." > >that one is still an open question. Fine. Let us know if it doesn't happen. >> The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time >> frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" >> source ... or move to a different dimension. > >And you don't think solar power is "practically inexhaustible", It is not. There is finite area to place collectors. Finite material from which to make collectors. And massive maintenance effort to keep solar panels on every rooftop functioning (through their inverters and their batteries-that-will-need-replacing). >but fossil fuels are? Over the next 50 to 300 years, as I qualified it: yes. >> For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil >> fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." > >The scale is somewhere between decades and a few centuries. >But that is precisely where we disagree. You call that a >"practically inexhaustible" source of energy. I contend that >is whay too short a horizon. If we compare the remaining >time for fossil fuels (50-300 years) to recorded human history >(about 10,000 years), then we have at most 3% of recorded history >left. That misses the point. We have something we can use now. We can continue using it for some finite time while we leverage our resources into new energy sources -- probably nuclear (hopefully fusion), *not* windmills. >making it more personable, using 40 years as a generation, >fossil fuels will be exhausted 2-8 generations from now. >IOW, if you have grandchildren born in the last 5 years >or so, then your great grandchildren may be in that >generation that no longer has fossil fuels. There is going to be *some* generation that no longer has fossil fuels at the relative price we have them now. They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," as the promise of fusion foretold. If they are left only with broken windmills, they will curse the stupidity of earlier generations. >You really think that is a "practically inexhaustible" >time frame?????????????????????????????????????????? That is a nonsense objection. Almost certainly, fossil fuels will be inexhaustible (meaning demand will not exceed supply) within the next 24 hours. Also likely to be true for the next week, the next month, and the next year. There is *some* time frame during which fossil fuels will be "practically inexhaustible" ... meaning we will have enough without wasting resources on greenie brain farts. >> If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current >> scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a >> "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. > >So what method do you think is available in a 50-300 year >time frame that comes from ocean sources? What part of "fusion" did you miss above? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/ Mar 23, 2016 ... In the U.S., fusion research receives less than $600 million in funding a year I didn't read the entire blog, I picked the quote above for the dollar amount. You might try to make hay with other parts, as you have before of the form "didn't you read your own link??!" Contrast with: https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/ Paraphrasing on part: FY 2014 spending on "climate science" was 2.66 billion. IOW: more than four times the spending on looking for a *real* solution to both CO2 emissions and the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Fusion is something we can envision now. There may be other possibilities waiting to be discovered. The rate of growth in scientific discoveries and technological innovation has been unprecedented in recent decades. Greenies would stand on the brakes and bring it all to a screeching halt by demanding funding for their brain farts. >> > Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >> >it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >> >human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >> >1 million year history of homo sapiens. Again, missing the mark. We have to do *something* /before/ the wells run dry. And that "something" needs to be better than windmills. And it needs the money that is being wasted on windmills. >> >For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >> >Ed >> >> Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? > >You argue against changing from fossil fuels in the near term. I argue against not leveraging what we already know how to use. >> By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better >> way to power civilization. > >yes and that is a SHORT time frame as I described. So we better get cracking and search for a solution with wisdom, not wishful thinking. Attempting to power 21st century civilization with 17th century technology is worse than wishful thinking, it is stupid. >> We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time >> remaining. >> >> Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a >> good use of resources toward solving the problem. > >And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. I advocate no delay. I advocate abandoning greenie brain farts in favor of spending real money on real solutions to real problems. >Your only suggestion is some magical energy from the oceans. My suggestion is to not piss money down ratholes. We knew how to make fusion happen more than 60 years ago: "The first hydrogen bomb the United States ever tested in the Marshall Islands in 1952, called Ivy Mike, had the force of 10 million tons of TNT (or 10 megatons)." Its energy wasn't released in a way that was harnessed for electric power generation. Fusion power is not magic. With the right engineering developments, it can become a reality. >You complain the solutions offered by others are not useful. >Worse is you think insulting offered solutions is a useful >argument in a scientific/technological discussion. >And yet you offer only vague solutions of your own. Well, that's because they haven't been invented yet. And they *won't* be invented unless we spend money toward finding those solutions that haven't been invented yet. >Your position may be popular with some people, >but I find your position useless. Your position has accomplished *what* to date? I find supporting the greenie FUD machine to be worse than useless, it is actively harmful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 07:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0918gdplngvfnuh7ipb6c4prsk0ds9pd3r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686602 |
On Tue, 22 May 2018 00:27:53 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >On Mon, 21 May 2018 06:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. > >I advocate no delay. > >I advocate abandoning greenie brain farts in favor of spending real >money on real solutions to real problems. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive> Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even need solar and wind?” “Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.” ... "Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of solar and wind to the grid requires."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c7e2b41-a014-4370-a1f4-15906371b425@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686621 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2018 00:27:53 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > > >On Mon, 21 May 2018 06:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >>And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. > > > >I advocate no delay. > > > >I advocate abandoning greenie brain farts in favor of spending real > >money on real solutions to real problems. > > <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive> > Around 2013, a friend asked me, “If we have nuclear, do we really even > need solar and wind?” > > “Of course not,” I replied. “But you can’t say that publicly.” > ... > "Humankind has never transitioned to energy sources that are more > costly, less reliable, and have a larger environmental footprint than > the incumbent — and yet that’s precisely what adding large amounts of > solar and wind to the grid requires." Hey, any references to how France solved the waste problem? Fusion is doable, and was slowly making a comeback until the Fukushima disaster. Fission power plants can be made safe, but it will take some strong leadership to do it. Sadly our country has decided not to elect such leadership. (You see, we can agree on some things.) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 11:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmjsq8Fs7euU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686602 |
