Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: tm on 12 Aug 2010 22:40 "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy(a)example.net> wrote in message news:pan.2010.08.13.00.26.01.972743(a)example.net... > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:41:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> >> But actually, if we ignore the carbon crazies, we have plenty of >> natural gas and coal for a long time. > > Could coal miners be retrained to build and operate nuclear plants? > > Thanks, > Rich > They would get a lot less exposure to radiation if they could. tm --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Bill Sloman on 12 Aug 2010 23:57 On Aug 13, 12:22 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Aug 12, 11:07 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:35:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Aug 12, 1:08 am, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > >> ><snip> > > >> >> >> >John Larkin wants to believe that we can ignore this and he is > >> >> >> >prepared to write off the whole scientific establishment because he > >> >> >> >finds their expert opinion unattractive. This is genuinely crazy. > > >> >> >> I believe we WILL ignore it. > > >> >> >Perhaps. Until the consequent climate excursions get too expensive.. > >> >> >The Russians aren't enjoying their unusually hot summer and the wide- > >> >> >spread bush-fires that have come with it, but this might still just be > >> >> >a particularly improbable deviation from the historical norm rather > >> >> >than a tolerably likely deviation in the series of progressively > >> >> >warmer summers that the current global warming > >> >> >has already delivered - a warming of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) > >> >> >during the 20th century. > > >> >> >You burn your carbon and they take their chances. > > >> >> Thanks, I will. The Audi is a blast to drive on the hills here. > > >> >Fine. You've got grand-children, and you will do your little bit to > >> >make their lives more difficult. I've got grand-nieces and - nephews, > >> >and your self-satisfied ignorance will make their lives more difficult > >> >to pretty much the same extent - California and Australia are both > >> >running out of fresh water already, and the immediately predictable > >> >consequences of global warming don't include increased rainfall in > >> >either area. > > >> Such predictions are no better than chance. > > >This is - in itself - a prediction. You are assuming that the people > >who are doing the modelling have got the same inadequate grasp of > >physics as you do, so you assume that their predictions are as > >arbitrary and off-the-cuff as yours. > > >> California is running out of water mostly because we live in a desert where people insist on growing huge plots of stuff like rice and cotton. > > >But they will find it harder to get the water to do this if the > >rainfall patterns change - as seems likely - as global warming eadjust > >the global weaterh patterns. > > >> ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/163828.pdf > > >> We still had 10 feet of snow piled up against the side of our cabin on > >> July 4th. > > >Weather is a lot of random variation around what used to be the more > >or less stable mean values that define climate. Stick enough CO2 in > >the atmosphere and the means start moving. You'll still get the > >occasional 10 feet of snow, but less often. > > Probably more often, but who knows? Our climate is an enormously > complex chaotic system with unknown inputs and dynamics. Nobody can > usefully model a thing like that. Farmers had a model that used to work - well enough to let them make a living at any rate. Global warming is messing about with that simple - and previously useful - model. Because the modellers can't predict the fine detail of the weather systems that pass over your house, you deny the possibility that the broader-brush climate models can capture useful information. > It's more likely (but really unknowable) that more CO2 will increase > evaporation, which has got to come down as precipitation. But where? The models do predict more evaporation, but they also take a look at the global circulation, which determines where the precipitation ends up hitting the ground. > And more CO2 > will definitely make plants happier and, as you have pointed out, more > water-efficient. Some recent studies suggest that plants and animals > can adapt very quickly (which only makes sense) and epigenics is a > real part of that. And these studies were written up where? > We were, in the big picture, seriously running out of CO2. Twaddle, culled from one of your idiot denialist web-sites. We've been living with low CO2 levels for the past few million years, and both plants an animals are well adapted to the situation. > Too much has been sequestered over the last few billion years. It's our job, as > useful organisms, to dig some up and make it available to the > biosphere. The fact that the biosphere will have to adapt to the new situation, and won't much enjoy the process, hasn't actually registered with you. The last such excursion