Discussion:
OT Climate Change Denial.
(too old to reply)
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-12 21:42:41 UTC
Permalink
What anti-energy folks? Name names.
Two famous examples, Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich, who I quoted
on the subject elsewhere in this thread. Ehrlich editoralized
against the "Cold Fusion" discovery in those heady few weeks
when it looked like it might be real.
Never heard of the first, and the second, while perhaps premature,
has certainly thought about the population issues extensively.
...
In the 1990s, his work with Rocky Mountain Institute included the design
of an ultra-efficient automobile, the Hypercar.
...
I see nothing in that which characterizes Lovin's as "anti-energy".
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Q.E.D.
He is an absorbing and persuasive speaker. I heard him give
a talk on his superduperultramegahypercar a number of years ago.
The car as described could probably fill a useful niche.
However, I was bemused by his insistence that a car with a mass
of about that of a medium sized motorcycle would not inherently
be at a passenger-survival disadvantage in a collision with
a conventional vehicle.
Only if we haven't all be forced into using the
superduperultramegahypercar. For our own good, of course.
Anyway, the first question is is it an elastic or
inelastic condition.
Collision. I'm sorry, I must have written in haste.
I think that means what it sounds
like but I am slightly hazy on it.
Sounds like - yes!
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-12 23:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Big problems lead to big solutions.
Space elevators may not be possible. However, using heat pumps to cool the
planet, pumping the heat, not into space, but into insulated mirrored radiators
that radiate the heat away at a short enough wavelength to avoid heating the
atmosphere is certainly possible.
The other alternative is for a diminishing fraction of the increasing human
population to actually live on Earth.
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight. If they're
solar panels equipped to beam power back down to Earth via microwaves,
then you've got a two-fer. (Probably have to relay them via
power stations in geosync.)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Quadibloc
2020-02-12 23:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight.
I doubt we will have such capabilities within the time frame required.

Painting roofs white, maybe even bioengineering white kudzu (!) I could believe.

John Savard
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-12 23:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight.
I doubt we will have such capabilities within the time frame required.
Painting roofs white, maybe even bioengineering white kudzu (!) I could believe.
White roofs is a good idea that ought to be done more often.

White kudzu... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

(draws breath just before passing out)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
J. Clarke
2020-02-13 00:45:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:09:38 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight.
I doubt we will have such capabilities within the time frame required.
It's just Mylar and Starships.
Post by Quadibloc
Painting roofs white, maybe even bioengineering white kudzu (!) I could believe.
John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-12 23:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Big problems lead to big solutions.
Space elevators may not be possible. However, using heat pumps to cool the
planet, pumping the heat, not into space, but into insulated mirrored radiators
that radiate the heat away at a short enough wavelength to avoid heating the
atmosphere is certainly possible.
The other alternative is for a diminishing fraction of the increasing human
population to actually live on Earth.
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight. If they're
solar panels equipped to beam power back down to Earth via microwaves,
then you've got a two-fer. (Probably have to relay them via
power stations in geosync.)
Space Umbrellas !

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 00:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Big problems lead to big solutions.
Space elevators may not be possible. However, using heat pumps to cool the
planet, pumping the heat, not into space, but into insulated mirrored radiators
that radiate the heat away at a short enough wavelength to avoid heating the
atmosphere is certainly possible.
The other alternative is for a diminishing fraction of the increasing human
population to actually live on Earth.
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight. If they're
solar panels equipped to beam power back down to Earth via microwaves,
then you've got a two-fer. (Probably have to relay them via
power stations in geosync.)
I suspect that runs into problems that the earth's climate is not uniform so cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth will have differing effects in different areas.
It also does nothing about ocean acidification.
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 02:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Big problems lead to big solutions.
Space elevators may not be possible. However, using heat pumps to cool the
planet, pumping the heat, not into space, but into insulated mirrored radiators
that radiate the heat away at a short enough wavelength to avoid heating the
atmosphere is certainly possible.
The other alternative is for a diminishing fraction of the increasing human
population to actually live on Earth.
Another possibility is to lower the amount of sunlight reaching the
Earth by putting up sunshades around L2. Yeah, they have to be ...
rather large. But they can be thin and lightweight. If they're
solar panels equipped to beam power back down to Earth via microwaves,
then you've got a two-fer. (Probably have to relay them via
power stations in geosync.)
Beaming power back to earth means you beam the heat too... ...at least
most of it.
J. Clarke
2020-02-12 23:19:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:25:15 -0800, Paul S Person
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:34:29 -0500, J. Clarke
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 09:51:26 -0800, Paul S Person
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:31:11 -0500, J. Clarke
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:56:17 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 22:42:09 -0600, Lynn McGuire
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
Fukushima was fine and a good design, although dated. I don't like BWRs
though. But they built the emergency diesels next to the levee at the
lower part of the property where they ingested water due to the 90 ft
tsunami wave that went over the levee. So no cooling water power for
the hot reactors.
And then, to add insult to injury, they stored the used nuclear fuel
rods on top of the reactor domes. The earthquake caused the nuclear
fuel rod ponds ON TOP OF THE REACTOR DOMES to fracture and leak cooling
water since they did not calculate the earthquake stress on the nuclear
rod ponds. We are talking about 400 ft to 500 ft tall structures here !
You have an odd notion of "good".
I would call /any/ nuclear plant placed in the way of a known
potential earthquake/tsunami to be /very poorly designed/.
If it is in Japan it is in such way. Placement in such a location
does not reflect poor design.
Actually, it does.
Siting is as much a part of design as blueprints are.
Remember: It's all about location!
Designing for the site is design. Selecting the site is site
selection.
And that attitude is why nuclear power is not regarded favorably by
people in general: when it goes blooey, all they hear are excuses
about how "it's not our fault".
Now that sir is a damned lie.
Let me know when the people-in-charge have finally decided to actually
do their jobs instead of just pretending and then blaming someone
else.
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-12 23:37:26 UTC
Permalink
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
Please show your math. After all, this is a senior level course.
Lynn
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
see the third graph
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper. Can't you find anything more
recent ? Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
There's nothing wrong with a 2011 paper. Facts are facts.
All that he says in that paper is that the population of the Earth must
stop growing soon.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 02:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 19:46:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion
that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA.  We
have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA.
That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years.   I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
Please show your math.  After all, this is a senior level course.
Lynn
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
see the third graph
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
There's nothing wrong with a 2011 paper.   Facts are facts.
All that he says in that paper is that the population of the Earth must
stop growing soon.
Lynn
Wrong. He talks about the consequences of energy usage going on growing
at its current rate.

Certainly population growth plays a role in whether or not that happens,
but it doesn't change the basic math.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 00:04:14 UTC
Permalink
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Which doesn't make him "anti-energy" by any stretch of the imagination.
Oh? Even with the correction mentioned in this thread, clearly this is an
expression of opposition to improving our ability to produce energy.
Obviously, one of the things we would do with cheap, clean, abundant energy is
end poverty. To those of us who are experiencing poverty, that is the number one
priority of human activity.
You appear to believe that suddenly the people in poverty would have a say.
And what's with the "us" there?
Thus, he isn't just anti-energy, he is anti-human.
As opposed to your wonderful plans of invading everywhere and killing people...
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-13 00:30:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 19:35:33 +0200, Juho Julkunen
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
The question was "why isn't nuclear being considered?".
It isn't being considered because it has failed. Publicly.
Spectacularly.
So has coal, to a tremendously greater extent. Publicly. And it's still
considered.
And the Public remembers. And wants nothing to do with it in the
future. Oddly, people have a negative reaction to inherently dangerous
things failing spectacularly.
But, apparently, not to inherently dangerous things that don't need to
fail to kill people, but do it by design.
Your answer appears to boil down to: "nuclear isn't being considered
because people are superstitious and innumerate idiots who love mass
murder."
Except for the last bit, you got it.
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Oil refineries /have/ been known to blow up from time to time. But
"the oil refinery is on fire" just isn't as scary as "the nuclear
plant is going to blow in 5 minutes".
The plain fact is that mumbling about which kills more people is
ineffective. IIRC, the FAA, after the first 737-MAX crashed, crunched
the numbers, determined how many more were likely to crash over the
next year (or two or five, I don't recall which), decided it wouldn't
affect air travel's status as "the safest way to travel", and decided
to do -- nothing.
We /don't care/ how much safer air travel is than, say, train travel.
What /we/ care about is /why/ the planes crash. Running into birds is
one thing. Being shot down by moron AA operators is another thing. The
airplane deciding /on its on/ to fly into the ground is something
else. And no amount of statistical doubletalk will change that.
The same for nuclear power -- /no/ amount of statistical information
will change the fact that, when something goes wrong, it /really/ goes
wrong. The /only/ acceptable probability of failure for a nuclear
power plant is /exactly zero/. And we already know it isn't that.
No, sorry. That's just nonsense.
The actual important question is which generates the most power for the
harm it does.
Coal is MUCH worse than nuclear power in this regard.
The first numbers I found suggest that per terawatt-hour, they stack up
Deaths due to Coal Nuc. Ratio
Accident 0.12 0.02 6
Pollution 25 0.05 500
Serious illness 225 0.22 1023
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html>
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#f8f3715709b7>
To put those numbers in some perspective, US electrical usage in 2015
was something like 3,911 terawatt-hours. Coal produces something like
15% of that. So coal killed something like 135,000 people that year.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States>
With facts like that, it is practically criminal not start building
nuclear reactors to replace coal power stations.
Depends what the other options are (and relies on the statistics being accurate, there's huge problems with all mining operations where sites are left in a hell of a mess and this has huge problems for the local people but they generally get ignored)
If only the options are nuclear vs coal _and_ there's enough supply of nuclear fuels to keep going for a long time then yeah, swapping to nuclear makes a lot of sense. When there are other options swapping to them looks like a much better idea.

But there's a large bias to consider the way things are fine and perfectly natural
Joss Whedon hit that on firefly with the lines
Wash: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoe: We live in a spaceship, dear.
Wash: So?
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-13 00:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
What anti-energy folks? Name names.
Two famous examples, Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich, who I quoted
on the subject elsewhere in this thread. Ehrlich editoralized
against the "Cold Fusion" discovery in those heady few weeks
when it looked like it might be real.
Never heard of the first, and the second, while perhaps premature,
has certainly thought about the population issues extensively.
...
In the 1990s, his work with Rocky Mountain Institute included the design
of an ultra-efficient automobile, the Hypercar.
...
I see nothing in that which characterizes Lovin's as "anti-energy".
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Q.E.D.
He is an absorbing and persuasive speaker. I heard him give
a talk on his superduperultramegahypercar a number of years ago.
The car as described could probably fill a useful niche.
However, I was bemused by his insistence that a car with a mass
of about that of a medium sized motorcycle would not inherently
be at a passenger-survival disadvantage in a collision with
a conventional vehicle.
Only if we haven't all be forced into using the
superduperultramegahypercar. For our own good, of course.
Anyway, the first question is is it an elastic or
inelastic condition.
Collision. I'm sorry, I must have written in haste.
I think that means what it sounds
like but I am slightly hazy on it.
Sounds like - yes!
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians into other traffic?
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-14 03:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Robert Carnegie
What anti-energy folks? Name names.
Two famous examples, Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich, who I quoted
on the subject elsewhere in this thread. Ehrlich editoralized
against the "Cold Fusion" discovery in those heady few weeks
when it looked like it might be real.
Never heard of the first, and the second, while perhaps premature,
has certainly thought about the population issues extensively.
...
In the 1990s, his work with Rocky Mountain Institute included the design
of an ultra-efficient automobile, the Hypercar.
...
I see nothing in that which characterizes Lovin's as "anti-energy".
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Q.E.D.
He is an absorbing and persuasive speaker. I heard him give
a talk on his superduperultramegahypercar a number of years ago.
The car as described could probably fill a useful niche.
However, I was bemused by his insistence that a car with a mass
of about that of a medium sized motorcycle would not inherently
be at a passenger-survival disadvantage in a collision with
a conventional vehicle.
Only if we haven't all be forced into using the
superduperultramegahypercar. For our own good, of course.
Anyway, the first question is is it an elastic or
inelastic condition.
Collision. I'm sorry, I must have written in haste.
I think that means what it sounds
like but I am slightly hazy on it.
Sounds like - yes!
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians
into other traffic?
Of course, but the other vehicles have the same provision,
and so -
Titus G
2020-02-14 03:48:35 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians
into other traffic?
Of course, but the other vehicles have the same provision,
and so -
Due to the Carnegie effect, airbags exploding from cars travelling north
magnetically and cars travelling east except on Sundays, will make a
sound like ping and those on cars from the opposite direction; pong.
Lamp post airbags will have mini Pedestrian airbags attached to the
front of the standard anti-articulated-truck airbag.
(Don't ask about Sundays as I have read only the summary of the
legislation not the complete act. Lynn will have a link to a website.)
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-14 04:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians
into other traffic?
Of course, but the other vehicles have the same provision,
and so -
Due to the Carnegie effect, airbags exploding from cars travelling north
magnetically and cars travelling east except on Sundays, will make a
sound like ping and those on cars from the opposite direction; pong.
Lamp post airbags will have mini Pedestrian airbags attached to the
front of the standard anti-articulated-truck airbag.
(Don't ask about Sundays as I have read only the summary of the
legislation not the complete act. Lynn will have a link to a website.)
I humbly think it's already called "Kessler syndrome";
oh, well.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-14 05:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Robert Carnegie
What anti-energy folks? Name names.
Two famous examples, Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich, who I quoted
on the subject elsewhere in this thread. Ehrlich editoralized
against the "Cold Fusion" discovery in those heady few weeks
when it looked like it might be real.
Never heard of the first, and the second, while perhaps premature,
has certainly thought about the population issues extensively.
...
In the 1990s, his work with Rocky Mountain Institute included the design
of an ultra-efficient automobile, the Hypercar.
...
I see nothing in that which characterizes Lovin's as "anti-energy".
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Q.E.D.
He is an absorbing and persuasive speaker. I heard him give
a talk on his superduperultramegahypercar a number of years ago.
The car as described could probably fill a useful niche.
However, I was bemused by his insistence that a car with a mass
of about that of a medium sized motorcycle would not inherently
be at a passenger-survival disadvantage in a collision with
a conventional vehicle.
Only if we haven't all be forced into using the
superduperultramegahypercar. For our own good, of course.
Anyway, the first question is is it an elastic or
inelastic condition.
Collision. I'm sorry, I must have written in haste.
I think that means what it sounds
like but I am slightly hazy on it.
Sounds like - yes!
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians
into other traffic?
Of course, but the other vehicles have the same provision,
and so -
PINBALL!
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-14 20:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 05:06:12 UTC, Dimensional Traveler
What anti-energy folks?  Name names.
Two famous examples, Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich, who I quoted
on the subject elsewhere in this thread.  Ehrlich editoralized
against the "Cold Fusion" discovery in those heady few weeks
when it looked like it might be real.
Never heard of the first, and the second, while perhaps premature,
has certainly thought about the population issues extensively.
...
In the 1990s, his work with Rocky Mountain Institute included the design
of an ultra-efficient automobile, the Hypercar.
...
I see nothing in that which characterizes Lovin's as "anti-energy".
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Q.E.D.
He is an absorbing and persuasive speaker.  I heard him give
a talk on his superduperultramegahypercar a number of years ago.
The car as described could probably fill a useful niche.
However, I was bemused by his insistence that a car with a mass
of about that of a medium sized motorcycle would not inherently
be at a passenger-survival disadvantage in a collision with
a conventional vehicle.
Only if we haven't all be forced into using the
superduperultramegahypercar.  For our own good, of course.
Anyway, the first question is is it an elastic or
inelastic condition.
Collision.  I'm sorry, I must have written in haste.
I think that means what it sounds
like but I am slightly hazy on it.
Sounds like - yes!
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians
into other traffic?
Of course, but the other vehicles have the same provision,
and so -
PINBALL!
Yes ! And humans do not pinball very well at all.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-02-15 17:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 05:06:12 UTC, Dimensional Traveler
What anti-energy folks?  Name names.
Two famous examples, Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich, who I quoted
on the subject elsewhere in this thread.  Ehrlich editoralized
against the "Cold Fusion" discovery in those heady few weeks
when it looked like it might be real.
Never heard of the first, and the second, while perhaps premature,
has certainly thought about the population issues extensively.
...
In the 1990s, his work with Rocky Mountain Institute included the design
of an ultra-efficient automobile, the Hypercar.
...
I see nothing in that which characterizes Lovin's as "anti-energy".
The Lovins quote I mentioned elsewhere was "It would be nothing
short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of
cheap, clean, abundant energy."
Q.E.D.
He is an absorbing and persuasive speaker.  I heard him give
a talk on his superduperultramegahypercar a number of years ago.
The car as described could probably fill a useful niche.
However, I was bemused by his insistence that a car with a mass
of about that of a medium sized motorcycle would not inherently
be at a passenger-survival disadvantage in a collision with
a conventional vehicle.
Only if we haven't all be forced into using the
superduperultramegahypercar.  For our own good, of course.
Anyway, the first question is is it an elastic or
inelastic condition.
Collision.  I'm sorry, I must have written in haste.
I think that means what it sounds
like but I am slightly hazy on it.
Sounds like - yes!
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Won't external vehicle airbags just propel pedestrians
into other traffic?
Of course, but the other vehicles have the same provision,
and so -
PINBALL!
Yes ! And humans do not pinball very well at all.
Airbag helmets are already available, and are saving people.
Https://holding.com

They are spendy.

Pt
Juho Julkunen
2020-02-13 01:52:10 UTC
Permalink
There's been talk of fitting airbags to the outside
of cars to protect pedestrians that you might bump into.
Also talk of fitting airbags to the pedestrians.
Wasn't there a 1981 novel by Dean Koontz that predicted there would be
an accident involving a car and a pedestrian?
Sometimes even speculative fiction reaches too far.
--
Juho Julkunen
William Hyde
2020-02-13 20:42:14 UTC
Permalink
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.

Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-13 22:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real. I loved David Gerrold's _Jumping Off The Planet_
for somebody cutting a space elevator cable and it wrapping around the
planet one and a half times. I was also impressed that he thought the
space elevator would cause the local weather to go wonky.

https://www.amazon.com/Jumping-Off-Planet-Starsiders-Trilogy/dp/081257608X/

We will have space elevators in the next 100 to 200 years. We just need
a material that is stronger and lighter than carbon fiber.

Lynn
William Hyde
2020-02-14 21:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.

On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.

Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).

Still, it's a bit of good news.

William Hyde
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-14 21:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Although the CO2 released from the sediments in the reservoir hasn't been
sequestered for a hundred million years....
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-14 23:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
So what is bothering you, the space elevator or the heat radiator system
running on the side of the space elevator ? BTW, the radiator system is
definitely going to radically increase the size of the anchor rock in
GEO. Space umbrellas will probably be way cheaper though.

Lynn
William Hyde
2020-02-15 18:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
So what is bothering you, the space elevator or the heat radiator system
running on the side of the space elevator ?
Still pretending not to get it, Lynn?

Well, if at first you don't succeed, troll harder, I guess.



BTW, the radiator system is
Post by Lynn McGuire
definitely going to radically increase the size of the anchor rock in
GEO.
Now that's a flawless troll. Well done!

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-14 23:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
Most of fossil fuels are used for transportation due to their
compactness. Electricity and steam generation plants can afford to be
larger since they are not moving the entire process around the place.

I do not have understand this statement, "reservoir based hydro is not
free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas
(vastly cleaner than fracked gas).". To me, hydro means water.

And being a process engineer, "fracked natural gas" is way cleaner than
"regular natural gas" since it is usually only 2 or 3 ppm of H2S. Most
"regular natural gas", not sure if there is such a thing, usually has 1
to 10% H2S in it. Most of the "regular natural gas" wells, especially
in Canada, have been shutin due to the extremely nasty and expensive
processes to clean that H2S out of the natural gas. Google "Claus
Process" for cleaning H2S out of natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_process

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-02-15 01:40:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:51:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
Most of fossil fuels are used for transportation due to their
compactness. Electricity and steam generation plants can afford to be
larger since they are not moving the entire process around the place.
I do not have understand this statement, "reservoir based hydro is not
free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas
(vastly cleaner than fracked gas).". To me, hydro means water
Apparently reservoirs emit methane and CO2 due to decay of leaves and
whatnot. The question which I haven't seen addressed is whether those
same leaves would be decaying somewhere else without the reservoir..
Post by Lynn McGuire
And being a process engineer, "fracked natural gas" is way cleaner than
"regular natural gas" since it is usually only 2 or 3 ppm of H2S. Most
"regular natural gas", not sure if there is such a thing, usually has 1
to 10% H2S in it. Most of the "regular natural gas" wells, especially
in Canada, have been shutin due to the extremely nasty and expensive
processes to clean that H2S out of the natural gas. Google "Claus
Process" for cleaning H2S out of natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_process
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-15 02:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:51:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
Most of fossil fuels are used for transportation due to their
compactness. Electricity and steam generation plants can afford to be
larger since they are not moving the entire process around the place.
I do not have understand this statement, "reservoir based hydro is not
free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas
(vastly cleaner than fracked gas).". To me, hydro means water
Apparently reservoirs emit methane and CO2 due to decay of leaves and
whatnot. The question which I haven't seen addressed is whether those
same leaves would be decaying somewhere else without the reservoir..
Post by Lynn McGuire
And being a process engineer, "fracked natural gas" is way cleaner than
"regular natural gas" since it is usually only 2 or 3 ppm of H2S. Most
"regular natural gas", not sure if there is such a thing, usually has 1
to 10% H2S in it. Most of the "regular natural gas" wells, especially
in Canada, have been shutin due to the extremely nasty and expensive
processes to clean that H2S out of the natural gas. Google "Claus
Process" for cleaning H2S out of natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_process
Lynn
Ah, the entire world is out to get us according to William Hyde. Wild.

Lynn
William Hyde
2020-02-15 18:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:51:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
Most of fossil fuels are used for transportation due to their
compactness. Electricity and steam generation plants can afford to be
larger since they are not moving the entire process around the place.
I do not have understand this statement, "reservoir based hydro is not
free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas
(vastly cleaner than fracked gas).". To me, hydro means water
Apparently reservoirs emit methane and CO2 due to decay of leaves and
whatnot. The question which I haven't seen addressed is whether those
same leaves would be decaying somewhere else without the reservoir..
Post by Lynn McGuire
And being a process engineer, "fracked natural gas" is way cleaner
But not in the sense of released greenhouse gases. In that sense, fracking is filthy, with huge loss of CH4 into the atmosphere.



than
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
"regular natural gas" since it is usually only 2 or 3 ppm of H2S. Most
"regular natural gas", not sure if there is such a thing, usually has 1
to 10% H2S in it. Most of the "regular natural gas" wells, especially
in Canada, have been shutin due to the extremely nasty and expensive
processes to clean that H2S out of the natural gas. Google "Claus
Process" for cleaning H2S out of natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_process
Lynn
Ah, the entire world is out to get us according to William Hyde.
It's more like we are out to get the world.

Adults face facts. When you need to acknowledge facts, even unpleasant ones, for your business of course you do so. I suggest you apply that attitude to the world.

Reservoir - based hydro does have a significant greenhouse output. But still better than fossil fuel sources. And possibly, in places where there is not a great deal of buried organic carbon, it could be very clean indeed.

There are negligible GHG emissions from many sources, nuclear, flowing hydro, wind, sun, etc. They do not, of course, add up to all the power we need, nor will they any time soon. So replacing coal with natural gas as a interim step makes sense, despite the CO2 put out by gas. Unless the gas is fracked, in which case it has as big a greenhouse signature as coal.

To demand perfection, now, or within a short time, in our energy supplies is to take an absurd position. Compromises will be necessary. We are not stopping warming at 1.5C or 2.0C. 3C is more like it and even that won't be easy.

I read the business papers with a jaundiced eye, but that said, a claim in today's paper that wind power is substantially the cheapest in Alberta and Saskatchewan was encouraging.

William Hyde
Titus G
2020-02-15 02:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:51:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
snip
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
I do not have understand this statement, "reservoir based hydro is not
free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas
(vastly cleaner than fracked gas).". To me, hydro means water
Apparently reservoirs emit methane and CO2 due to decay of leaves and
whatnot. The question which I haven't seen addressed is whether those
same leaves would be decaying somewhere else without the reservoir..
It is not just leaves but twigs, branches and trees as well which would
travel variable distances downstream if there were not dams. (Not that I
know anything other than a quick read of a 2016 Guardian article. It
concluded with the belief that there would soon be improvements in
design or modifications to minimise CO2 emissions.)
William Hyde
2020-02-15 18:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:51:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA. That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years. I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
William Hyde
Nope, I was for real.
Not buying it, Lynn. This troll would work well from someone without a technical education, perhaps, but not from an engineer.
On the factual side, a report today says that 85% of Canada's non-industrial electrical generation comes from sources other than fossil fuels (mainly nuclear and hydro). Industrial generation, a small fraction of the whole, is 55% from non-fossil fuels.
Of course, electrical generation is only part of the problem, and reservoir based hydro is not free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas (vastly cleaner than fracked gas).
Still, it's a bit of good news.
William Hyde
Most of fossil fuels are used for transportation due to their
compactness. Electricity and steam generation plants can afford to be
larger since they are not moving the entire process around the place.
I do not have understand this statement, "reservoir based hydro is not
free from CO2 emissions being barely cleaner than regular natural gas
(vastly cleaner than fracked gas).". To me, hydro means water
Apparently reservoirs emit methane and CO2 due to decay of leaves and
whatnot. The question which I haven't seen addressed is whether those
same leaves would be decaying somewhere else without the reservoir..
You had but to ask.

Organic carbon buried in soil decays very slowly, especially in places which are cold most of the year, as in the James Bay and Great Whale projects which have made Quebec a hydro powerhouse. Add water and that carbon is more readily accessible to bacteria, and decays more rapidly. Measurements show no slackening in CO2 output after five decades.

The problem may well be less, even far less, for dams built in drier, hotter areas such as the American Southwest. I don't know how much organic carbon is in the soil there, especially at depth, to be sure, though.

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2020-02-14 11:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
And here I thought I noted that as space elevators required super advanced
materials, while the problem is a near-term one, something like heat pumps to
mirrored radiators facing up would be more realistic...

So what do you mean nobody called him on it?

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-14 13:33:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 03:04:40 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by William Hyde
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
I thought I'd wait to see if anyone called you on this.
Nobody has, so kudos on a successful bit of satire.
And here I thought I noted that as space elevators required super advanced
materials, while the problem is a near-term one, something like heat pumps to
mirrored radiators facing up would be more realistic...
So what do you mean nobody called him on it?
How, exactly, are space elevators supposed to provide heat
dissipation?

And how would these "heat pumps to mirrored radiators" work?

Bonus points if you know why anyone who passed sophomore heat transfer
spewed coffee at "mirrored".
Quadibloc
2020-02-14 23:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Bonus points if you know why anyone who passed sophomore heat transfer
spewed coffee at "mirrored".
The mirrors are to point the radiation in the right direction - up.

Of course you want a black body, not a mirror, to do the radiating. I know that
stuff too.

John Savard
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 01:57:03 UTC
Permalink
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion that
we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA.  We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA.  That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years.   I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
If so, we may build space elevators just for the heat dissipation from
the planet.
Big problems lead to big solutions.
Isn't it amusing how you just assume some big problems...

Such as reducing emissions of C02.

...just can be solved and so we shouldn't even try...

...and yet you blithely suggest a technology we're not even close to
understanding how to create as a solution to another big problem.
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 01:58:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
Paul S Person
2020-02-14 18:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.

Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.

That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 18:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
No.

That's why it needs to be stated loudly and often that nuclear power
even with the incidents that have happened is much safer than coal.

Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.

<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
Paul S Person
2020-02-15 17:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
No.
That's why it needs to be stated loudly and often that nuclear power
even with the incidents that have happened is much safer than coal.
It may "need to be stated", but /doing so will not change public
opinion/.

We know this because it /has/ been stated "loudly and often" and it
hasn't helped one little bit.
Post by Alan Baker
Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.
<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
This doesn't have any effect on public opinion. It actually convinces
people that you don't have anything relevant to say.

There is a /reason/ that Mark Twain stated that "statistics" were the
worst class of lies.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2020-02-15 18:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
No.
That's why it needs to be stated loudly and often that nuclear power
even with the incidents that have happened is much safer than coal.
It may "need to be stated", but /doing so will not change public
opinion/.
We know this because it /has/ been stated "loudly and often" and it
hasn't helped one little bit.
Post by Alan Baker
Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.
<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
This doesn't have any effect on public opinion. It actually convinces
people that you don't have anything relevant to say.
There is a /reason/ that Mark Twain stated that "statistics" were the
worst class of lies.
What a bunch of specious tripe.

Your argument appears to be:

"We shouldn't use nuclear because despite it being objectively vastly
safer than coal, people don't believe it's safer, and there's no point
in explaining it to them, and if people don't believe facts, then that
shows that the facts are lies."
Quadibloc
2020-02-16 08:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.
<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
This doesn't have any effect on public opinion. It actually convinces
people that you don't have anything relevant to say.
There is a /reason/ that Mark Twain stated that "statistics" were the
worst class of lies.
What a bunch of specious tripe.
"We shouldn't use nuclear because despite it being objectively vastly
safer than coal, people don't believe it's safer, and there's no point
in explaining it to them, and if people don't believe facts, then that
shows that the facts are lies."
It certainly _seems_ that way.

However, things like Fukushima and Chernobyl did happen. Whereas, while there
were major disasters with coal in the distant past, there haven't been any major
disasters with coal lately.

Also, terrorist groups aren't going to steal coal, and build weapons to destroy
whole cities with it.

So it could be that chronic pollution, altnough less with nuclear than with
coal, isn't what people are worrying about _from_ nuclear.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-02-16 17:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
No.
That's why it needs to be stated loudly and often that nuclear power
even with the incidents that have happened is much safer than coal.
It may "need to be stated", but /doing so will not change public
opinion/.
We know this because it /has/ been stated "loudly and often" and it
hasn't helped one little bit.
Post by Alan Baker
Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.
<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
This doesn't have any effect on public opinion. It actually convinces
people that you don't have anything relevant to say.
There is a /reason/ that Mark Twain stated that "statistics" were the
worst class of lies.
What a bunch of specious tripe.
"We shouldn't use nuclear because despite it being objectively vastly
safer than coal, people don't believe it's safer, and there's no point
in explaining it to them, and if people don't believe facts, then that
shows that the facts are lies."
We aren't discussing whether or not we should use nuclear power.

We are discussing /why people don't want to/.

These are two different issues.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2020-02-16 17:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
No.
That's why it needs to be stated loudly and often that nuclear power
even with the incidents that have happened is much safer than coal.
It may "need to be stated", but /doing so will not change public
opinion/.
We know this because it /has/ been stated "loudly and often" and it
hasn't helped one little bit.
Post by Alan Baker
Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.
<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
This doesn't have any effect on public opinion. It actually convinces
people that you don't have anything relevant to say.
There is a /reason/ that Mark Twain stated that "statistics" were the
worst class of lies.
What a bunch of specious tripe.
"We shouldn't use nuclear because despite it being objectively vastly
safer than coal, people don't believe it's safer, and there's no point
in explaining it to them, and if people don't believe facts, then that
shows that the facts are lies."
We aren't discussing whether or not we should use nuclear power.
We are discussing /why people don't want to/.
These are two different issues.
Sorry, but that's not true.

You immediately shot it down when it was suggested as the "obvious
solution"...

...AND you've attempted to downplay new nuclear technologies that are
already in use as "if they ever happen".

I'm starting to think that you have a distinct bias against nuclear power.
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-16 02:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Using coal instead of nuclear is literally killing hundreds of thousands
more people every year.
<https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy>
Nobody (who counts) cares.

......kinda like the skaaaaary semi-auto rifles.....

Opposing them is trendy, facts be damned.
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-14 20:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
Actually, we are very close to having a revolutionary change in nuclear
energy. Instead of making massive power plants with intricate process
systems and control systems, we are going to make modular reactors that
can exist with ZERO cooling for several years. A pipe inlet connection
and a pipe outlet connection will be provided. The NRC is evaluating
these now.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

Lynn
Paul S Person
2020-02-15 18:00:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:23:24 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:52:23 +0200, Juho Julkunen
says...
[snips]
The reason they don't react to coal that way is because coal
operations generally do /not/ blow up spectaculary.
Yeah they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTPC_power_plant_explosion
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2016/08/11/21-killed-in-chinese-coal-power-plant-explosion/
https://dustsafetyscience.com/dust-explosion-canakkale-turkey/
Not to mention that none of the civilian nuclear accidents to date
have resulted in any 'specatular explosions'.
Well, one did. It was a steam explosion, but still.
I'm not sure how that equates to nuclear operations generally blowing
up, though.
It isn't the facts that are determinant here.
It is the public perception.
And it's not my fault that the public perception of nuclear power (in
the USA, at least) tends to be rather negative.
It's just that the American Way of business doesn't work so well with
things that really matter -- and we know it.
Sorry, but that's still nonsense.
If that's true of nuclear, it is just as true of coal...
...and in any case, nuclear has shown itself to be much safer than coal.
What part of "public perception" are you having trouble with?
This isn't about the reality of various forms of power.
This is about how they are /perceived/.
And it doesn't help that, once people get over the shock and dismay
caused by one disaster (3 Mile Island, Chernobl) a new one appears
(Chernobl, Fukushima).
And, no, coal mine disasters are /not/ the same thing, in the eyes of
the public.
The perhaps the answer lies in actually educating people.
I would hope so, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Something about their having b*ll-sh*t detectors which are go wild
whenever the attempt is made.
Now, if we could kindly have /no/ nuclear power plant "incidents" for
the next 20-30 years, things might change. The public /might/ conclude
that, since every technology has growing pains, nuclear power has
finally matured.
That is why the "incident" rate needs to be exactly 0.0.
Actually, we are very close to having a revolutionary change in nuclear
energy. Instead of making massive power plants with intricate process
systems and control systems, we are going to make modular reactors that
can exist with ZERO cooling for several years. A pipe inlet connection
and a pipe outlet connection will be provided. The NRC is evaluating
these now.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
Nice if true and if it works out.

Back in the 60s, we were told that the military had such
highly-reliable, self-contained nuclear power plants used for powering
the DEW line.

But nothing every came of them. If they ever existed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 01:59:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 19:46:15 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
Reading that article, it seems to be aiming at the conclusion
that we are all
doomed.
We have 200 years of PROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA.  We have
another 800 years of UNPROVEN natural gas reserves in the USA.
That is
at a 3% annual growth rate which may be conservative due to the fact
that natural gas just dropped below $2.00/mmbtu at the Henry again.
And if we _use_ that at an annual growth rate of 3%, the planet surface
temperature will be over the boiling point of water in less than half
that 800 years.   I'm sure you'll find the climate congenial.
Please show your math.  After all, this is a senior level course.
Lynn
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
see the third graph
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-14 04:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...

But the exponent, itself, has.
J. Clarke
2020-02-14 10:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
And "exponential growth" was only feared by the ignorant even then.
Everybody who was actually paying attention was aware that when a
society reaches a certain level of development growth stops.
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 18:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
And "exponential growth" was only feared by the ignorant even then.
Everybody who was actually paying attention was aware that when a
society reaches a certain level of development growth stops.
Show that growth in energy usage has stopped...

...or even slowed down.
Alan Baker
2020-02-14 18:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
Has it really?

Now show YOUR work.
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-14 18:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
Has it really?
Now show YOUR work.
If anything, the exponent has _increased_ when compare with 9 years ago. Using
GDP growth as a rough proxy for growth in energy consumption:

US GDP Growth 2011: 1.6%
2019: 2.1%

World GDP Growth 2011: 3.133% (coming off 2009's -1.68%)
2018: 2.9% (2019 numbers not yet available)
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-14 20:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
Has it really?
Now show YOUR work.
If anything, the exponent has _increased_ when compare with 9 years ago. Using
US GDP Growth 2011: 1.6%
2019: 2.1%
World GDP Growth 2011: 3.133% (coming off 2009's -1.68%)
2018: 2.9% (2019 numbers not yet available)
I disagree with that comparison. Give numbers please.

And the replacement of fossil based energy with socalled renewables
affects that supposition also.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-14 20:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
Has it really?
Now show YOUR work.
If anything, the exponent has _increased_ when compare with 9 years ago. Using
US GDP Growth 2011: 1.6%
2019: 2.1%
World GDP Growth 2011: 3.133% (coming off 2009's -1.68%)
2018: 2.9% (2019 numbers not yet available)
I disagree with that comparison. Give numbers please.
And the replacement of fossil based energy with socalled renewables
affects that supposition also.
"It's long been axiomatic that economic growth and energy
demand are linked. As economies grow, energy demand increases;
if energy is constrained, GDP growth pulls back in turn. That's been
the case since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, if not long before."

"Energy demand has long tracked economic growth. So much so that for
the past two centuries, the amounts of energy that economies need
have increased virtually in lockstep with the amounts of wealth
that economies create. And, to a remarkable degree, wealth creation
has depended on a society's proficiency at burning things."

These folks speculate that might change around 2030. However,
that's pure speculation at this point.


https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-14 21:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
Has it really?
Now show YOUR work.
If anything, the exponent has _increased_ when compare with 9 years ago. Using
US GDP Growth 2011: 1.6%
2019: 2.1%
World GDP Growth 2011: 3.133% (coming off 2009's -1.68%)
2018: 2.9% (2019 numbers not yet available)
I disagree with that comparison. Give numbers please.
And the replacement of fossil based energy with socalled renewables
affects that supposition also.
"It's long been axiomatic that economic growth and energy
demand are linked. As economies grow, energy demand increases;
if energy is constrained, GDP growth pulls back in turn. That's been
the case since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, if not long before."
"Energy demand has long tracked economic growth. So much so that for
the past two centuries, the amounts of energy that economies need
have increased virtually in lockstep with the amounts of wealth
that economies create. And, to a remarkable degree, wealth creation
has depended on a society's proficiency at burning things."
These folks speculate that might change around 2030. However,
that's pure speculation at this point.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide
Sorry, you are talking about total energy usage. I withdraw my
complaint, you are correct.

Per capita fossil fuel usage in the USA has dropped significantly in the
last decade due to renewables. I doubt that fossil fuel usage has
dropped worldwide though since fossil fuels are fairly cheap now and
extremely compact compared to renewables.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-14 21:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Oh gosh, that is another 2011 paper.  Can't you find anything more
recent ?  Or, do your own back of the envelope calculation ?
Lynn
Has the math behind exponential growth changed in the last 9 years?
...hardly...
But the exponent, itself, has.
Has it really?
Now show YOUR work.
If anything, the exponent has _increased_ when compare with 9 years ago. Using
US GDP Growth 2011: 1.6%
2019: 2.1%
World GDP Growth 2011: 3.133% (coming off 2009's -1.68%)
2018: 2.9% (2019 numbers not yet available)
I disagree with that comparison. Give numbers please.
And the replacement of fossil based energy with socalled renewables
affects that supposition also.
"It's long been axiomatic that economic growth and energy
demand are linked. As economies grow, energy demand increases;
if energy is constrained, GDP growth pulls back in turn. That's been
the case since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, if not long before."
"Energy demand has long tracked economic growth. So much so that for
the past two centuries, the amounts of energy that economies need
have increased virtually in lockstep with the amounts of wealth
that economies create. And, to a remarkable degree, wealth creation
has depended on a society's proficiency at burning things."
These folks speculate that might change around 2030. However,
that's pure speculation at this point.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/the-decoupling-of-gdp-and-energy-growth-a-ceo-guide
Sorry, you are talking about total energy usage. I withdraw my
complaint, you are correct.
Per capita fossil fuel usage in the USA has dropped significantly in the
last decade due to renewables. I doubt that fossil fuel usage has
dropped worldwide though since fossil fuels are fairly cheap now and
extremely compact compared to renewables.
I suspect that if you look at the numbers, the _growth_ in fossil
fuel usage has dropped, but the total amount used continues to increase;
Note I suspect, I don't have the time to research it at the moment.
Quadibloc
2020-02-15 14:05:10 UTC
Permalink
That is not an option. If it doesn't happen, unacceptable consequences will
result. Therefore it must be achieved.
We are just going to have to live with the unacceptable consequences,
John. That you think tht something is not an option matters not one
iota becuase you don't have any power to do anything about it.
And it _can_ be achieved without a disaster, since we do have other ways to
produce energy besides burning fossil fuels.
Whether it can or not is irrelevant. It won't.
Basically, you are confusing categories. I am well aware that my power is
limited, but that does not mean I should not bear witness to the truth.

I have been called unprincipled. Basically, although I do believe, and hence
claim to believe, that the life of an innocent person in a humble Third World
country is just as important as the life of an innocent person even in the
USA...

I also note that I value survival before justice.

So if the deaths of millions of people in the Third World were a price we had to
pay in order that there would continue to be free nations making technological
progress, so that humanity would eventually have hope of breaking its chains
instead of descending into an unending dark age... I would sadly accept it.

However, despite being an unprincipled scoundrel, I am not an inhuman monster.

Hence, I do get upset if millions of people die in Third World countries when
this could be prevented, because preventing it can be done without imperilling
the survival of liberty and progress. Because of mere foolishness like a phobia
of nuclear power.

John Savard
Leif Roar Moldskred
2020-02-15 14:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I also note that I value survival before justice.
So if the deaths of millions of people in the Third World were a price we had to
pay in order that there would continue to be free nations making technological
progress, so that humanity would eventually have hope of breaking its chains
instead of descending into an unending dark age... I would sadly accept it.
Ah, yes. The B???n Tre approach to saving civilization.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Quadibloc
2020-02-18 13:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Ah, yes. The B???n Tre approach to saving civilization.
Belsen and the other concentration camps were also gratuitous, and thus the sort
of thing I'm against.

We didn't risk nuclear war in order to prevent deaths from the Great Leap
Forward. We stole the Americas and Australia from their indigenous people. And
continuing to use fossil fuels, in order to continue industrial civilization,
and maintain America's military might, despite the bad consequences in some
parts of the world...

*would* be in the same category, if we didn't have nuclear power as an
alternative.

So while I'm pragmatic enough to put survival ahead of morality, when survival
is really *not at issue* then I do come down on the side of morality... which
happens to an improvement on the way our society is currently behaving.

I don't expect people to listen were I to ask them to make great sacrifices.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-16 04:51:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant

EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.

The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-02-16 06:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear
disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area.  That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely.  What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant.   If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers.  Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig.  I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls.  It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway.  They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes.  The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy.  I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Lynn
Weird that you produce a cite that doesn't so much as suggest that any
of that happened...
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-16 11:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area.  That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely.  What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant.   If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers.  Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig.  I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls.  It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway.  They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes.  The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy.  I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Lynn
Weird that you produce a cite that doesn't so much as suggest that any
of that happened...
Wikipedia records what's "notable"; maybe that wasn't.
It is certainly not unusual for big-project work to be
sub-standard. Maybe unusual in that it was not discovered
when an unfortunate accident occurred.
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-16 21:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area.  That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely.  What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant.   If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers.  Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig.  I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls.  It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway.  They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes.  The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy.  I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Lynn
Weird that you produce a cite that doesn't so much as suggest that any
of that happened...
Wikipedia records what's "notable"; maybe that wasn't.
It is certainly not unusual for big-project work to be
sub-standard. Maybe unusual in that it was not discovered
when an unfortunate accident occurred.
The testing of the containment dome was instrumental in finding the
pouring flaws. I suspect that this is a standard NRC test.

Wikipedia is not very good for events before 1990 as this mess was.

Lynn
Ninapenda Jibini
2020-02-17 00:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Wikipedia records what's "notable";
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Er, no. Wikipedia records what's *popular*, with zero regard to
what's *true*. It is written policy, as has been discussed here
before.

But thanks for the laugh.
--
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.
Quadibloc
2020-02-18 13:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Er, no. Wikipedia records what's *popular*, with zero regard to
what's *true*. It is written policy, as has been discussed here
before.
As is well known, Wikipedia *has* the policy you refer to because determining,
objectively, what is _true_ is difficult: people who believe the Earth is flat, or
in Young-Earth Creationism, or that Velikovsky was right claim that _their_
beliefs are "true". Trying to prove otherwise just leads to an argument.

So to have an _objective_ standard by means of which Wikipedia can proceed to
quickly edit that kind of garbage out, instead of defining truth by what one
head editor says is true, they define truth by what is mainstream belief - and
whether or not something is mainstream is properly measured by popularity.

They're just doing the best they can, not deliberately choosing a false standard
in place of truth.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-18 16:07:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 5:27:30 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Er, no. Wikipedia records what's *popular*, with zero regard to
what's *true*. It is written policy, as has been discussed here
before.
As is well known, Wikipedia *has* the policy you refer to
Especially if you have a universal policy of ignoring all primary
sources.
people who believe the Earth is flat, or in Young-Earth
Creationism, or that Velikovsky was right claim that _their_
beliefs are "true". Trying to prove otherwise just leads to an
argument.
If you were famous enough to have your own Wikipedia page, and
someone edited it to have an incorrect date of birth, your own
birth certificate would not be considered a reliable source of
information to correct it - for Wikipedia.

That *is* their policy, and they *do* enforce it.
So to have an _objective_ standard by means of which Wikipedia
can proceed to quickly edit that kind of garbage out, instead of
defining truth by what one head editor says is true, they define
truth by what is mainstream belief - and whether or not
something is mainstream is properly measured by popularity.
They're just doing the best they can, not deliberately choosing
a false standard in place of truth.
That is not a plausible explanation for their actions, unless "the
best they can" is pretty piss-poor because they're all drooling
morons. Which is entirely plausible.
--
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
J. Clarke
2020-02-16 15:49:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-16 21:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-02-16 22:47:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:30:43 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-17 00:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
The actual comment was
"None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. "

This case does address that claim
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-17 07:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:30:43 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
Because the contractor was truly incompetent as opposed to majority of
the lawsuits. BTW, the rebuilding of the containment domes delayed
CPSES by five+ years for each unit and almost doubled the cost.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-02-17 12:32:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:02:27 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:30:43 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
Because the contractor was truly incompetent as opposed to majority of
the lawsuits. BTW, the rebuilding of the containment domes delayed
CPSES by five+ years for each unit and almost doubled the cost.
So? The argument was that lawsuits by environmentalists are necessary
to detect such incompetence. But it was not detected as the result of
a lawsuit by environmentalists, it was detected by established
procedures not involving environmentalists. Ergo it is not evidence
that such lawsuits are needed.
Quadibloc
2020-02-17 13:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So? The argument was that lawsuits by environmentalists are necessary
to detect such incompetence. But it was not detected as the result of
a lawsuit by environmentalists, it was detected by established
procedures not involving environmentalists. Ergo it is not evidence
that such lawsuits are needed.
Not directly. However, it is evidence that incompetence can *exist*; it isn't
completely stamped out among those who can possibly become involved with nuclear
plant construction. So, the fact that we got lucky *this* time, and managed to
catch it by normal procedures... isn't evidence that we don't need to have much
greater precautions against future incompetence.

Restoring public confidence and trust, once that trust is broken, is vastly more
difficult than if one carefully, from the beginning, maintains a spotless record
of absolute perfection.

So, since we need nuclear power without roadblocks... we need a new set of
procedures that has a hope of actually working.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-17 15:23:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 05:35:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So? The argument was that lawsuits by environmentalists are necessary
to detect such incompetence. But it was not detected as the result of
a lawsuit by environmentalists, it was detected by established
procedures not involving environmentalists. Ergo it is not evidence
that such lawsuits are needed.
Not directly. However, it is evidence that incompetence can *exist*;
Nobody asserted otherwise. You're creating a straw man.
Post by Quadibloc
it isn't
completely stamped out among those who can possibly become involved with nuclear
plant construction. So, the fact that we got lucky *this* time, and managed to
catch it by normal procedures...
So let's see, the procedures worked as intended and that in your
opinion constitutes "getting lucky"? I'm sorry, but "getting lucky"
would imply some serendipitous and unintended result.

Does the expression "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mean anything to
you?
Post by Quadibloc
isn't evidence that we don't need to have much
greater precautions against future incompetence.
That might be the case, but the assertion is specific, that lawsuits
by environmentalists are necessary to detect this incompetence. The
challenge was to demonstrate one case in which such lawsuits uncovered
such incompetence. So far nobody has provided an example.

Ergo, whatever means may be necessary to detect such incompetence,
lawsuits by environmentalists are not it.
Post by Quadibloc
Restoring public confidence and trust, once that trust is broken, is vastly more
difficult than if one carefully, from the beginning, maintains a spotless record
of absolute perfection.
Nobody is ever going to maintain a spotless record of absolute
perfection.
Post by Quadibloc
So, since we need nuclear power without roadblocks... we need a new set of
procedures that has a hope of actually working.
So let's see, we have an example of the existing procedures working
but according to you that is evidence that we need a new set of
procedures that "have a hope of actually working". And when the new
procedures work, just as the old ones did, then what, are you going to
insist that we have yet more procedures because "we got lucky"?

I'm sorry, but your kind of thinking is part of the problem, not part
of the solution.
Quadibloc
2020-02-17 18:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but your kind of thinking is part of the problem, not part
of the solution.
That may well be true. Normal prcedures catching incompetence... yes, under some
circumstances, that does just demonstrate everything works. However,
construction on the containment building went far enough that the project was
significantly delayes. That would tend to suggest that there is a nonzero
probability in a similar incident that the containment building not being good
enough might not be caught, leading to the public being put at risk.

If it had been caught before things went very far, that would inspire
confidence.

Firms not having the requisite competence should not even be allowed to bid. If
those responsible for putting up nuclear power plants show they take public
safety *seriously*, then it is possible to fault those who want to put needless
roadblocks in their way. Anything that suggests otherwise... is the kind of
mistake that led us to where we are now.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-17 18:38:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:23:17 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I'm sorry, but your kind of thinking is part of the problem, not part
of the solution.
That may well be true. Normal prcedures catching incompetence... yes, under some
circumstances, that does just demonstrate everything works. However,
construction on the containment building went far enough that the project was
significantly delayes. That would tend to suggest that there is a nonzero
probability in a similar incident that the containment building not being good
enough might not be caught, leading to the public being put at risk.
Do you know anything about concrete? Once it's mixed it's going to
cure (unless there is something horribly wrong with the mix). The
only way to test it that means anything is taking samples from the
pour, letting them cure, and testing them. But the pour
continues--you can't wait for test results before you continue.

If it turns out the pour was bad, you have to either tear it out and
redo or re-engineer around the substandard pour. Both involve delays.

This is just the nature of concrete--it's not a case of "delays
occurred because something almost slipped by", it's "delays occurred
because the concrete vendor didn't do their job properly".
Post by Quadibloc
If it had been caught before things went very far, that would inspire
confidence.
Concrete doesn't work that way.
Post by Quadibloc
Firms not having the requisite competence should not even be allowed to bid.
They aren't. I know that this is inconcievable to you in your little
hole under your little rock or in your padded cell or your ivory tower
or wherever you are that so successfully isolates you from reality,
but people make mistakes. Even the most thoroughly trained,
experienced, dedicated people make mistakes. And properly designed
procedures catch those mistakes.
Post by Quadibloc
If
those responsible for putting up nuclear power plants show they take public
safety *seriously*, then it is possible to fault those who want to put needless
roadblocks in their way.
Once again you have not demonstrated that the "roadblocks" have ever
caught a problem with the plant. If the "roadblocks" are actually
increasing safety that's one thing, but if they are just wasting time
and money that's another.
Post by Quadibloc
Anything that suggests otherwise... is the kind of
mistake that led us to where we are now.
John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-02-17 18:08:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 05:35:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So? The argument was that lawsuits by environmentalists are necessary
to detect such incompetence. But it was not detected as the result of
a lawsuit by environmentalists, it was detected by established
procedures not involving environmentalists. Ergo it is not evidence
that such lawsuits are needed.
Not directly. However, it is evidence that incompetence can *exist*; it isn't
completely stamped out among those who can possibly become involved with nuclear
plant construction. So, the fact that we got lucky *this* time, and managed to
catch it by normal procedures... isn't evidence that we don't need to have much
greater precautions against future incompetence.
Restoring public confidence and trust, once that trust is broken, is vastly more
difficult than if one carefully, from the beginning, maintains a spotless record
of absolute perfection.
So, since we need nuclear power without roadblocks... we need a new set of
procedures that has a hope of actually working.
In the USA?

ROTFL

I mean, Uber couldn't even test a driverless car without modifying it
so that it killed someone.

/That's/ the American Way of Business.

Uber -- the Boeing of the ride share industry.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-02-17 18:05:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:02:27 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:30:43 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
Because the contractor was truly incompetent as opposed to majority of
the lawsuits. BTW, the rebuilding of the containment domes delayed
CPSES by five+ years for each unit and almost doubled the cost.
Well, that's what happens when the mayor's brother-in-law gets the
contract just because.

That's the /first/ thing to check in these cases, BTW: whose
brother-in-law is the contractor?

Works at least half the time.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-17 18:49:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:05:47 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:02:27 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:30:43 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
Because the contractor was truly incompetent as opposed to majority of
the lawsuits. BTW, the rebuilding of the containment domes delayed
CPSES by five+ years for each unit and almost doubled the cost.
Well, that's what happens when the mayor's brother-in-law gets the
contract just because.
That's the /first/ thing to check in these cases, BTW: whose
brother-in-law is the contractor?
Works at least half the time.
So you're saying that the brother in law of the Mayor of Dallas runs
Halliburton? Because that was the contractor, or one of their
subsidiaries.
Paul S Person
2020-02-18 18:06:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:49:59 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:05:47 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:02:27 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:30:43 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 22:51:20 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Please identify the lawsuit which led to this discovery.
Post by Lynn McGuire
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root were subsequently fired for
incompetence in pouring the containment dome walls. It turns out that
building a nuclear containment dome is different from building a
freeway. They were replaced by Bechtel who spent several years
rebuilding the containment domes. The units came on line in 1990 and 1993.
In other words, the regulatory process worked fine.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The contractors were sued and at least one filed bankruptcy. I do not
remember the details but it was not pretty.
Sued by who? "Environmental groups" or the prime contractor?
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
My employer in the 1980s, TESCO, then TU Electric, then TXU Electric,
now Luminant.
https://www.luminant.com/
The bottom line then is that no lawsuit by any environmental group was
involved, so why was this used as an example of an environmental group
filing suit on the basis that they felt that contractor was
incompetent?
Because the contractor was truly incompetent as opposed to majority of
the lawsuits. BTW, the rebuilding of the containment domes delayed
CPSES by five+ years for each unit and almost doubled the cost.
Well, that's what happens when the mayor's brother-in-law gets the
contract just because.
That's the /first/ thing to check in these cases, BTW: whose
brother-in-law is the contractor?
Works at least half the time.
So you're saying that the brother in law of the Mayor of Dallas runs
Halliburton? Because that was the contractor, or one of their
subsidiaries.
Halliburton -- a name that reeks with political connection.

The only /known/ company to ever have a Vice President of the USA as a
wholly-owned subsidiary.

And, BTW, I said "50%", not "every time".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
William Hyde
2020-02-16 19:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 09:19:58 -0800, Paul S Person
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:04:25 -0500, J. Clarke
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs
himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the
OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Chernoble? 3-Mile Island? Fukushima?
That is -- /actual experience/ with nuclear power.
Very public experience.
Very bad experience.
Actual experience with coal is that it kills more people than Chernobyl
did, every single year, when working as designed.
Fukushima is tricky, but the nuclear disaster appears to be a footnote
to the damage from the tsunami.
Three Mile Island, long the second worst (public) nuclear disaster, had
no impact on anyone's health. The fact that it even makes the list
speaks to nuclear power's safety.
Counting Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, nuclear power is
still the safest and cleanest option.
I know you specified public but Windscale and the Kyshtym disaster deserve
nods as well. Add in both and you still don't get coal's death toll.
What may be the killer for nuke is the upfront capital costs.
Which are mostly the result of the periodic need to drag greenies
kicking and screaming out of the construction area. That and fight
the deluge of lawsuits and court-ordered contruction delays and other
such BS.
Yes, God forbid that the nuclear plants should be required to be
constructed /safely/ as opposed to the usual American Way.
They are required to be constructed safely. What leads you to believe
that unchaining greenies from construction equipment and fighting
continuous lawsuits improves safety?
An American Way which can't even dismantle a construction crane
without killing people. A court order delaying /that/ operation until
competent persons were doing it would have been /most/ timely.
So do go around and sue every contruction site in the US to prevent
removal of construction cranes until some judge who knows nothing at
all about construction cranes is satisified that they will be
disassembled correctly.
None of the lawsuits involving nuclear power plant construction that I
am aware of have asserted that the constructor was incompetent to
construct a power plant. If you know of one where that assertion was
made please present it.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station failed its compression testing of
Unit #1 in 1985 ??? due to Volkswagen Beetle sized voids in the concrete
containment dome walls with four ft wall thickness and 3/4 inch rebar on
six inch centers. Several of the wall voids failed at the testing
pressure of 65 ??? psig. I was there for the initial test in 1983, it
was amazing with several hundred air compressors scattered around the
place all powered by a diesel motor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
EBASCO and it's contractor Brown and Root
If you are at all interested in reading history, in this case Texas history, I strongly recommend the first (at least) volume of Robert Caro's biography of LBJ.

The future president had strong backing from Brown and Root, and the book contains a good portrait of the Browns (Root, IIRC, was dead by this time), especially Hermann Brown. A real bastard but a competent one.

Caro comments that most people who gave money to politicians didn't give enough to get the influence they needed. With LBJ, Brown never said no.


William Hyde
Chrysi Cat
2020-02-16 18:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Or we just wait for the market to run its inevitable course.
The problem with greenies is not that they want their revolution, it
is that they want it _now_ and don't care what it costs.
The market doesn't factor in externalities by itself.
It factors in costs.  Costs will bring about the required change.
As for carbon emissions, we should have gotten a handle on them
*yesterday*.
Like a decade ago. Already, there is more evidence of thawing permafrost
releasing greenhouse gases.
Yeah, John, the sky is falling.
Guess what.  Nobody cares.  Oh, a few hardcore greenies who think the
sky is falling do but they've been telling us the sky is falling since
forever and it still hasn't fallen.
I know, This time "scientists" who have no dissent in their ranks and
dismiss any dissenter as "not a scientist".
According to IPCC we have 10 years.
It's not gonna happen.  Get used to it.
The UN has said that we have had only ten years for thirty years now.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/
Lynn
Well, yes, and because we ignored it, we actually went past the tipping
point.

Or at the very least, the tipping point to where a XIX, if not full on
XVIII, Century life for the non-nobility would be needed in order to not
be looking at a 5-foot rise in sea level.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-17 20:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Or we just wait for the market to run its inevitable course.
The problem with greenies is not that they want their revolution, it
is that they want it _now_ and don't care what it costs.
The market doesn't factor in externalities by itself.
It factors in costs.  Costs will bring about the required change.
As for carbon emissions, we should have gotten a handle on them
*yesterday*.
Like a decade ago. Already, there is more evidence of thawing permafrost
releasing greenhouse gases.
Yeah, John, the sky is falling.
Guess what.  Nobody cares.  Oh, a few hardcore greenies who think the
sky is falling do but they've been telling us the sky is falling since
forever and it still hasn't fallen.
I know, This time "scientists" who have no dissent in their ranks and
dismiss any dissenter as "not a scientist".
According to IPCC we have 10 years.
It's not gonna happen.  Get used to it.
The UN has said that we have had only ten years for thirty years now.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/
Lynn
Well, yes, and because we ignored it, we actually went past the tipping
point.
Or at the very least, the tipping point to where a XIX, if not full on
XVIII, Century life for the non-nobility would be needed in order to not
be looking at a 5-foot rise in sea level.
I have no idea what you are saying here. We are in the 21st century
now. The ocean's rise across the 19th and 20th centuries was zero
inches and five inches respectively.

https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/global-sea-level-rise-by-century

Lynn
Chrysi Cat
2020-02-23 00:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Or we just wait for the market to run its inevitable course.
The problem with greenies is not that they want their revolution, it
is that they want it _now_ and don't care what it costs.
The market doesn't factor in externalities by itself.
It factors in costs.  Costs will bring about the required change.
As for carbon emissions, we should have gotten a handle on them
*yesterday*.
Like a decade ago. Already, there is more evidence of thawing permafrost
releasing greenhouse gases.
Yeah, John, the sky is falling.
Guess what.  Nobody cares.  Oh, a few hardcore greenies who think the
sky is falling do but they've been telling us the sky is falling since
forever and it still hasn't fallen.
I know, This time "scientists" who have no dissent in their ranks and
dismiss any dissenter as "not a scientist".
According to IPCC we have 10 years.
It's not gonna happen.  Get used to it.
The UN has said that we have had only ten years for thirty years now.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/
Lynn
Well, yes, and because we ignored it, we actually went past the
tipping point.
Or at the very least, the tipping point to where a XIX, if not full on
XVIII, Century life for the non-nobility would be needed in order to
not be looking at a 5-foot rise in sea level.
I have no idea what you are saying here.  We are in the 21st century
now.  The ocean's rise across the 19th and 20th centuries was zero
inches and five inches respectively.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/global-sea-level-rise-by-century
Lynn
Oh, for pity's sake. It should ahve been obvious that the reference was
to "a way of life including access to technologies consistent with that
time frame". AKA, no electric light or heat, let alone computers and
TVs, for anyone except the new aristocrats.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-28 22:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Chrysi Cat
Or we just wait for the market to run its inevitable course.
The problem with greenies is not that they want their revolution, it
is that they want it _now_ and don't care what it costs.
The market doesn't factor in externalities by itself.
It factors in costs.  Costs will bring about the required change.
As for carbon emissions, we should have gotten a handle on them
*yesterday*.
Like a decade ago. Already, there is more evidence of thawing permafrost
releasing greenhouse gases.
Yeah, John, the sky is falling.
Guess what.  Nobody cares.  Oh, a few hardcore greenies who think the
sky is falling do but they've been telling us the sky is falling since
forever and it still hasn't fallen.
I know, This time "scientists" who have no dissent in their ranks and
dismiss any dissenter as "not a scientist".
According to IPCC we have 10 years.
It's not gonna happen.  Get used to it.
The UN has said that we have had only ten years for thirty years now.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/
Lynn
Well, yes, and because we ignored it, we actually went past the
tipping point.
Or at the very least, the tipping point to where a XIX, if not full
on XVIII, Century life for the non-nobility would be needed in order
to not be looking at a 5-foot rise in sea level.
I have no idea what you are saying here.  We are in the 21st century
now.  The ocean's rise across the 19th and 20th centuries was zero
inches and five inches respectively.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/global-sea-level-rise-by-century
Lynn
Oh, for pity's sake. It should ahve been obvious that the reference was
to "a way of life including access to technologies consistent with that
time frame". AKA, no electric light or heat, let alone computers and
TVs, for anyone except the new aristocrats.
We are all aristocrats now.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-29 00:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Chrysi Cat
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 05:05:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Or we just wait for the market to run its inevitable course.
The problem with greenies is not that they want their
revolution, it
is that they want it _now_ and don't care what it costs.
The market doesn't factor in externalities by itself.
It factors in costs.  Costs will bring about the required change.
As for carbon emissions, we should have gotten a handle on them
*yesterday*.
Like a decade ago. Already, there is more evidence of thawing permafrost
releasing greenhouse gases.
Yeah, John, the sky is falling.
Guess what.  Nobody cares.  Oh, a few hardcore greenies who think the
sky is falling do but they've been telling us the sky is falling since
forever and it still hasn't fallen.
I know, This time "scientists" who have no dissent in their ranks and
dismiss any dissenter as "not a scientist".
According to IPCC we have 10 years.
It's not gonna happen.  Get used to it.
The UN has said that we have had only ten years for thirty years now.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/
Lynn
Well, yes, and because we ignored it, we actually went past the
tipping point.
Or at the very least, the tipping point to where a XIX, if not full
on XVIII, Century life for the non-nobility would be needed in order
to not be looking at a 5-foot rise in sea level.
I have no idea what you are saying here.  We are in the 21st century
now.  The ocean's rise across the 19th and 20th centuries was zero
inches and five inches respectively.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/global-sea-level-rise-by-century
Lynn
Oh, for pity's sake. It should ahve been obvious that the reference
was to "a way of life including access to technologies consistent with
that time frame". AKA, no electric light or heat, let alone computers
and TVs, for anyone except the new aristocrats.
We are all aristocrats now.
And the 1% don't like that one bit.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
J. Clarke
2020-02-29 03:42:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:58:27 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Chrysi Cat
Or we just wait for the market to run its inevitable course.
The problem with greenies is not that they want their revolution, it
is that they want it _now_ and don't care what it costs.
The market doesn't factor in externalities by itself.
It factors in costs.  Costs will bring about the required change.
As for carbon emissions, we should have gotten a handle on them
*yesterday*.
Like a decade ago. Already, there is more evidence of thawing permafrost
releasing greenhouse gases.
Yeah, John, the sky is falling.
Guess what.  Nobody cares.  Oh, a few hardcore greenies who think the
sky is falling do but they've been telling us the sky is falling since
forever and it still hasn't fallen.
I know, This time "scientists" who have no dissent in their ranks and
dismiss any dissenter as "not a scientist".
According to IPCC we have 10 years.
It's not gonna happen.  Get used to it.
The UN has said that we have had only ten years for thirty years now.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/30/30-year-anniversary-of-the-un-1989-10-years-to-save-the-world-climate-warning/
Lynn
Well, yes, and because we ignored it, we actually went past the
tipping point.
Or at the very least, the tipping point to where a XIX, if not full
on XVIII, Century life for the non-nobility would be needed in order
to not be looking at a 5-foot rise in sea level.
I have no idea what you are saying here.  We are in the 21st century
now.  The ocean's rise across the 19th and 20th centuries was zero
inches and five inches respectively.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/global-sea-level-rise-by-century
Lynn
Oh, for pity's sake. It should ahve been obvious that the reference was
to "a way of life including access to technologies consistent with that
time frame". AKA, no electric light or heat, let alone computers and
TVs, for anyone except the new aristocrats.
We are all aristocrats now.
And the notion that there will be "no access to technologies" for
anybody but the very rich is pretty much ignorant twaddle. Unless of
course the very rich somehow manage to seize control of the military
and become dictators. Since many of them are professional do-gooders
that is an actual if slight risk.

However if there is no "access to technologies" the climate problem
will solve itself right quick as the populace starves. And the very
rich will likely find themselves lynched if that happens.
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-17 22:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person <***@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

[Freezing society in place]
The late Roman Empire tried that, in a way.
Every son was required to follow his father's profession. Thus, every
profession would continue on forever.
Endless laws were passed to produce this result. But, as one historian
has noted, the very fact that so many were needed over so long a time
shows how totally ineffective they were.
Actually, lots of historians have noted this. I wouldn't be
surprised if they were taught in grad school to look for the pattern.

There were endless laws trying to freeze wages amid the labour
shortages that followed the Black Death, for example.

One I'm familiar with is that many tax laws enacted by the colonies
south of New England were enacted over and over. Records are
inadequate, but following this principle, the expectation is that
these taxes weren't collected much. (In contrast, we have records
showing that some of the New England colonies *did* collect similar
taxes, and we know they didn't keep re-stating them.)

-- JLB
J. Clarke
2020-02-18 00:06:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:31:11 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
[Freezing society in place]
The late Roman Empire tried that, in a way.
Every son was required to follow his father's profession. Thus, every
profession would continue on forever.
Endless laws were passed to produce this result. But, as one historian
has noted, the very fact that so many were needed over so long a time
shows how totally ineffective they were.
Actually, lots of historians have noted this. I wouldn't be
surprised if they were taught in grad school to look for the pattern.
There were endless laws trying to freeze wages amid the labour
shortages that followed the Black Death, for example.
One I'm familiar with is that many tax laws enacted by the colonies
south of New England were enacted over and over. Records are
inadequate, but following this principle, the expectation is that
these taxes weren't collected much. (In contrast, we have records
showing that some of the New England colonies *did* collect similar
taxes, and we know they didn't keep re-stating them.)
Well if the old law didn't work, we'll pass it again, louder.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-17 23:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Well if the old law didn't work, we'll pass it again, louder.
That is pretty much the entire basis of the government of the state
of California.
--
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
Alan Baker
2020-02-18 04:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by J. Clarke
Well if the old law didn't work, we'll pass it again, louder.
That is pretty much the entire basis of the government of the state
of California.
Which is "pretty much" doing better than all but 7 other states...
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-18 16:04:49 UTC
Permalink
On 2020-02-17 3:37 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by J. Clarke
Well if the old law didn't work, we'll pass it again, louder.
That is pretty much the entire basis of the government of the
state of California.
Which is "pretty much" doing better than all but 7 other
states...
I live here. It's a shithole of taxes, out of control living
expenses, and a government that is wholely owned subsidiare of the
unions, at the expense of even their own members.

There's a reason more people are moving out than in these days.

No, it's really not, despite who delusional you - as always - are.
--
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
Quadibloc
2020-03-23 20:15:22 UTC
Permalink
That change has to take place right now. This instant. Tell us how
to make it happen. You can't even get a date--what do you know about
changing human behavior?
I meant to reply to this one, but it had gotten buried in the thread.

When it comes to averting a climate change disaster - or, for that matter,
preventing mass unemployment from economic causes not related to fundamentals,
or preventing the spread of a deadly virus - certain methods of modifying human
behavior are permissible that are _not_ applicable to finding a romantic partner
and that sort of thing.

The ones filed under "coercion".

At this point, a quote from Homer might serve. Not the blind poet of ancient
Greede, but the cartoon character who likes doughnuts.

John Savard

Loading...