On 22/05/2018 2:27 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018 06:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:13:26 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >>>>>>> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >>>>>>> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >>>>>>> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >>>>>>> to humans all over the world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >>>>>>> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >>>>>>> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >>>>>> equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >>>>>> as well. Here's just one improvement: >>>>>> distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >>>>>> with multiple potential benefits: >>>>>> reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >>>>>> reduced danger of disruption of power grid >>>>>> by natural or human causes >>>>>> Local production sources meaning local jobs >>>>>> to build/maintain each source. >>>>>> (And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >>>>>> remaining fossils fuel sources.) >>>>>> >>>>>> So please just at least try to be objective. >>>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >>>>> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >>>>> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. >>>> >>>> And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? >>>> >>>> I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >>>> micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >>> >from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >>>> number of points of failure. >>> >>> Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance >>> personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it >>> less likely that there will be failures at the points of >>> vulnerability. >>> >>> The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of >>> experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of >>> the utility. >>> >>>> City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >>>> needed does not require isolating the plant far away. >>> >>> Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that >>> existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the >>> commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. >>> >>>>> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >>>>> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >>>>> >>>>> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. >>>> >>>> If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. >>> >>> The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they >>> were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the >>> 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming >>> horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there >>> are no horse droppings in the street. >>> >>>> But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >>>> I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >>>> current fossil fuel economy. >>>> >>>> We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >>> >from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >>>> fossil fuels run out. >>> >>> Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." >> >> yes, I enjoy the duck tape motto: >> In the end all solutions are temporary. >>> >>> Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are >>> indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has >>> an expiration date. >> >> True, but do you really want to claim the exhaustion date >> of fossils fuels is any close to the order of magnitude >> of the expiration date of solar energy? > > I didn't. > > Just being clear that "renewable" energy sources are not. > >> Or is it you really only care about your expiration date and >> after that you don't care if every thing falls apart after that? > > Am I going to be here in the 300-year time frame I used at your > suggestion? > >>> The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." >> >> that one is still an open question. > > Fine. Let us know if it doesn't happen. > >>> The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time >>> frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" >>> source ... or move to a different dimension. >> >> And you don't think solar power is "practically inexhaustible", > > It is not. There is finite area to place collectors. Finite material > from which to make collectors. And massive maintenance effort to keep > solar panels on every rooftop functioning (through their inverters and > their batteries-that-will-need-replacing). **There are a great many different renewable energy sources, other than Solar PV. All will be required to allow us to divorce from fossil fuel sources. Until someone figures out how to make fusion a reality of course. > >> but fossil fuels are? > > Over the next 50 to 300 years, as I qualified it: yes. **Problem is that continued use of fossil fuels is causing huge amounts of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, which is, in turn, leading to dangerous rises in planetary temperatures. So, there is no medium term future for fossil fuels. Short term, yes. Long term, no. > > >>> For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil >>> fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." >> >> The scale is somewhere between decades and a few centuries. >> But that is precisely where we disagree. You call that a >> "practically inexhaustible" source of energy. I contend that >> is whay too short a horizon. If we compare the remaining >> time for fossil fuels (50-300 years) to recorded human history >> (about 10,000 years), then we have at most 3% of recorded history >> left. > > That misses the point. We have something we can use now. We can > continue using it for some finite time while we leverage our resources > into new energy sources -- probably nuclear (hopefully fusion), *not* > windmills. **Yes, we have something we can use right now. That something promises to do HUGE damage to our civilisation: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-3.html > >> making it more personable, using 40 years as a generation, >> fossil fuels will be exhausted 2-8 generations from now. >> IOW, if you have grandchildren born in the last 5 years >> or so, then your great grandchildren may be in that >> generation that no longer has fossil fuels. > > There is going to be *some* generation that no longer has fossil fuels > at the relative price we have them now. > > They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," > as the promise of fusion foretold. **Actually, that quote was from the FISSION industry, NOT the fusion industry. Since no one has managed to make a controllable, useful fusion reactor yet, no one can estimate the cost of the energy produced. > > If they are left only with broken windmills, they will curse the > stupidity of earlier generations. **Wind turbines have a life-span of between 20 ~ 25 years. Pretty similar to Solar PV panels. Coal fired power stations have a life-span of around 50 years. So, what do we do? How about we just replace the broken wind turbines and Solar PV panels? Just a thought. After all, we replace coal fired power stations and nukes, when they start to fall apart. Nothing lasts forever. > >> You really think that