was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, which included several CO2 spikes as fast as the one we are currently engineering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum It wasn't a global extinction, but there was a lot of speciation, which is to say that a lot of organisms died because they weren't well adapted to the new environment, and other organisms evolved to exploit the new ecological niches (while they lasted). > BP did its small share to help. What's cool is that the Gulf is full > of bacteria that love hydrocarbons and gobble them up. I bet they have > a whopping shrimp and fish season next year. > > But where are the zillions of killer hurricanes that the AGW bunnies > predicted? Where was the prediction published? Faux news? Hurricanes don't grow unless the sea surface is warmer than 26.5 degrees Celcius. http://www.newmediastudio.org/DataDiscovery/Hurr_ED_Center/Hurr_Structure_Energetics/SST/SST.html A warmer world will have bigger areas of warm-enough ocean for a longer period of the year, and can be expected to see more and bigger hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones. Actual predictions of hurricane intensity and freuqency in - say - 2100 are thin on the ground. The US NRDC http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/fcost.pdf expected 35 times more damage and six times more daeths from hurricanes in 2100 for a business-as-usual aproach to CO2 emission, which falls ratehr short of "zillions". It is - with that 26.5C thereshold - a non-linear effect, so prediction isn't as easy bas it might be. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 13 Aug 2010 00:03 On Aug 13, 10:35 am, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <freedom_...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:30:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > >>John Larkin wants to believe that we can ignore this and he is > >>prepared to write off the whole scientific establishment because he > >>finds their expert opinion unattractive. This is genuinely crazy. > > Not the whole scientific establishment - just those who have joined the > cult of warmingism and abandoned actual science. Only Rich would be silly enough to confuse the denialists - who have sold out of real science and preach for Exxon-Mobil (and the rest of crew who gets rich by digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel) - with the real scientists, who keep on pointing out that global warming is real and can be explained by the sort of elementatry physics that John Larkin should have learned at university. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Yanik on 13 Aug 2010 09:44 Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:2010081304150769551- Koning(a)Stumpernl: > On 2010-08-13 02:35:25 +0200, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian said: > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:30:10 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >>>> >>>> John Larkin wants to believe that we can ignore this and he is >>>> prepared to write off the whole scientific establishment because he >>>> finds their expert opinion unattractive. This is genuinely crazy. >> >> Not the whole scientific establishment - just those who have joined the >> cult of warmingism and abandoned actual science. >> >> Cheers! >> Rich > > You can't deny global warming, you can say it's natural or something, > but denying global warming is rediculus! didn't they change that to "climate change" becuase the Earth is actually cooling? > Never seen the pictures of melting gletgers? Have you seen the pictures > of the North pole over the last few decades? > > Cheers! ever read of the CYCLES of climate change? It was happening long before humans came on the scene. BTW,the "progressives"/socialists/communists have seized upon enviro issues to further their communism;it's not really about the environment,it's about political power. They began this back in the 80's when the USSR was trying to oppose NATO muclear weapons in West Germany. IIRC,the Verona KGB files exposed this. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Jim Yanik on 13 Aug 2010 09:48
"tm" <the_obamunist(a)whitehouse.gov> wrote in news:i42bk3$9k0$1(a)adenine.netfront.net: > > "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy(a)example.net> wrote in > message news:pan.2010.08.13.00.26.01.972743(a)example.net... >> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:41:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> But actually, if we ignore the carbon crazies, we have plenty of >>> natural gas and coal for a long time. >> >> Could coal miners be retrained to build and operate nuclear plants? >> >> Thanks, >> Rich >> > > They would get a lot less exposure to radiation if they could. > > tm much less lung disease,and fewer injuries and deaths. the nuclear industry is FAR safer. they could also work at the waste repository. Too bad Comrade Obama wasted all that money spent on an almost finished Yucca Mountain Repository by defunding it,and instituting a new study/site search that will take DECADES to find a new safe storage site,before construction even begins. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |