Discussion:
[OT] Global Warming Will Bring Balance to the Earth
(too old to reply)
Quadibloc
2020-05-09 22:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.

However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-10 07:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.

We are living in the exception now, not the rule.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-10 08:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
J. Clarke
2020-05-10 13:43:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-10 15:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
No it didn't have room, because it was full up with those paddysauruses
like you said.
J. Clarke
2020-05-10 15:36:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 08:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
No it didn't have room, because it was full up with those paddysauruses
like you said.
Just big game. Tastes like chicken.
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-10 18:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
No it didn't have room, because it was full up with those paddysauruses
like you said.
We would eat them ! Big chickens !

Lynn
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-05-11 01:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or
north of the Arctic Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end.
However, some recent news items have noted that we are
approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point
fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-
and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidit
y-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08
/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerabili
ty
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are
frozen. The definition of an ice age is when either of the
polar caps are frozen. The planet has only been in an ice
age for 11% of the time that we can identify. That means
that the planet was significantly warmer than now 89% of the
time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm
pretty sure it had room for critters our size.
No it didn't have room, because it was full up with those
paddysauruses like you said.
Unless T-rex has opposing thumbs (and guns to us with them) for
those tiny little arms, I'm betting we'd come out on top.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-10 18:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
I love the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History in Norman. "The world’s
largest Apatosaurus extends his long neck as he faces a most fearsome,
Oklahoma predator, the Saurophaganax."
https://samnoblemuseum.ou.edu/permanent-exhibits/hall-of-ancient-life/

Those dudes were huge ! But a bazooka or rpg would take out a
Saurophaganax.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-10 19:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
I love the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History in Norman. "The world’s
largest Apatosaurus extends his long neck as he faces a most fearsome,
Oklahoma predator, the Saurophaganax."
https://samnoblemuseum.ou.edu/permanent-exhibits/hall-of-ancient-life/
So now they only have one room... but it is a large room.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Those dudes were huge ! But a bazooka or rpg would take out a
Saurophaganax.
Lynn
Hmm. Well... when you send the army to fight in a foreign
climate, they may find that a lot of the equipment performs
poorly. So, if the climate changes at home...
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-11 19:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
I love the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History in Norman. "The world’s
largest Apatosaurus extends his long neck as he faces a most fearsome,
Oklahoma predator, the Saurophaganax."
https://samnoblemuseum.ou.edu/permanent-exhibits/hall-of-ancient-life/
So now they only have one room... but it is a large room.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Those dudes were huge ! But a bazooka or rpg would take out a
Saurophaganax.
Lynn
Hmm. Well... when you send the army to fight in a foreign
climate, they may find that a lot of the equipment performs
poorly. So, if the climate changes at home...
The dinosaur exhibit room is a huge room with many 20 ??? ft tall walls.
The ceiling is 30+ ft. There are other exhibit rooms. I have been
there about 5 ? 6 ? 7 ? times in the past 20 years.

As I have mentioned several times before, my son went to Iraq twice with
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC). The world's high temperature
record of 136 F was set while he was there in 2007. He was in a armored
humvee with no air conditioning and unopening windows with three other
Marines on that day, guarding a one lane bridge across the Euphrates river.

All of their equipment and weapons worked just fine. No one died of
heat stroke.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-05-11 19:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
As I have mentioned several times before, my son went to Iraq twice with
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC). The world's high temperature
record of 136 F was set while he was there in 2007. He was in a armored
humvee with no air conditioning and unopening windows with three other
Marines on that day, guarding a one lane bridge across the Euphrates river.
All of their equipment and weapons worked just fine. No one died of
heat stroke.
Ah statistics were never your strong suit, I suspect.

Extrapolation from a military unit (full of young, generally
fit individuals) to the general population (which isn't) is generally
pointless.

"This week's sweltering weather is concerning because there
are several key factors that make people in Europe vulnerable to extreme heat.

These factors converged to a devastating effect in the summer of 2003,
when a heat wave baked the continent with temperatures 13 degrees above
the average normal for the region. The heat killed at least 30,000 people
caused 13 billion Euros in financial damages. Some estimates put the death
toll as high as 70,000. At the time, it was the hottest summer for Europe
since the 16th century. "
Dimensional Traveler
2020-05-11 22:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
As I have mentioned several times before, my son went to Iraq twice with
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children (USMC). The world's high temperature
record of 136 F was set while he was there in 2007. He was in a armored
humvee with no air conditioning and unopening windows with three other
Marines on that day, guarding a one lane bridge across the Euphrates river.
All of their equipment and weapons worked just fine. No one died of
heat stroke.
Ah statistics were never your strong suit, I suspect.
Extrapolation from a military unit (full of young, generally
fit individuals) to the general population (which isn't) is generally
pointless.
"This week's sweltering weather is concerning because there
are several key factors that make people in Europe vulnerable to extreme heat.
These factors converged to a devastating effect in the summer of 2003,
when a heat wave baked the continent with temperatures 13 degrees above
the average normal for the region. The heat killed at least 30,000 people
caused 13 billion Euros in financial damages. Some estimates put the death
toll as high as 70,000. At the time, it was the hottest summer for Europe
since the 16th century. "
There is also the small matter of one day versus months in those conditions.
--
<to be filled in at a later date>
Alan Baker
2020-05-11 23:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
It had room for creatures like apatosaurus and t-rex, so I'm pretty
sure it had room for critters our size.
And if it changes over 20,000 years, I'm sure we'll adapt.

Not so sure you'd like it if it changed over 50 years.

Not for your kids, and your grandkids.
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-10 18:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-05-10 21:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.

I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.