is a "practically inexhaustible" >> time frame?????????????????????????????????????????? > > That is a nonsense objection. > > Almost certainly, fossil fuels will be inexhaustible (meaning demand > will not exceed supply) within the next 24 hours. Also likely to be > true for the next week, the next month, and the next year. > > There is *some* time frame during which fossil fuels will be > "practically inexhaustible" ... meaning we will have enough without > wasting resources on greenie brain farts. > >>> If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current >>> scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a >>> "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. >> >> So what method do you think is available in a 50-300 year >> time frame that comes from ocean sources? > > What part of "fusion" did you miss above? **When I was 20 years old (in 1963) my favourite auntie gave me a book on the latest scientific discoveries and inventions. In between the pages devoted to the Concorde, lasers burning holes through razor blades, et al, there was a long article devoted to nuclear fusion reactors. Magnetic 'bottle' containment was all the rage back then, but the final part of the article contained words to the effect of this: "Practical nuclear fusion reactors are thought to be around 20 years away." In the 1980s, it was thought that practical nuclear fusion reactors were around 20 years away. It is now 2018 and practical nuclear fusion reactors are STILL 20 years away. Practical nuclear fusion reactors may never be developed. Ever since that time in 1963, when I read that book (which still sits on one of my book shelves), I have been a huge devotee to fusion reactors. It is clearly the way to go. However, we don't yet have any. What we do have is a fusion reactor 150 million km away. It's free energy, which can be captured and used with technology we have today. Let's keep finding ways of making fusion practical, but let's also deal with the very real problems associated with burning fossil fuels. > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/ > Mar 23, 2016 ... In the U.S., fusion research receives less than $600 > million in funding a year > > I didn't read the entire blog, I picked the quote above for the dollar > amount. You might try to make hay with other parts, as you have before > of the form "didn't you read your own link??!" > > Contrast with: > > https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/ > Paraphrasing on part: FY 2014 spending on "climate science" was 2.66 > billion. > > IOW: more than four times the spending on looking for a *real* > solution to both CO2 emissions and the exhaustion of fossil fuels. > > Fusion is something we can envision now. **Sure, we can envision it, but we can't make it work. Yet. > > There may be other possibilities waiting to be discovered. The rate of > growth in scientific discoveries and technological innovation has been > unprecedented in recent decades. Greenies would stand on the brakes > and bring it all to a screeching halt by demanding funding for their > brain farts. **What a load of bullshit. The facts are simple enough: Green technologies are rapidly falling in cost and increasing in reliability. I don't see the problem. > >>>> Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >>>> it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >>>> human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >>>> 1 million year history of homo sapiens. > > Again, missing the mark. > > We have to do *something* /before/ the wells run dry. And that > "something" needs to be better than windmills. And it needs the money > that is being wasted on windmills. **Why do you think that money is being "wasted on widmills"? Be precise in your answer. Also, I presume you are aware that there are a raft of other, low/zero emission technologies available? > >>>> For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >>>> Ed >>> >>> Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? >> >> You argue against changing from fossil fuels in the near term. > > I argue against not leveraging what we already know how to use. **And what about the measurable effects on our climate? > > >>> By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better >>> way to power civilization. >> >> yes and that is a SHORT time frame as I described. > > So we better get cracking and search for a solution with wisdom, not > wishful thinking. **We have a solution: It's 150 million km away and should provide useful energy for another few billion years. > > Attempting to power 21st century civilization with 17th century > technology is worse than wishful thinking, it is stupid. **Who is using 17th century technology? Are you suggesting that Solar PV was available 500 years ago? That 17th century wind turbines were able to generate upwards of 8MW each? > >>> We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time >>> remaining. >>> >>> Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a >>> good use of resources toward solving the problem. >> >> And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. > > I advocate no delay. > > I advocate abandoning greenie brain farts in favor of spending real > money on real solutions to real problems. **Then you should be advocating spending money of REDUCING CO2 emissions, as CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change. > >> Your only suggestion is some magical energy from the oceans. > > My suggestion is to not piss money down ratholes. > > We knew how to make fusion happen more than 60 years ago: "The first > hydrogen bomb the United States ever tested in the Marshall Islands in > 1952, called Ivy Mike, had the force of 10 million tons of TNT (or 10 > megatons)." > > Its energy wasn't released in a way that was harnessed for electric > power generation. > > Fusion power is not magic. With the right engineering developments, it > can become a reality. **Sure, it's only 20 years away. It's always been 20 years away. > >> You complain the solutions offered by others are not useful. >> Worse is you think insulting offered solutions is a useful >> argument in a scientific/technological discussion. >> And yet you offer only vague solutions of your own. > > Well, that's because they haven't been invented yet. **Who is to say that any such things will be invented? > > And they *won't* be invented unless we spend money toward finding > those solutions that haven't been invented yet. **And that is what is happening right now. Solar PV has been rising in efficiency and falling in cost, quite rapidly: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf FWIW: My back-of-the-napkin calculations tells me that in my nation (Australia) if around 3% of our total land mass was dedicated to Solar PV (or Solar/thermal) power generation, that we could supply the entire planet's electricity needs, based on today's needs. 35% of Australia receives so little rainfall, that it is classified as desert and is of little use for agriculture. > >> Your position may be popular with some people, >> but I find your position useless. > > Your position has accomplished *what* to date? > > I find supporting the greenie FUD machine to be worse than useless, it > is actively harmful. **I KNOW that those who ignore the serious threat posed by global warming are seriously deluded. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 11:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmjtooFsdckU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686710 |
On 23/05/2018 11:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > **When I was 20 years old (in 1963) **Oops: Should read: "When I was 10 years old (in 1963)...." -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 06:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83c2c0a3-d442-4c36-808d-076c80f107c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686713 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:17:16 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 23/05/2018 11:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > > > **When I was 20 years old (in 1963) > > **Oops: > > Should read: "When I was 10 years old (in 1963)...." > > > -- > Trevor Wilson > www.rageaudio.com.au You and I are close to the same age and have been waiting pretty much our whole lives for practical fusion power. Sadly I do'nt expect to live to see it as a reality. 8^( ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qIVNC.209900$Hv4.132154@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #687034 |
On 5/25/2018 9:36 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:17:16 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 23/05/2018 11:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> >>> **When I was 20 years old (in 1963) >> >> **Oops: >> >> Should read: "When I was 10 years old (in 1963)...." >> >> >> -- >> Trevor Wilson >> www.rageaudio.com.au > > You and I are close to the same age and have been waiting > pretty much our whole lives for practical fusion power. > > Sadly I do'nt expect to live to see it as a reality. 8^( > ed > Well nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! The truth of the matter is simple. No matter how you libs think that your fantasies control reality, one can not simply "schedule" an invention. You can fantasize that something will be invented tomorrow, but truth is it might be invented tomorrow or it might not appear for 100 years. Those are facts of life, dude. This is why wasting time and money on untenable fantasies is such a self-destructive course of action. The stupid greens and their solar and windmills are as bad as the oil crew who think that one can just go on discovering more and more new oil fields to pump forever. Both views lead back to a new dark age with ox carts. (Note that oxen are powered by grass which is renewable energy!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 08:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmri69F9jlgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #687043 |
On 26/05/2018 1:11 AM, benj wrote: > On 5/25/2018 9:36 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:17:16 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 23/05/2018 11:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> **When I was 20 years old (in 1963) >>> >>> **Oops: >>> >>> Should read: "When I was 10 years old (in 1963)...." >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Trevor Wilson >>> www.rageaudio.com.au >> >> You and I are close to the same age and have been waiting >> pretty much our whole lives for practical fusion power. >> >> Sadly I do'nt expect to live to see it as a reality. 8^( >> ed >> > Well nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! > > The truth of the matter is simple. No matter how you libs think that > your fantasies control reality, one can not simply "schedule" an > invention. You can fantasize that something will be invented tomorrow, > but truth is it might be invented tomorrow or it might not appear for > 100 years. Those are facts of life, dude. This is why wasting time and > money on untenable fantasies is such a self-destructive course of > action. The stupid greens and their solar and windmills are as bad as > the oil crew who think that one can just go on discovering more and more > new oil fields to pump forever. Both views lead back to a new dark age > with ox carts. (Note that oxen are powered by grass which is renewable > energy!) **Did you bother attempting to understand the context of this part of the discussion? Thought not. Try reading, BEFORE you make an idiot of yourself. You just disagreed with one of your heroes (wally) and agreed with me and Edward. YIKES! -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 08:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmrichF9milU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #687034 |
On 25/05/2018 11:36 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 9:17:16 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 23/05/2018 11:00 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>> >>> **When I was 20 years old (in 1963) >> >> **Oops: >> >> Should read: "When I was 10 years old (in 1963)...." >> >> >> -- >> Trevor Wilson >> www.rageaudio.com.au > > You and I are close to the same age and have been waiting > pretty much our whole lives for practical fusion power. > > Sadly I do'nt expect to live to see it as a reality. 8^( > ed > **It'll be touch and go. Meanwhile, Solar PV, Solar/thermal, wind and all the others are getting cheaper and more reliable. I have no doubt that Fusion power will be a reality (provided that idiot Trump doesn't start a war that few can survive), but the costs are, as yet, unknowable. So far, they are quite substantial. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 00:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sjq9gdhten4mer9pi5gilq2vhkrn7rprrp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686710 |
On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:00:47 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," >> as the promise of fusion foretold. > >**Actually, that quote was from the FISSION industry, NOT the fusion >industry. Since no one has managed to make a controllable, useful fusion >reactor yet, no one can estimate the cost of the energy produced. Mr. Brilliant chimes in with more of his certainty. Yawn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter It is often assumed that Strauss' prediction was a reference to conventional uranium fission nuclear reactors. Indeed, only ten days prior to his “Too Cheap To Meter” speech, Strauss was present for the groundbreaking of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station where he predicted that, "industry would have electrical power from atomic furnaces in five to fifteen years." However, Strauss was possibly referring to hydrogen fusion power and Project Sherwood, which was conducting secret research on developing practical fusion power plants. So, like many other things you seem certain about, we don't know for a fact whether he was talking about fission. Go be evasive with Scout. He seems to have some patience with you. >**I KNOW that those who ignore the serious threat posed by global >warming are seriously deluded. Oh, good ... something else the evasive Mr. Brilliant **knows**. Sigh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 14:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmk964F4ovU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686729 |
On 22/05/2018 2:27 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018 06:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:13:26 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >>>>>>> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >>>>>>> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >>>>>>> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >>>>>>> to humans all over the world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >>>>>>> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >>>>>>> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >>>>>> equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >>>>>> as well. Here's just one improvement: >>>>>> distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >>>>>> with multiple potential benefits: >>>>>> reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >>>>>> reduced danger of disruption of power grid >>>>>> by natural or human causes >>>>>> Local production sources meaning local jobs >>>>>> to build/maintain each source. >>>>>> (And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >>>>>> remaining fossils fuel sources.) >>>>>> >>>>>> So please just at least try to be objective. >>>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >>>>> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >>>>> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. >>>> >>>> And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? >>>> >>>> I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >>>> micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >>> >from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >>>> number of points of failure. >>> >>> Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance >>> personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it >>> less likely that there will be failures at the points of >>> vulnerability. >>> >>> The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of >>> experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of >>> the utility. >>> >>>> City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >>>> needed does not require isolating the plant far away. >>> >>> Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that >>> existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the >>> commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. >>> >>>>> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >>>>> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >>>>> >>>>> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. >>>> >>>> If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. >>> >>> The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they >>> were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the >>> 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming >>> horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there >>> are no horse droppings in the street. >>> >>>> But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >>>> I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >>>> current fossil fuel economy. >>>> >>>> We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >>> >from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >>>> fossil fuels run out. >>> >>> Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." >> >> yes, I enjoy the duck tape motto: >> In the end all solutions are temporary. >>> >>> Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are >>> indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has >>> an expiration date. >> >> True, but do you really want to claim the exhaustion date >> of fossils fuels is any close to the order of magnitude >> of the expiration date of solar energy? > > I didn't. > > Just being clear that "renewable" energy sources are not. > >> Or is it you really only care about your expiration date and >> after that you don't care if every thing falls apart after that? > > Am I going to be here in the 300-year time frame I used at your > suggestion? > >>> The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." >> >> that one is still an open question. > > Fine. Let us know if it doesn't happen. > >>> The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time >>> frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" >>> source ... or move to a different dimension. >> >> And you don't think solar power is "practically inexhaustible", > > It is not. There is finite area to place collectors. Finite material > from which to make collectors. And massive maintenance effort to keep > solar panels on every rooftop functioning (through their inverters and > their batteries-that-will-need-replacing). **There are a great many different renewable energy sources, other than Solar PV. All will be required to allow us to divorce from fossil fuel sources. Until someone figures out how to make fusion a reality of course. > >> but fossil fuels are? > > Over the next 50 to 300 years, as I qualified it: yes. **Problem is that continued use of fossil fuels is causing huge amounts of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, which is, in turn, leading to dangerous rises in planetary temperatures. So, there is no medium term future for fossil fuels. Short term, yes. Long term, no. > > >>> For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil >>> fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." >> >> The scale is somewhere between decades and a few centuries. >> But that is precisely where we disagree. You call that a >> "practically inexhaustible" source of energy. I contend that >> is whay too short a horizon. If we compare the remaining >> time for fossil fuels (50-300 years) to recorded human history >> (about 10,000 years), then we have at most 3% of recorded history >> left. > > That misses the point. We have something we can use now. We can > continue using it for some finite time while we leverage our resources > into new energy sources -- probably nuclear (hopefully fusion), *not* > windmills. **Yes, we have something we can use right now. That something promises to do HUGE damage to our civilisation: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-3.html > >> making it more personable, using 40 years as a generation, >> fossil fuels will be exhausted 2-8 generations from now. >> IOW, if you have grandchildren born in the last 5 years >> or so, then your great grandchildren may be in that >> generation that no longer has fossil fuels. > > There is going to be *some* generation that no longer has fossil fuels > at the relative price we have them now. > > They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," > as the promise of fusion foretold. **Actually, that quote was from the FISSION industry, NOT the fusion industry. Since no one has managed to make a controllable, useful fusion reactor yet, no one can estimate the cost of the energy produced. > > If they are left only with broken windmills, they will curse the > stupidity of earlier generations. **Wind turbines have a life-span of between 20 ~ 25 years. Pretty similar to Solar PV panels. Coal fired power stations have a life-span of around 50 years. So, what do we do? How about we just replace the broken wind turbines and Solar PV panels? Just a thought. After all, we replace coal fired power stations and nukes, when they start to fall apart. Nothing lasts forever. > >> You really think that is a "practically inexhaustible" >> time frame?????????????????????????????????????????? > > That is a nonsense objection. > > Almost certainly, fossil fuels will be inexhaustible (meaning demand > will not exceed supply) within the next 24 hours. Also likely to be > true for the next week, the next month, and the next year. > > There is *some* time frame during which fossil fuels will be > "practically inexhaustible" ... meaning we will have enough without > wasting resources on greenie brain farts. > >>> If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current >>> scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a >>> "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. >> >> So what method do you think is available in a 50-300 year >> time frame that comes from ocean sources? > > What part of "fusion" did you miss above? **When I was 10 years old (in 1963) my favourite auntie gave me a book on the latest scientific discoveries and inventions. In between the pages devoted to the Concorde, lasers burning holes through razor blades, et al, there was a long article devoted to nuclear fusion reactors. Magnetic 'bottle' containment was all the rage back then, but the final part of the article contained words to the effect of this: "Practical nuclear fusion reactors are thought to be around 20 years away." In the 1980s, it was thought that practical nuclear fusion reactors were around 20 years away. It is now 2018 and practical nuclear fusion reactors are STILL 20 years away. Practical nuclear fusion reactors may never be developed. Ever since that time in 1963, when I read that book (which still sits on one of my book shelves), I have been a huge devotee to fusion reactors. It is clearly the way to go. However, we don't yet have any. What we do have is a fusion reactor 150 million km away. It's free energy, which can be captured and used with technology we have today. Let's keep finding ways of making fusion practical, but let's also deal with the very real problems associated with burning fossil fuels. > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/ > Mar 23, 2016 ... In the U.S., fusion research receives less than $600 > million in funding a year > > I didn't read the entire blog, I picked the quote above for the dollar > amount. You might try to make hay with other parts, as you have before > of the form "didn't you read your own link??!" > > Contrast with: > > https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/ > Paraphrasing on part: FY 2014 spending on "climate science" was 2.66 > billion. > > IOW: more than four times the spending on looking for a *real* > solution to both CO2 emissions and the exhaustion of fossil fuels. > > Fusion is something we can envision now. **Sure, we can envision it, but we can't make it work. Yet. > > There may be other possibilities waiting to be discovered. The rate of > growth in scientific discoveries and technological innovation has been > unprecedented in recent decades. Greenies would stand on the brakes > and bring it all to a screeching halt by demanding funding for their > brain farts. **What a load of bullshit. The facts are simple enough: Green technologies are rapidly falling in cost and increasing in reliability. I don't see the problem. > >>>> Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >>>> it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >>>> human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >>>> 1 million year history of homo sapiens. > > Again, missing the mark. > > We have to do *something* /before/ the wells run dry. And that > "something" needs to be better than windmills. And it needs the money > that is being wasted on windmills. **Why do you think that money is being "wasted on widmills"? Be precise in your answer. Also, I presume you are aware that there are a raft of other, low/zero emission technologies available? > >>>> For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >>>> Ed >>> >>> Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? >> >> You argue against changing from fossil fuels in the near term. > > I argue against not leveraging what we already know how to use. **And what about the measurable effects on our climate? > > >>> By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better >>> way to power civilization. >> >> yes and that is a SHORT time frame as I described. > > So we better get cracking and search for a solution with wisdom, not > wishful thinking. **We have a solution: It's 150 million km away and should provide useful energy for another few billion years. > > Attempting to power 21st century civilization with 17th century > technology is worse than wishful thinking, it is stupid. **Who is using 17th century technology? Are you suggesting that Solar PV was available 500 years ago? That 17th century wind turbines were able to generate upwards of 8MW each? > >>> We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time >>> remaining. >>> >>> Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a >>> good use of resources toward solving the problem. >> >> And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. > > I advocate no delay. > > I advocate abandoning greenie brain farts in favor of spending real > money on real solutions to real problems. **Then you should be advocating spending money of REDUCING CO2 emissions, as CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change. > >> Your only suggestion is some magical energy from the oceans. > > My suggestion is to not piss money down ratholes. > > We knew how to make fusion happen more than 60 years ago: "The first > hydrogen bomb the United States ever tested in the Marshall Islands in > 1952, called Ivy Mike, had the force of 10 million tons of TNT (or 10 > megatons)." > > Its energy wasn't released in a way that was harnessed for electric > power generation. > > Fusion power is not magic. With the right engineering developments, it > can become a reality. **Sure, it's only 20 years away. It's always been 20 years away. > >> You complain the solutions offered by others are not useful. >> Worse is you think insulting offered solutions is a useful >> argument in a scientific/technological discussion. >> And yet you offer only vague solutions of your own. > > Well, that's because they haven't been invented yet. **Who is to say that any such things will be invented? > > And they *won't* be invented unless we spend money toward finding > those solutions that haven't been invented yet. **And that is what is happening right now. Solar PV has been rising in efficiency and falling in cost, quite rapidly: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf FWIW: My back-of-the-napkin calculations tells me that in my nation (Australia) if around 3% of our total land mass was dedicated to Solar PV (or Solar/thermal) power generation, that we could supply the entire planet's electricity needs, based on today's needs. 35% of Australia receives so little rainfall, that it is classified as desert and is of little use for agriculture. > >> Your position may be popular with some people, >> but I find your position useless. > > Your position has accomplished *what* to date? > > I find supporting the greenie FUD machine to be worse than useless, it > is actively harmful. **I KNOW that those who ignore the serious threat posed by global warming are seriously deluded. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 14:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmk9joF81eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686729 |
On 23/05/2018 2:22 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:00:47 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >>> They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," >>> as the promise of fusion foretold. >> >> **Actually, that quote was from the FISSION industry, NOT the fusion >> industry. Since no one has managed to make a controllable, useful fusion >> reactor yet, no one can estimate the cost of the energy produced. > > Mr. Brilliant chimes in with more of his certainty. > > Yawn. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter > It is often assumed that Strauss' prediction was a reference to > conventional uranium fission nuclear reactors. Indeed, only ten days > prior to his “Too Cheap To Meter” speech, Strauss was present for the > groundbreaking of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station where he > predicted that, "industry would have electrical power from atomic > furnaces in five to fifteen years." However, Strauss was possibly > referring to hydrogen fusion power and Project Sherwood, which was > conducting secret research on developing practical fusion power > plants. > > So, like many other things you seem certain about, we don't know for a > fact whether he was talking about fission. **From you cite: "No evidence has been found in Strauss’s archived papers to indicate fusion was the secret subject of his speech.[9]" > > Go be evasive with Scout. **This would be a pot, kettle, black moment. It is YOU who is being evasive. You snipped all my comments and questions. I restored them for you. > > He seems to have some patience with you. **Nope. Like you, he knows when he is beaten, so he bumbles around and refuses to respond to my comments and questions. Exactly as you are doing. SOP. > > >> **I KNOW that those who ignore the serious threat posed by global >> warming are seriously deluded. > > Oh, good ... something else the evasive Mr. Brilliant **knows**. **Me, know? I just cite what the climatologists tell us. Who do you rely upon for your (lack of) knowledge about climate science? > > Sigh. **Sigh indeed. So many fools, so little time. I suggest you study up on climate science, BEFORE you enter into arguments about the topic. Your position of ignorance is breath-taking. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 00:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <afs9gdhdkd44t9km5uqok89v4p2h0gce60@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #686736 |
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:39:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >On 23/05/2018 2:22 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:00:47 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> >>>> They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," >>>> as the promise of fusion foretold. >>> >>> **Actually, that quote was from the FISSION industry, NOT the fusion >>> industry. Since no one has managed to make a controllable, useful fusion >>> reactor yet, no one can estimate the cost of the energy produced. >> >> Mr. Brilliant chimes in with more of his certainty. >> >> Yawn. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter >> It is often assumed that Strauss' prediction was a reference to >> conventional uranium fission nuclear reactors. Indeed, only ten days >> prior to his “Too Cheap To Meter” speech, Strauss was present for the >> groundbreaking of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station where he >> predicted that, "industry would have electrical power from atomic >> furnaces in five to fifteen years." However, Strauss was possibly >> referring to hydrogen fusion power and Project Sherwood, which was >> conducting secret research on developing practical fusion power >> plants. >> >> So, like many other things you seem certain about, we don't know for a >> fact whether he was talking about fission. > >**From you cite: > >"No evidence has been found in Strauss’s archived papers to indicate >fusion was the secret subject of his speech.[9]" I saw it. It is your kind of argument. What evidence is there that it wasn't? >> Go be evasive with Scout. > >**This would be a pot, kettle, black moment. It is YOU who is being >evasive. You snipped all my comments and questions. I restored them for >you. > >> >> He seems to have some patience with you. > >**Nope. Like you, he knows when he is beaten, By you?!! To quote someone who claimed to be smart: >>> Do you really want to go there? <flush>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-23 15:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fmkb32Fh6hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686737 |
On 23/05/2018 2:50 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:39:11 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: > >> On 23/05/2018 2:22 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:00:47 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>> They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," >>>>> as the promise of fusion foretold. >>>> >>>> **Actually, that quote was from the FISSION industry, NOT the fusion >>>> industry. Since no one has managed to make a controllable, useful fusion >>>> reactor yet, no one can estimate the cost of the energy produced. >>> >>> Mr. Brilliant chimes in with more of his certainty. >>> >>> Yawn. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter >>> It is often assumed that Strauss' prediction was a reference to >>> conventional uranium fission nuclear reactors. Indeed, only ten days >>> prior to his “Too Cheap To Meter” speech, Strauss was present for the >>> groundbreaking of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station where he >>> predicted that, "industry would have electrical power from atomic >>> furnaces in five to fifteen years." However, Strauss was possibly >>> referring to hydrogen fusion power and Project Sherwood, which was >>> conducting secret research on developing practical fusion power >>> plants. >>> >>> So, like many other things you seem certain about, we don't know for a >>> fact whether he was talking about fission. >> >> **From you cite: >> >> "No evidence has been found in Strauss’s archived papers to indicate >> fusion was the secret subject of his speech.[9]" > > I saw it. > > It is your kind of argument. > > What evidence is there that it wasn't? **It is absence of evidence. We will probably never know the truth. > > >>> Go be evasive with Scout. >> >> **This would be a pot, kettle, black moment. It is YOU who is being >> evasive. You snipped all my comments and questions. I restored them for >> you. >> >>> >>> He seems to have some patience with you. >> >> **Nope. Like you, he knows when he is beaten, > > By you?!! **Yep. Your inability to respond to my comments and questions is adequate proof that you cannot discuss the matters cogently. > > To quote someone who claimed to be smart: >>>> Do you really want to go there? > > <flush> > -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0198481b-d579-4383-b968-cdb3eca78bd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #686602 |
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 12:27:55 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018 06:12:52 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > > >On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 1:13:26 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." > > > >yes, I enjoy the duck tape motto: > >In the end all solutions are temporary. > >> > >> Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are > >> indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has > >> an expiration date. > > > >True, but do you really want to claim the exhaustion date > >of fossils fuels is any close to the order of magnitude > >of the expiration date of solar energy? > > I didn't. > > Just being clear that "renewable" energy sources are not. I think we agree on that point. It is only the timeframe marking the exhaustion point that we disagree about. > > >Or is it you really only care about your expiration date and > >after that you don't care if every thing falls apart after that? > > Am I going to be here in the 300-year time frame I used at your > suggestion? That was merely listing the exhaustion point of fossil fuels, with the implication that we need sources beyond that point. > > >> The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." > > > >that one is still an open question. > > Fine. Let us know if it doesn't happen. A little cosmology: there is still a possibility that the universe could be a bang-bang model. > > >> The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time > >> frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" > >> source ... or move to a different dimension. > > > >And you don't think solar power is "practically inexhaustible", > > It is not. There is finite area to place collectors. Finite material > from which to make collectors. And massive maintenance effort to keep > solar panels on every rooftop functioning (through their inverters and > their batteries-that-will-need-replacing). And those aging coal plants need heavy maintenance as well. > > >but fossil fuels are? > > Over the next 50 to 300 years, as I qualified it: yes. > > > >> For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil > >> fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." > > > >The scale is somewhere between decades and a few centuries. > >But that is precisely where we disagree. You call that a > >"practically inexhaustible" source of energy. I contend that > >is whay too short a horizon. If we compare the remaining > >time for fossil fuels (50-300 years) to recorded human history > >(about 10,000 years), then we have at most 3% of recorded history > >left. > > That misses the point. We have something we can use now. We can > continue using it for some finite time while we leverage our resources > into new energy sources -- probably nuclear (hopefully fusion), *not* > windmills. You miss your own point: "We have something we can use now." That something is fusion energy in the forms of Wind, Sunlight, Hydro (dams &/or tidal). If we try to stay wit Fossil fuels too long, we will be tied up is price wars and then physical wars scrambling for the last few barrels of oil. I address Fusion below. > > >making it more personable, using 40 years as a generation, > >fossil fuels will be exhausted 2-8 generations from