Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 26 Oct 2006 22:05 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ehq4nm$8ss_014(a)s783.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > In article <1161700854.976916.304350(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >> > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>> > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >>> > >T Wake wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >[... democrats ...] > >>> > >> They don't talk about what measures they will take to prevent alien > >>> > >> attacks > >>> > > > >>> > >If we imagine that they have some ideas, we can also see reasons why > >>> > >they may not want the other side to hear of them. > >>> > > > >>> > >Also a great deal has been said about the risk of something nasty > >>> > >coming in in a cargo container. Democrats have suggested better > >>> > >inspection as part of the answer to this so it isn't true that they > >>> > >haven't said anything. Unfortunately, the inspection needs to happen > >>> > >at the shipping end not the recieving. The ports are places you > >>> > >wouldn't want a nuke to go off. > >>> > > >>> > What I'm more concerned about is the Democrats' and others' complete > >>> > silence about nuclear power plants which is the most important > >>> > action that can be taken right now. Only the person known > >>> > as President Bush is even uttering those nouns. > >>> > > >>> > It says that Connecticut has submitted a request for a permit > >>> > to open a plant. We'll see what the will of these politicians > >>> > is. > >>> > >>> What on earth are you talking about ? > >> > >>The discussion seems to have turned to the idea of making more nuclear > >>power plants. One way to make the country more secure is to not have > >>to import large amounts of oil. > > What does nuclear power have to do with oil imports? You need to educate > yourself on how the US currently generates its power. No, you need to stop and think about it. This is not about how the US currently does things without "energy too cheap to meter". It is about what would happen if that was actually the case. Right now your car runs on fuel made from imported oil. If we really had "energy too cheap to meter", it is very likely that some other type of fuel would be in common use. If you start with natural gas and add a bunch of energy and clever chemistry, you can make the things we currently use oil for. > > Thank you for writing this clearly. > > What are you talking about, he's not even thinking clearly. What does > nuclear power have to do with oil? See above. I just skipped a bunch of steps in the explanation. > > >>The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and > >>screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant > >>isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that > >>makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing > >>because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. > > > > The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear > > power plant, is Bush. > > And the only reason he's uttering them is as a smokescreen. It has > absolutely nothing to do with oil. You missed the fact that BAH is simply wrong about Bush being the only one talking about them. Many democrats have also taken a look at the subject. In the case of the democrats it has been part of their effort to put forwards a sensible energy policy and thus perhaps get noticed. > > Eric Lucas
From: MooseFET on 26 Oct 2006 22:15 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: [....] > What exactly are you insisting they plan for, that includes nuclear power? Speaking for myself and certainly not BAH: I think there is enough evidence that global warming is a real issue to make it worth looking for other ways to power stuff. Atomic power should be looked at from that point of view at least. Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will continue to use oil.
From: krw on 26 Oct 2006 22:23 In article <eok1k2tfnb8lj8uol8ns7h5a7ufilmi7me(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > On 26 Oct 2006 00:49:23 -0700, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > >> But the serious point here is that you have declared that how you > >> evaluate an idea depends on the deference with which it is presented. > >> That doesn't sound very scientific to me. > > > >If you can present a viable theory that makes testable predictions then > >you stand a chance of getting somewhere. Arguing against evolution on > >the basis that it conflicts with your religion will win you no friends > >at all on the science groups. > > > I have no religion and I am arguing *for* evolution. But I'm mostly > exploring how emotions affect intellectual processing and creativity; > the news there looks mostly grim. Speaking as one who has no religion but who respects those who do, I find your posts on this most thought provoking. Evolution is apparent but doesn't explain all. -- Keith P.S. been busy so haven't kept up with SED. Got work for a designer? ;-) -- Keith
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 22:32 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1161914724.827124.37810(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> What does nuclear power have to do with oil imports? You need to educate >> yourself on how the US currently generates its power. > > No, you need to stop and think about it. This is not about how the US > currently does things without "energy too cheap to meter". It is about > what would happen if that was actually the case. Right now your car > runs on fuel made from imported oil. If we really had "energy too > cheap to meter", it is very likely that some other type of fuel would > be in common use. I accept your arguments, but nuclear is still not germane to oil--it is simply not the "too cheap to meter" energy you describe. You yourself said that nuclear power plants are expensive to build and run...and I don't think that's a matter of what design is used, it's an intrinsic fact of using something, that if abused, can in principle become an atomic bomb and vaporize everything within a 50 mile radius. Besides that, the fact is that electric-powered cars are not, and won't soon become, practical, even if oil becomes expensive. Time-between charges is simply too short without many hundreds (thousands?) of pounds of batteries, and charging times are too long...unless you're envisioning a "Mister Fusion" in every car.... :^) I doubt that's what Bush has in mind, although it wouldn't surprise me that a dyed-in-the-wool oil man like Bush would get his information about nuclear energy from a 21-year old pop-culture icon. > If you start with natural gas and add a bunch of > energy and clever chemistry, you can make the things we currently use > oil for. You can do the same thing with coal, more cheaply and efficiently, and the coal reserves are much larger. South Africa is a perfect example, and the only reason they do it is for political reasons--it makes absolutely no economic sense. Of course, if we do that, our coal reserves probably drop to something like 50 years, instead of the current 400 years.... The crux of that problem is that, unless you're talking about hydrogen, the problem will pretty much inevitably involve carbon. You will still need to get the carbon somewhere, and the reserves of that "somewhere" are finite. > You missed the fact that BAH is simply wrong about Bush being the only > one talking about them. > Many democrats have also taken a look at the > subject. In the case of the democrats it has been part of their effort > to put forwards a sensible energy policy and thus perhaps get noticed. Yep, I missed that one. I was unaware of the politics in the states where there are people talking about them. Overall, it was and is simply inconceivable to me that the entire party is ignoring any of the issues that they are simple-mindedly accused of ignoring...and it appears my intuition was right. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Oct 2006 22:35
"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1161915355.684234.301420(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > [....] >> What exactly are you insisting they plan for, that includes nuclear >> power? > > Speaking for myself and certainly not BAH: > > I think there is enough evidence that global warming is a real issue to > make it worth looking for other ways to power stuff. Atomic power > should be looked at from that point of view at least. I absolutely agree. She was indicting the Democrats for not dealing with terrorism-related issues, and implied that nuclear power was somehow involved in that mix. > Currently the US imports a lot of oil to run cars and the like. You > can make automotive fuel from other things but the energy to do so is > more than you get back. In a market where energy cost money, you will > continue to use oil. See my other post on this. Nuclear is not the answer--it will not make energy cheap enough to make coal-to-liquids technology (a la South Africa) economically competitive with oil. In any case, you still need the carbon (until someone comes up with a reasonable way to use H2), and that will have to come from some sort of finite resource like coal, natural gas, or oil, and it will not especially help the global climatic situation. Eric Lucas |