Pt
J. Clarke
2020-05-10 22:58:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 14:29:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Perhaps, perhaps not. We don't have experience of the normal state of
the planet. Eventually we are going to have to deal with it unless we
want to artifically perpetuate an abnormal climate over geoological
time.
Post by Peter Trei
Pt
Quadibloc
2020-05-11 04:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Eventually we are going to have to deal with it unless we
want to artifically perpetuate an abnormal climate over geoological
time.
True enough, but is that an excuse for artificially terminating the abnormal
climate from which we are benefiting sooner than it has to end naturally?

John Savard
Peter Trei
2020-05-11 04:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 14:29:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Perhaps, perhaps not. We don't have experience of the normal state of
the planet. Eventually we are going to have to deal with it unless we
want to artifically perpetuate an abnormal climate over geoological
time.
Yes, I think that's exactly what we should do.

Pt
Quadibloc
2020-05-11 05:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Perhaps, perhaps not. We don't have experience of the normal state of
the planet. Eventually we are going to have to deal with it unless we
want to artifically perpetuate an abnormal climate over geoological
time.
Yes, I think that's exactly what we should do.
Come to think of it, if we avoid a global warming catastrophe, and instead we
*have* "geological time" in which to do something about it... we just might have
the technological capability by then to do such a thing.

Or we might have reached a level of social advancement where, if tropical areas
become too hot, the people who live there can relocate somewhere else.

John Savard
Titus G
2020-05-11 05:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
Perhaps, perhaps not. We don't have experience of the normal state of
the planet. Eventually we are going to have to deal with it unless we
want to artifically perpetuate an abnormal climate over geoological
time.
Yes, I think that's exactly what we should do.
Come to think of it, if we avoid a global warming catastrophe, and instead we
*have* "geological time" in which to do something about it... we just might have
the technological capability by then to do such a thing.
Or we might have reached a level of social advancement where, if tropical areas
become too hot, the people who live there can relocate somewhere else.
Great idea! Cubans could move north to Florida.
(If I was a follower of His Bottled Orangeness, I would be investing my
life savings from oil in those off-shore tax haven corporations that
specialise in building seawalls.)
I remember the good old days when this group was always on topic with no
political crap; no I don't; I made that up.
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-11 03:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Pt
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Good luck in cheaply
replacing that. Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.

I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2020-05-11 03:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)

Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-11 17:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"

All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.

Get the nukes going or STFU.....
Paul S Person
2020-05-12 16:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
"safe" to people:

1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.

2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-12 17:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
Doesn't matter.

There are enough -- waaaaay too many, actually -- people to whom it will never "appear" safe......not to mention the tech ignorant media, whose JOB is to scare people.

Humanity has risen largely by ignoring the chicken littles and just getting on with it.
Magewolf
2020-05-12 18:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.

2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.

And neither one would make a difference anyway. The anti-nuke crowd is
a religion. No facts have any sway over them.
Paul S Person
2020-05-13 16:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.

Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?

About due for another, then, aren't we.
Post by Magewolf
And neither one would make a difference anyway. The anti-nuke crowd is
a religion. No facts have any sway over them.
I never said it would be easy.

I merely said that these were the preconditions.

There are no guarantees.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-05-13 18:14:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 May 2020 14:22:03 -0400, Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:38:58 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 1:21:35 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than
fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact
fuels (Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on
hearing rumors of several but I cannot find one for sale.
Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year,
they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming
for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda
yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a
yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it
ain't safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive
emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for
1%-ers to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools,
then it will never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a
part of that.
Regardless of effect it has on the neighbors' property values, you
still have to buy the land to build it on. And the land next door
to rich people costs as much as the land they're living on.

Take a look at the cost of building a freeway in southern
California, for instance, at $1 billion/mile, largely because of
the lawsuits and the cost of the dirt.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Post by Magewolf
And neither one would make a difference anyway. The anti-nuke
crowd is a religion. No facts have any sway over them.
I never said it would be easy.
I merely said that these were the preconditions.
There are no guarantees.
You're a moonbat. That will surprise no one except, perhaps, you.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Paul S Person
2020-05-14 16:36:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 May 2020 18:14:12 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Tue, 12 May 2020 14:22:03 -0400, Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:38:58 PM UTC-5,
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than
fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact
fuels (Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on
hearing rumors of several but I cannot find one for sale.
Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year,
they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming
for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each
other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda
yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a
yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it
ain't safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive
emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for
1%-ers to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools,
then it will never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a
part of that.
Regardless of effect it has on the neighbors' property values, you
still have to buy the land to build it on. And the land next door
to rich people costs as much as the land they're living on.
Take a look at the cost of building a freeway in southern
California, for instance, at $1 billion/mile, largely because of
the lawsuits and the cost of the dirt.
You never heard of "eminent domain"?

And, if they sue, then it isn't safe enough.
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Post by Magewolf
And neither one would make a difference anyway. The anti-nuke
crowd is a religion. No facts have any sway over them.
I never said it would be easy.
I merely said that these were the preconditions.
There are no guarantees.
You're a moonbat. That will surprise no one except, perhaps, you.
You believe that there /are/ guarantees?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-05-14 18:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 13 May 2020 18:14:12 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Tue, 12 May 2020 14:22:03 -0400, Magewolf
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:38:58 PM UTC-5,
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than
fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact
fuels (Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower
density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on
hearing rumors of several but I cannot find one for sale.
Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year,
they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming
for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to
each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal /
yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch
watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is
tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If
it ain't safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough
for 1%-ers to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/
schools, then it will never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a
part of that.
Regardless of effect it has on the neighbors' property values,
you still have to buy the land to build it on. And the land next
door to rich people costs as much as the land they're living on.
Take a look at the cost of building a freeway in southern
California, for instance, at $1 billion/mile, largely because of
the lawsuits and the cost of the dirt.
You never heard of "eminent domain"?
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the amendments,
particularly the fifth. The part about "nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Emminent comain can, indeed, take the property - but not for less
than it's worth.

That's the point of dispute in the lawsuits. The dirt around here
is, in fact, worth that much.
Post by Paul S Person
And, if they sue, then it isn't safe enough.
You're literally delusional, son. Enjoy your fantasy world.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Post by Magewolf
And neither one would make a difference anyway. The anti-nuke
crowd is a religion. No facts have any sway over them.
I never said it would be easy.
I merely said that these were the preconditions.
There are no guarantees.
You're a moonbat. That will surprise no one except, perhaps,
you.
You believe that there /are/ guarantees?
Do you believe *any* of the horseshit you're spewing? If so, in
all seriousness, son, get professional psychiatric help.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Peter Trei
2020-05-13 18:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.

How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.

Pt
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-13 19:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.

Lynn
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-13 20:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-13 23:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/

Looks like the populace is like me and does not like BWRs:

https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-05-13 23:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b

Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-13 23:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-05-14 01:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Yes, a few fossil fuel funded climatologists say that. Most don't.

But it's not germane to the discussion. Read the article. It's
talking about the effects of accidents, and especially,
pollution. Not climate issues. Do you also think particulate pollution
and acid rain are 'hypotheses'?

Nukes are hundreds of times safer then fossil fuels.

Pt
J. Clarke
2020-05-14 04:27:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 May 2020 18:40:24 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Yes, a few fossil fuel funded climatologists say that. Most don't.
The trouble with all this is that anybody who disagrees is
automatically "not a climatologist". They're running a club and the
cost of admission is jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
Post by Peter Trei
But it's not germane to the discussion. Read the article. It's
talking about the effects of accidents, and especially,
pollution. Not climate issues. Do you also think particulate pollution
and acid rain are 'hypotheses'?
Nukes are hundreds of times safer then fossil fuels.
Pt
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 19:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 13 May 2020 18:40:24 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Yes, a few fossil fuel funded climatologists say that. Most don't.
The trouble with all this is that anybody who disagrees is
automatically "not a climatologist". They're running a club and the
cost of admission is jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
Real science doesn't (or never used to) run that way.

But science REPORTAGE almost always does....and ya gotta attract eyeballs.

There is also the question of the agenda(s) held by whoever FUNDS the "research"
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-14 18:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Yes, a few fossil fuel funded climatologists say that. Most don't.
But it's not germane to the discussion. Read the article. It's
talking about the effects of accidents, and especially,
pollution. Not climate issues. Do you also think particulate pollution
and acid rain are 'hypotheses'?
Nukes are hundreds of times safer then fossil fuels.
Pt
The article talked about the effect of CO2 generation to the atmosphere
in some nebulous conversion to people deaths. And I do mean nebulous.
Serious SWAG there. SWAG = scientific wild assed guess.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-05-14 18:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:38:58 PM UTC-5,
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
      Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than
fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck.  I keep on
hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale.  Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year,
they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming
for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each
other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda
yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching  a
yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article.  43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various
electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Yes, a few fossil fuel funded climatologists say that. Most don't.
But it's not germane to the discussion. Read the article. It's
talking about the effects of accidents, and especially,
pollution. Not climate issues. Do you also think particulate pollution
and acid rain are 'hypotheses'?
Nukes are hundreds of times safer then fossil fuels.
Pt
The article talked about the effect of CO2 generation to the atmosphere
in some nebulous conversion to people deaths.  And I do mean nebulous.
No. It did not talk about that at all. In fact, almost completely the
reverse.

It mentioned CO2 in the introductory paragraphs and then explicitly said:

"But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. "

From that point forward, there is literally NOTHING about deaths
related to CO2.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Serious SWAG there.  SWAG = scientific wild assed guess.
You're a liar, you can't read, or the mere mention of CO2 prevented you
from reading any more then the first two paragraphs.

You can take your choice.
Alan Baker
2020-05-14 01:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:38:58 PM UTC-5,
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
     Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than
fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck.  I keep on
hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale.  Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year,
they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for
the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each
other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda
yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching  a
yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article.  43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various
electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Lynn
You are truly dim.
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 03:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Lynn
You are truly dim.
'splain to us po country folks why it ain't a hypothesis.....please

(us country folks ordinarily say please and thank you, rather than insult)
Alan Baker
2020-05-14 05:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man made global warming is a hypothesis.
Lynn
You are truly dim.
'splain to us po country folks why it ain't a hypothesis.....please
(us country folks ordinarily say please and thank you, rather than insult)
It was the fact that he introduce a statement that had NOTHING TO DO
with the article that was presented.
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 03:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Again.........nukes are best......for many reasons.

But......it's SCAARRRRRY
h***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 03:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Again.........nukes are best......for many reasons.
Nuke power is way more expensive than renewables are, has a long build time and many of the modern designs to solve problems are unproven and reduce strengths of the technology
Post by o***@gmail.com
But......it's SCAARRRRRY
Paul S Person
2020-05-14 16:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Again.........nukes are best......for many reasons.
Nuke power is way more expensive than renewables are, has a long build time and many of the modern designs to solve problems are unproven and reduce strengths of the technology
Not to come off as "anti-nuke" (I'm not; I'm simply anti-irresponsibly
designed/sited/implementd/managed nuke plants because, no matter how
minimal the damage or how few the deaths, any problem gives all of
them a bad rep with people in general), I read a recent article
stating that, after 20-25 years (IIRC) a joint project Clinton started
with the Russians was /finally/ assembling a really large tokamak.

In five years they expect to be able to /turn it on/.

And, five years after /that/, they hope to find it putting out more
energy than it takes in.