now. > >IOW, if you have grandchildren born in the last 5 years > >or so, then your great grandchildren may be in that > >generation that no longer has fossil fuels. > > There is going to be *some* generation that no longer has fossil fuels > at the relative price we have them now. > > They may care little about that if "energy is too cheap to measure," > as the promise of fusion foretold. > If they are left with only the promise of fusion, then... > If they are left only with broken windmills, they will curse the > stupidity of earlier generations. > > >You really think that is a "practically inexhaustible" > >time frame?????????????????????????????????????????? > > That is a nonsense objection. > > Almost certainly, fossil fuels will be inexhaustible (meaning demand > will not exceed supply) within the next 24 hours. Also likely to be > true for the next week, the next month, and the next year. you has a strange definition of inexhaustible. And you seem to prefer short term thinking. Are you an MBA? the short end of the FF supply may be less than 100 years as the demand for fossil fuels is still increasing worldwide. > > There is *some* time frame during which fossil fuels will be > "practically inexhaustible" ... meaning we will have enough without > wasting resources on greenie brain farts. And that exhaustion point is closer than you think. The price demand is certainly closer than you think. > > >> If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current > >> scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a > >> "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. > > > >So what method do you think is available in a 50-300 year > >time frame that comes from ocean sources? > > What part of "fusion" did you miss above? Still 20 year away, for pretty much my entire life. You are dreaming if you think practical fusion will be scaled up to power our country, let alone powering the world within 300 years. Even if ITER achieves break even, it is only an experiment. (BTW, ITER isn't even built yet. "ITER's First Plasma is scheduled for December 2025") After that is doing the engineering to make practical power plants. These will be safer, but even harder to build than fission plants. So that building production level fusion plants will take decades. > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/ > Mar 23, 2016 ... In the U.S., fusion research receives less than $600 > million in funding a year > > I didn't read the entire blog, I picked the quote above for the dollar > amount. You might try to make hay with other parts, as you have before > of the form "didn't you read your own link??!" > hey, it isn't Greens cutting the US contribution to ITER, it is "conservative" Trump. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclearpower-fusion-project/iter-nuclear-fusion-project-faces-delay-over-trump-budget-cuts-idUSKBN1E01RT > Contrast with: > > https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/ > Paraphrasing on part: FY 2014 spending on "climate science" was 2.66 > billion. > > IOW: more than four times the spending on looking for a *real* > solution to both CO2 emissions and the exhaustion of fossil fuels. If I am reading the data correctly, that includes funding of anti-climate change organizations. And that total is NOT US Government spending!! > > Fusion is something we can envision now. envision=dreaming hey I'm all for fusion reactors. It will be especially nice when we can scale them for interplanetary travel and eventually interstellar travel. But those dreams may be millenia away. > > There may be other possibilities waiting to be discovered. The rate of > growth in scientific discoveries and technological innovation has been > unprecedented in recent decades. Greenies would stand on the brakes > and bring it all to a screeching halt by demanding funding for their > brain farts. False claim. Greens are looking for the same thing: safe, reliable sources of energy. Fossil fuel advocates like you just downplay the safe factor of that equation. > > >> > Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, > >> >it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded > >> >human history and miniscule compared to the roughly > >> >1 million year history of homo sapiens. > > Again, missing the mark. Well, your MBA next quarter thinking is exactly what I am arguing against. > > We have to do *something* /before/ the wells run dry. And that > "something" needs to be better than windmills. And it needs the money > that is being wasted on windmills. Windmills are making money for some power companies. Solar panels are powering homes now. > > >> >For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. > >> >Ed > >> > >> Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? > > > >You argue against changing from fossil fuels in the near term. > > I argue against not leveraging what we already know how to use. > then you should be arguing FOR wind turbines and other technologies. > > >> By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better > >> way to power civilization. > > > >yes and that is a SHORT time frame as I described. > > So we better get cracking and search for a solution with wisdom, not > wishful thinking. We agree on those words. > > Attempting to power 21st century civilization with 17th century > technology is worse than wishful thinking, it is stupid. They had solar panels in the 17th century? REALLY? Your arguments are becoming pure FUD. > > >> We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time > >> remaining. > >> > >> Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a > >> good use of resources toward solving the problem. > > > >And the delay that you advocate only makes it worse. > > I advocate no delay. > > I advocate abandoning greenie brain farts in favor of spending real > money on real solutions to real problems. > > >Your only suggestion is some magical energy from the oceans. > > My suggestion is to not piss money down ratholes. > > We knew how to make fusion happen more than 60 years ago: "The first > hydrogen bomb the United States ever tested in the Marshall Islands in > 1952, called Ivy Mike, had the force of 10 million tons of TNT (or 10 > megatons)." > > Its energy wasn't released in a way that was harnessed for electric > power generation. > > Fusion power is not magic. With the right engineering developments, it > can become a reality. A LOT of right engineering. Focusing on that ONE solution is a BIG gamble. Fusion has been 20 years away for most of my life. I honestly hope for it to succeed, but I know enough science and engineering to understand it is still a long way off as a practical source of power. > > >You complain the solutions offered by others are not useful. > >Worse is you think insulting offered solutions is a useful > >argument in a scientific/technological discussion. > >And yet you offer only vague solutions of your own. > > Well, that's because they haven't been invented yet. > > And they *won't* be invented unless we spend money toward finding > those solutions that haven't been invented yet. My you are a gambler. Placing bets on 00, iow the inventions we don't even know about yet! > > >Your position may be popular with some people, > >but I find your position useless. > > Your position has accomplished *what* to date? > > I find supporting the greenie FUD machine to be worse than useless, it > is actively harmful. I know people that use solar panels. The Wind turbines you mentioned in Hawaii that are coming down are being replaced with MORE wind turbines. That power company is making money. I don't choose based on FUD, greenie FUD or fossil FUD. Hopefully "green" technology (wind, solar, energy efficiency, and others) may turn out to be the transition sources before we switch to fusion. Fusion should be funded too. But advocating that we place one bet on fusion alone is folly. Ed fusion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web