Of couse, if it works, I'm sure construction time and costs will
eventually come down.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
But......it's SCAARRRRRY
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 19:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Again.........nukes are best......for many reasons.
Nuke power is way more expensive than renewables are, has a long build time and many of the modern designs to solve problems are unproven and reduce strengths of the technology
Not to come off as "anti-nuke" (I'm not; I'm simply anti-irresponsibly
designed/sited/implementd/managed nuke plants because, no matter how
minimal the damage or how few the deaths, any problem gives all of
them a bad rep with people in general), I read a recent article
stating that, after 20-25 years (IIRC) a joint project Clinton started
with the Russians was /finally/ assembling a really large tokamak.
It happened in 1977.....
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/21/archives/40ton-super-magnet-is-flown-from-us-to-moscow-for-a-joint-project-a.html

It was one hell of a PR coup.

C-5 (my bird, as, when a junior captain, I signed the papers that accepted it for the AF), specially configured carried a STAINLESS STEEL Kenworth, with all kinds of funky mods...including stars, stripes, and flags. (and LOUD horns)

It landed at (I forget the name) Moscow aerodrome, and took the looooong route, through downtown to the development facility.

Crew got a nice layover, TOP LEVEL treatment.

Nice temporary thaw in the cold war.
h***@gmail.com
2020-05-15 05:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Magewolf
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
1. Property value would make that a non-starter.
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Post by Magewolf
2. There have been five year periods with no problems already.
It's been five years since the Japanese event?
About due for another, then, aren't we.
Fukushima was in 2011.
How many have died from fossil fuel extraction and pollution since?
The *official* cancer death toll from the disaster is 1.
Pt
The last time I looked (months or years ago), only 5 ??? of the 60 ???
nuclear power plants were running in Japan.
Lynn
Though they did not invent it......they helped refine "chicken little".
Japan is reputedly starting the tenth nuclear reactor back up in a Dec
2019 article. 43 to go !
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/japan-nuclear-power-reactor-fukushima/
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/japan%E2%80%99s-nuclear-power-plants.html
This Forbes article compares the deaths/terawatt of various electricity sources.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#431801ff709b
Fossil fuel doesn't come off well.
pt
Again.........nukes are best......for many reasons.
Nuke power is way more expensive than renewables are, has a long build time and many of the modern designs to solve problems are unproven and reduce strengths of the technology
Not to come off as "anti-nuke" (I'm not; I'm simply anti-irresponsibly
designed/sited/implementd/managed nuke plants because, no matter how
minimal the damage or how few the deaths, any problem gives all of
them a bad rep with people in general), I read a recent article
stating that, after 20-25 years (IIRC) a joint project Clinton started
with the Russians was /finally/ assembling a really large tokamak.
In five years they expect to be able to /turn it on/.
And, five years after /that/, they hope to find it putting out more
energy than it takes in.
Of couse, if it works, I'm sure construction time and costs will
eventually come down.
That's an experimental fusion generator
Completely different from fission plants
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 19:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Again.........nukes are best......for many reasons.
Nuke power is way more expensive than renewables are, has a long build time and many of the modern designs to solve problems are unproven and reduce strengths of the technology.
Got some demonstrable studies ?
Quadibloc
2020-05-13 19:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Although nuclear plants must indeed be made safe enough so that they _could_ be
put near cities, that is still yet another unnecessary risk to be avoided. Thus,
of course they will be sited in rural areas, as far as possible from any major
(or, for that matter, minor) population centers.

This will not only reduce risk from the extremely unlikely event from an
accident, but it will also reduce the incentive for *deliberate sabotage*.

John Savard
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-13 20:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Although nuclear plants must indeed be made safe enough so that they _could_ be
put near cities, that is still yet another unnecessary risk to be avoided. Thus,
of course they will be sited in rural areas, as far as possible from any major
(or, for that matter, minor) population centers.
This will not only reduce risk from the extremely unlikely event from an
accident, but it will also reduce the incentive for *deliberate sabotage*.
John Savard
Best places for the are (almost) coastal, as......

Water desalination, with waste heat, is an almost free side effect.
Navy nuclear powered aircraft carriers reportedly desalinate 1500 m3/d each for use onboard.
(https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-desalination.aspx)

Production of liquid H2, while not free, is a very cheap side effect.
Again......
(https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/transport-and-the-hydrogen-economy.aspx)

But........THIS SHIT IS SCAARRRRRY......

....kinda like black rifles.....
Paul S Person
2020-05-14 16:47:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 May 2020 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Although nuclear plants must indeed be made safe enough so that they _could_ be
put near cities, that is still yet another unnecessary risk to be avoided. Thus,
of course they will be sited in rural areas, as far as possible from any major
(or, for that matter, minor) population centers.
Actually, there appear to be people in favor of decentralizing power
plants, so that a city might have several small ones. This would,
among other things, cut down on the energy wasted by the "long lines"
required from remotely-cited power plants.

And, since a /safe/ nuclear power plant would have /no emissions/
(other than electricity, of course), it would be ideal for such a use.
Post by Quadibloc
This will not only reduce risk from the extremely unlikely event from an
accident, but it will also reduce the incentive for *deliberate sabotage*.
But not from tsunamis. Or, along the Ring of Fire, from earthquakes or
volcanoes.

BTW, has anyone even /designed/ a nuclear power plant that could be
buried in liquid rock (lava) and still not allow any radiation to
escape?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-14 18:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 13 May 2020 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
That's the point: if you can't get it safe and sound enough for 1%-ers
to welcome it next to /their/ homes and /their/ schools, then it will
never be acceptable.
Having no negative effect on property value is, of course, a part of
that.
Although nuclear plants must indeed be made safe enough so that they _could_ be
put near cities, that is still yet another unnecessary risk to be avoided. Thus,
of course they will be sited in rural areas, as far as possible from any major
(or, for that matter, minor) population centers.
Actually, there appear to be people in favor of decentralizing power
plants, so that a city might have several small ones. This would,
among other things, cut down on the energy wasted by the "long lines"
required from remotely-cited power plants.
And, since a /safe/ nuclear power plant would have /no emissions/
(other than electricity, of course), it would be ideal for such a use.
Post by Quadibloc
This will not only reduce risk from the extremely unlikely event from an
accident, but it will also reduce the incentive for *deliberate sabotage*.
But not from tsunamis. Or, along the Ring of Fire, from earthquakes or
volcanoes.
BTW, has anyone even /designed/ a nuclear power plant that could be
buried in liquid rock (lava) and still not allow any radiation to
escape?
Toshiba is working on that. I have no idea what their progress is.
They have offered to install a couple in remote Alaskan villages that
are flying in diesel to run diesel power plants at horrendous costs.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-05-14 19:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, has anyone even /designed/ a nuclear power plant that could be
buried in liquid rock (lava) and still not allow any radiation to
escape?
Toshiba is working on that. I have no idea what their progress is.
They have offered to install a couple in remote Alaskan villages that
are flying in diesel to run diesel power plants at horrendous costs.
That was 12 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/12/18/toshibas-personal-sized-nuclear-reactor/
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-14 20:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
BTW, has anyone even /designed/ a nuclear power plant that could be
buried in liquid rock (lava) and still not allow any radiation to
escape?
Toshiba is working on that. I have no idea what their progress is.
They have offered to install a couple in remote Alaskan villages that
are flying in diesel to run diesel power plants at horrendous costs.
That was 12 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/12/18/toshibas-personal-sized-nuclear-reactor/
And Toshiba is still working on them.

And here is the outfit that I was actually thinking of, NuScale.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/smaller-safer-cheaper-one-company-aims-reinvent-nuclear-reactor-and-save-warming-planet

Lynn
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 19:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
But not from tsunamis. Or, along the Ring of Fire, from earthquakes or
volcanoes.
Research the "flooring" inside NORAD
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-12 18:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
We have four nuclear power plants in Texas since starting in 1990.
South Texas Project and Comanche Peak. Never a problem that I know of.
Power production factors consistently above 90%.

Lynn
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-13 18:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Lynn McGuire
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/node/457
has it at 80% in 2017
Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in cheaply replacing that.
Renewable electricity generation is cheaper to build than fossil fuel electricity generation is
Post by Lynn McGuire
Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Ethanol
Hydrogen (either for combustion or in a fuel cell)
Neither are as compact as gas but they are still compact fuels
(Hydrogen has higher energy per kg but lower density)
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
because they're mostly launching in the next year
Rivian was going to be in the second half of this year, they've shut the factory with Covid-19 and are now aiming for the 1st half of next year
The longer we delay nukes........the longer we bitch to each other about "solutions"
All this.....fossil / solar / wind / thermal / tidal / yadda yadda bullshit ... is like sitting on the porch watching a yard full of kids fight about whose dad is tougher.
Get the nukes going or STFU.....
I finally figured out what it would take to make nuclear power appear
1. The initial plants must be sited amongst the 1%-ers. If it ain't
safe for them, it ain't safe for The Rest of Us.
....and muffler shops, tanning solons, shopping malls, etc.
Zoning laws are for more than nuke plants.

Suggestion sounds like an AOC solution.
Post by Paul S Person
2. Five years with /no/ problems, including /no/ radiactive emissions.
Your local coal / gas fired plant emits WAY more radiation than any nuke.

....as for education of the public.....

Just tell the nets that it is an impeachment story, and that is all you would hear 24 / 7.

If we were really serious ...... we'd just get the Navy to build and operate them.
Quadibloc
2020-05-13 19:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
If we were really serious ...... we'd just get the Navy to build and operate them.
For once, we're in agreement.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-05-14 16:49:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 May 2020 12:44:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
If we were really serious ...... we'd just get the Navy to build and operate them.
For once, we're in agreement.
Yes, they do have an enviable record, and a lot of experience.

And a distinct lack of typical American business "know-how" (fine for
producing ball-bearings, not so fine for aircraft or nuclear plants or
other really important stuff).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-14 19:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 13 May 2020 12:44:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
If we were really serious ...... we'd just get the Navy to build and operate them.
For once, we're in agreement.
Yes, they do have an enviable record, and a lot of experience.
And a distinct lack of typical American business "know-how" (fine for
producing ball-bearings, not so fine for aircraft or nuclear plants or
other really important stuff).
No snark.......but I don't get the meaning of that last paragraph.
Paul S Person
2020-05-15 16:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 13 May 2020 12:44:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
If we were really serious ...... we'd just get the Navy to build and operate them.
For once, we're in agreement.
Yes, they do have an enviable record, and a lot of experience.
And a distinct lack of typical American business "know-how" (fine for
producing ball-bearings, not so fine for aircraft or nuclear plants or
other really important stuff).
No snark.......but I don't get the meaning of that last paragraph.
I am saying that events like 3-Mile Island and the 737-MAX call into
serious question the ability of American business management to handle
products which can actually kill people if they don't work.

But that such management is perfectly fine for, say, roller-skating
rinks, retail stores, or non-potentially-lethal products.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
John Halpenny
2020-05-15 17:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 13 May 2020 12:44:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
If we were really serious ...... we'd just get the Navy to build and operate them.
For once, we're in agreement.
Yes, they do have an enviable record, and a lot of experience.
And a distinct lack of typical American business "know-how" (fine for
producing ball-bearings, not so fine for aircraft or nuclear plants or
other really important stuff).
No snark.......but I don't get the meaning of that last paragraph.
I am saying that events like 3-Mile Island and the 737-MAX call into
serious question the ability of American business management to handle
products which can actually kill people if they don't work.
But that such management is perfectly fine for, say, roller-skating
rinks, retail stores, or non-potentially-lethal products.
--
There are far, FAR more deaths from sports accidents and store shootings than from nuclear accidents.

John
James Nicoll
2020-05-15 17:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
I am saying that events like 3-Mile Island and the 737-MAX call into
serious question the ability of American business management to handle
products which can actually kill people if they don't work.
In defense of American business management, 3-Mile Island didn't kill anyone.
May I suggest instead the New London School explosion, which had the twist
that the deaths of about three hundred students and teachers was set in
motion by an American company trying to do be charitable?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Peter Trei
2020-05-11 04:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Pt
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Good luck in cheaply
replacing that. Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Actually, around 80%. We need to change this. Climate change also has a cost.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
Tesla will take deposits now.

https://www.tesla.com/semi

It's somewhat beyond concept car stage. There seem to have been about half a dozen
built, and they're doing a lot of testing. First deliveries promised next year.



Battery production seems to be a bottleneck at the moment.

Pt
Quadibloc
2020-05-11 05:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
Tesla will take deposits now.
You can't haul anything in a pre-order.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-11 08:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Pt
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Good luck in cheaply
replacing that. Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Actually, around 80%. We need to change this. Climate change also has a cost.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
Tesla will take deposits now.
https://www.tesla.com/semi
It's somewhat beyond concept car stage. There seem to have been about half a dozen
built, and they're doing a lot of testing. First deliveries promised next year.
http://youtu.be/Foy2FX_g7GU
Battery production seems to be a bottleneck at the moment.
Pt
I am talking about worldwide energy usage being 90% fossil fuels. And
don't forget the ships. They burn an incredulous amount of diesel, many
of the new ships are LNG. Not many of the good old Bunker C ships left
now. Actually, according to this webpage, fossil fuels were 85% in
2018, which I think is understated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-05-12 03:42:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 May 2020 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Pt
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Good luck in cheaply
replacing that. Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Actually, around 80%. We need to change this. Climate change also has a cost.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
Tesla will take deposits now.
Yeah, but will they ever deliver?
Post by Peter Trei
https://www.tesla.com/semi
Yeah, we've all seen the pictures. That doesn't mean that they have
something that actually works beyond being able to put on a show for
the press.
Post by Peter Trei
It's somewhat beyond concept car stage. There seem to have been about half a dozen
built, and they're doing a lot of testing. First deliveries promised next year.
http://youtu.be/Foy2FX_g7GU
Battery production seems to be a bottleneck at the moment.
The question is whether it actually will have enough range to be
useful. Tesla has a reputation for quoting range under idea
conditions then getting shirty with anybody who does a test and gets
less range.
Alan Baker
2020-05-12 05:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
The warmer planet that you describe did not have room for
creatures like us.
So, you are saying that humans are not adaptable. Be sure to tell the
middle easterners and the people living on the equator that.
It would be a lot cheaper and easier to keep the climate the way it's been during all of human history.
I know that the reduction in fossil fuel usage would impact *you* negatively in the short term,
but most, and especially our children and grandchildren, would be better off.
Pt
Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Good luck in cheaply
replacing that. Also please find a compact fuel like gasoline and
diesel that is easy to transport and quick to refuel.
Actually, around 80%. We need to change this. Climate change also has a cost.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
Tesla will take deposits now.
Yeah, but will they ever deliver?
Post by Peter Trei
https://www.tesla.com/semi
Yeah, we've all seen the pictures. That doesn't mean that they have
something that actually works beyond being able to put on a show for
the press.
Which sounds exactly like what they were saying about Tesla cars...

...5 years ago.

Even Terry has learned that.
Quadibloc
2020-05-12 14:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Tesla will take deposits now.
Yeah, but will they ever deliver?
Particularly if they have to close down all their existing plants, and move them
to another state, while Elon Musk is in jail. Events are moving on.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/05/musk-dares-county-officials-to-arrest-him-as-he-re-opens-fremont-factory/

I view such behavior as sheer insanity. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not
disregarded, and this is doubly true in an emergency (where the laws are for the
purpose of dealing with the emergency, that is, rather than being in the way).

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-05-12 16:26:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Tesla will take deposits now.
Yeah, but will they ever deliver?
Particularly if they have to close down all their existing plants, and move them
to another state, while Elon Musk is in jail. Events are moving on.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/05/musk-dares-county-officials-to-arrest-him-as-he-re-opens-fremont-factory/
I view such behavior as sheer insanity. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not
disregarded, and this is doubly true in an emergency (where the laws are for the
purpose of dealing with the emergency, that is, rather than being in the way).
Well, most places, anyway.

I can remember a time when the Republicans in Congress adopted the odd
belief that, after they had taken the trouble to pass a law, people
had darned well better comply with it. Even tax laws. The Dems were
less emphatic about this. But those days, alas, are long gone.

In Texas, OTOH, the governor has explicitly stated that nobody should
be jailed for ignoring his orders. So not, it appears, in Texas.

Well, unless he's backtracked; it's been a few days.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Scott Lurndal
2020-05-12 14:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 10 May 2020 21:36:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have yet to see a single electric truck. I keep on hearing rumors of
several but I cannot find one for sale. Why is that ?
Tesla will take deposits now.
Yeah, but will they ever deliver?
Based on their record, why would you assume otherwise?
Post by J. Clarke
The question is whether it actually will have enough range to be
useful. Tesla has a reputation for quoting range under idea
conditions then getting shirty with anybody who does a test and gets
less range.
That's disingenous at best.
William Hyde
2020-05-10 19:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?

On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.

William Hyde
Scott Lurndal
2020-05-11 15:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?
On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.
Do recall that you're talking to Lynn, who believes humans were created ab initio
six millenia ago.
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-11 19:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?
On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.
Do recall that you're talking to Lynn, who believes humans were created ab initio
six millenia ago.
Why do you say lies like that ? Yes, I believe that human beings were
designed and created by God. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that
happened six millennia ago. That number comes from people trying to
convert the Bible from a user manual to a history book.

Lynn
William Hyde
2020-05-11 20:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?
On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.
Do recall that you're talking to Lynn, who believes humans were created ab initio
six millenia ago.
But if Lynn believes that, then we have been in an ice age for 100% of the earth's history. Or perhaps he's one of those who believes that the earth was ice-free until the deluge, in which case earth has been in an ice age for something like 70% of it's existence.

In either case, an ice age would be the rule, not the exception, and his argument would fall apart, were it not already absurd.

You know, for most of the history of the universe the Earth has not existed. So let's blow it up and exit this abnormal state. Suddenly the aliens in "Anvil of Stars" seem understandable. They were just normalizing things.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-11 19:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?
On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.
William Hyde
So you dispute the graph on this webpage ?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/

And I dispute your time line of human beings as "evolving" under ice age
conditions. Were you there ?

Lynn
William Hyde
2020-05-11 20:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?
On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.
William Hyde
So you dispute the graph on this webpage ?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/
If you will look really, really carefully at that graph, you will see that it has a title:

"Phanerozoic Global Temperature".

Now if you act like an adult and google that big word, you will find that it refers to the past 541 million years. About a tenth of the earth's history.

We know there were pre-phanerozic ice ages but we are unclear as to their length, or even number.

So to say that we know the percentage of the time the earth has been in an ice age to two significant figures is absurd.

In any event, you misquote even this web site, not that they don't deserve it. They go for nine percent, not eleven.

Finally, they declare the "normal" climate of the Phanerozoic to be earth's "optimum" climate. Just ludicrous.

I suspect they, and you, just don't understand how long ten million years is. Life today is adapted to today's climate. Moving back to the climate of ten million years ago, rapidly, would be a catastrophe. Moving to the site's absurdly named "optimum" would be a far worse disaster.

Good to see my former collaborator, Chris Scotese, getting some publicity, even on a site like this. His reconstructions of ancient continental positions are amazing.
Post by Lynn McGuire
And I dispute your time line of human beings as "evolving" under ice age
conditions.
Take it to talk.origins, if you dare.

Were you there ?

You're channeling Ken Ham?

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2020-05-11 23:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
And I dispute your time line of human beings as "evolving" under ice age
conditions. Were you there ?
Not understood. There is a well-established consensus that anatomically-modern
humans date from 40,000 years ago, and hominids from two million years ago, and we
also have palaeoclimactic data.

We know there were no humans around during the time of the dinosaurs, when it
was much warmer.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-12 03:51:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 May 2020 14:41:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time. Both polar caps are frozen. The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify. That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We do not actually know that number to two significant figures. But yes, ice age conditions are the exception. An atmosphere with 20% O2 is also an exception. I take it you'd be fine if we dropped that to, say five?
On the other hand we can say with absolute confidence that human beings evolved under ice age conditions and have lived amid such 100% of the time.
William Hyde
So you dispute the graph on this webpage ?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/
And I dispute your time line of human beings as "evolving" under ice age
conditions. Were you there ?
The time scale on that graph is so long that span of human evolution
is within the line width at the end.

The current ice age began 2.6 million years ago. Australopithecus
came into existence some time around then. And the rest of human
evolution has happened since. So arguing that humans evolved during
conditions other than those of an ice age doesn't pass the giggle
test.

Of course you may want to deny that the current ice age is an ice age,
or that humans have been around since the Jurassic or some such, but
again you're failing the giggle test.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-05-11 23:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
John Savard
We are living in a very unusual time.  Both polar caps are frozen.  The
definition of an ice age is when either of the polar caps are frozen.
The planet has only been in an ice age for 11% of the time that we can
identify.  That means that the planet was significantly warmer than now
89% of the time.
We are living in the exception now, not the rule.
Which informs absolutely nothing about what we should be doing with the
fact that we are changing the temperature in a way which imperils US as
we live NOW.

That the world may be destined to get 5, 10, 15 degrees warmer over the
next 20,000 years might be a problem for the human race, but it is a
problem that can be dealt with.

You're a huge fan of XKCD:

<https://xkcd.com/1732/>

Look at the pace of the change at the very end of that long, long history.
Paul S Person
2020-05-10 16:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
Sounds /worse/ than the weather produced during a couple of summers
several years back by "the Blob", which was in the North Pacific off
Alaska/Canada/PNW.

And /that/ was bad enough for me!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
o***@gmail.com
2020-05-10 17:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/lethal-levels-heat-and-humidity-are-gripping-global-hot-spots-sooner-expected#
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-and-humidity-are-already-reaching-the-limits-of-human-tolerance/
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-05-08/planet-already-seeing-temperatures-beyond-human-tolerability
Sounds /worse/ than the weather produced during a couple of summers
several years back by "the Blob", which was in the North Pacific off
Alaska/Canada/PNW.
And /that/ was bad enough for me!
Grew up in Wyoming and spent Peace Corps on the equator.

I'll survive.
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-10 22:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Without very warm clothing, the weather in Antarctica or north of the Arctic
Circle is fatal to human beings.
However, the same has not been true at the warm end. However, some recent news
items have noted that we are approaching the day when the combination of heat and
humidity in some tropical locations will reach a point fatal to humans.
I didn't check if this was mentioned, but traditionally,
if you headed south from Europe far enough, you were supposed
to encounter a belt of fire around the Earth... was that
responsible for it being so hot as you got close to it?

The version of Venus occupied by <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treens>
has that kind of geography as well.
s***@yahoo.com
2020-05-11 19:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Hey that tesla semi looks a lot better than the old German electric semi.
The claims to be super cheap may be over rated, but still cheaper than the
economy based on putrid dinosaurs.
J. Clarke
2020-05-12 03:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Hey that tesla semi looks a lot better than the old German electric semi.
The claims to be super cheap may be over rated, but still cheaper than the
economy based on putrid dinosaurs.
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
Robert Carnegie
2020-05-12 10:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Hey that tesla semi looks a lot better than the old German electric semi.
The claims to be super cheap may be over rated, but still cheaper than the
economy based on putrid dinosaurs.
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it.
I think that was temporary. It doesn't make sense as a
long term business plan unless the White House intends to
subsidize unsustainable energy use indefinitely... which is
a contradiction in terms, of course.
Quadibloc
2020-05-12 14:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I think that was temporary. It doesn't make sense as a
long term business plan unless the White House intends to
subsidize unsustainable energy use indefinitely... which is
a contradiction in terms, of course.
Not _really_. Although it is true that "indefinitely" is often used as a polite
euphemism for "forever", subsidizing the fossil fuel industry without a stated
limit (these subsidies will end in X years) is perfectly possible, even if the
subsidies will still end at the indeterminate future date when the oil runs out.
There's a reason that "indefinitely" and "eternally" both have entries in the
dictionary.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-05-12 14:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.

Also, global warming is at present an externality for automobile users. Future
governments could change that.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-05-12 21:31:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Post by Quadibloc
Also, global warming is at present an externality for automobile users. Future
governments could change that.
Future governments could do a lot of things. When it happens get back
to us.
Peter Trei
2020-05-13 01:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.

If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.

Pt
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-13 01:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.
If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.
Pt
Huh, I would have thought that those numbers would be equivalent. I
guess that Tesla's regenerative braking must be awesome.

Or else you are driving 150 mph on the highway.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-05-13 01:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.
If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.
Pt
Huh, I would have thought that those numbers would be equivalent. I
guess that Tesla's regenerative braking must be awesome.
Or else you are driving 150 mph on the highway.
It's more a matter of air resistance.

Pt
Alan Baker
2020-05-13 02:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.
If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.
Pt
Huh, I would have thought that those numbers would be equivalent. I
guess that Tesla's regenerative braking must be awesome.
Or else you are driving 150 mph on the highway.
It's more a matter of air resistance.
Pt
Yup. People look at the fact that cars typically get higher MPG on the
highway and never realize that it is masking a tremendous difference in
basic fuel consumption to maintain speed behind the fact that on city
streets, you throw away all the kinetic energy you've burned fuel to get
every time you stop.

:-)
Lynn McGuire
2020-05-13 18:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.
If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.
Pt
Huh, I would have thought that those numbers would be equivalent. I
guess that Tesla's regenerative braking must be awesome.
Or else you are driving 150 mph on the highway.
It's more a matter of air resistance.
Pt
So you are driving 150 mph on the highway. I've been in my cousin's
Tesla 3 with the dual motors and big battery (310 miles) several times.
It is spooky fast at less than 3 seconds to 60 mph.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-05-14 01:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
???  Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it.  I don't think that Tesla
can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went
negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.
If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.
Pt
Huh, I would have thought that those numbers would be equivalent.  I
guess that Tesla's regenerative braking must be awesome.
Or else you are driving 150 mph on the highway.
It's more a matter of air resistance.
Pt
So you are driving 150 mph on the highway.  I've been in my cousin's
Tesla 3 with the dual motors and big battery (310 miles) several times.
It is spooky fast at less than 3 seconds to 60 mph.
That would be "quick", not fast.

And you just don't get air resistance and how fast it grows.
Alan Baker
2020-05-13 02:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
???  Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it.  I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Right, now, my Tesla is roughly the same cost per mile as an
equivalent Dinosaur car
(BMW 328i) on the highway, and a good deal cheaper in the city. That's with expensive
New England electricity and currently cheap gas.
If you want to run the numbers, highway uses about 240 Wh per mile, and 160 in town.
Pt
Huh, I would have thought that those numbers would be equivalent.  I
guess that Tesla's regenerative braking must be awesome.
There is very little evidence that you do much thinking.
Or else you are driving 150 mph on the highway.
Hey! Here's a few THOUGHTS for you:

What don't you do very much on the highway?

Slow down!


What DO you do?

Go a lot faster than you do on city streets!


What does going a lot faster do to the air resistance and thus power
required in order to DO it?

It increases it! Air resistance rises as the square of the increase in
speed, and power required rises as cube of the increase.

There is also mechanical resistance that muddies the waters, but to put
it simply (for you):

When you go from driving 30mph to 60mph, you're fuel consumption will
increase by EIGHT TIMES.


Now, there is another factor which means you don't notice this:

When you're driving in the city, you don't drive at a constant 30mph.
You move away from a stop, get up to speed, then slow down and turn all
that kinetic energy you've expended fuel to acquire into heat in the
braking systems. That effect masks how much more efficient the basic
operation of a vehicle at 30 as opposed to 60 really is.


But here's your last thought for this post:

Does an electric car throw away all of the kinetic energy you've put
into it every time you slow down or stop?

No!

It takes that kinetic energy and recaptures a lot of it by turning its
drive motors into generators!

The precise reason the figures are only different by a factor of 1.5 is
that the regenerative system ISN'T awesome, and (as I already said)
mechanical losses even the difference out somewhat as well.


You could have figured all of this out on your own...

...if you had actually thought about it.
Alan Baker
2020-05-13 02:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 12 May 2020 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
??? Right now the people who produce the stuff based on putrid
dinosaurs are paying people to take it. I don't think that Tesla can
get operating costs lower than that.
It is true that, for a brief moment, the price of oil went negative on the futures
market for certain dates. That, however, has since been corrected. Filling the
tank of one's car still costs money.
So does charging one's electric.
Just not nearly as much; by a factor of something greater than three.
Loading...