Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,496
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33793 Jan 23, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
Power stations are usually coal or nuclear. Switch to nuclear. Easy option. Is it too expensive, fellow republicans?
Not too expensive - too risky.

We have too many farking lawyers in the USA, especially in government. Shakespeare was right.

Exposure to lawsuits from the environmental slip/trip & fall shysters makes financing and insurance unobtainable on the scale we need to save the planet from planetary heat death.

Government needs to chivvy the f**king lawyers out of the building and do something truly useful for once, by stepping up and underwriting the extreme "tail" of nuclear risk exposure, i.e., the extremely unlikely events. Doesn't cost government a nickel - just the ink for signatures. This puts commercial power producers in a position to raise finding and obtain insurance on a normal commercial basis for nuclear plants.

Hit the "Easy" button - problem solved, and planet saved.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33794 Jan 23, 2013
Wait - I know many will be disappointed but it looks like planetary death by AGW may be too late to the party:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/23...

Gaia's pissed, it seems ...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33795 Jan 23, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Right on.
<quoted text>
Simple geometry says fusion will never be competitive with fission. Here's why -
1) All that lovely energy is useless until & unless you get it transferred into a working fluid that drives a turbine. Heat transfer is a function of surface area, which is in turn a function of the square of the cross-sectional diameter. A PWR fuel rod is less than 1/2" in diameter, while the fusion plasma in a tokamak (if they can ever keep one lit) is several inches in diameter. Thus, fission plants will always be an order of magnitude more thermally efficient than fusion plants. Simple geometry.
2) Fusion plants will have all the same radwaste issues that fission plants do - their reactor components will get just as 'hot' from induced radioactivity as in fission reactors. But fusion reactors will present an additional radwaste/environmental radioactivity release problem on top of that, for which there is no apparent solution - tritium, and lots of it. How do you contain and prevent release of a radioactive gas that diffuses right thru steel itself?
Nope - fission will always be more competitive as a baseload generation technology than fusion.
Teddy R

I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that Helium-3 fusion obviates, or at least reduces, both of these concerns. He-3 fusion doesn't release neutrons, just protons. Their interaction with the magnetic field generates power directly, at least theoretically eliminating the need for heating something to run a turbine. They claim theoretical efficiences of ~70%. Not releasing neutrons also means the vessel doesn't break down or become radioactive, dramatically reducing waste.

The Chinese & Indians have already noted that one of their prime goals in wanting to explore the Moon is to mine the regolith for He-3. Many barriers remain, but there is significant long-term potential. He-3 + D "runs hot," & He-3 + He-3 is an even "hotter" reaction, meaning difficult confinement.

I'm sure you know the joke - fusion power (at least "traditional" D + T) is 30 years away - & will ALWAYS be 30 years away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33796 Jan 23, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Wait - I know many will be disappointed but it looks like planetary death by AGW may be too late to the party:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/23...
Gaia's pissed, it seems ...
Teddy R

AGW/CC & epidemics unresponsive to antibiotics are hardly mutually exclusive. We've often discussed how we expect climate change to "bring tropical diseases north again."

Even now, e.g., Anopheles mosquitoes might be able to survive in Florida, allowing malaria to make a comeback in the US. Treatment remains very, very problematic, with widespread resistence.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33797 Jan 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You might also show a BIT more respect by learning how to spell proper names.
'tiny-minded anne' has 3000+ misspellings. She has no respect for other people & certainly none for herself.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#33798 Jan 24, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well than you didn't follow the money.Do you know what riches they have?I didn't think so.
You state it as fact. Let's see your proof.

I've had this debate with deniers/trolls before. No one has ever answered my question satisfactorily. Can you?

If climatologists like Mann, Trenberth, Jones, etc., are scamming the government and getting rich, shouldn't there be some material proof? Their salaries/grants are legal and taxed, so they have nothing to hide. They are free to buy any and as many homes and cars and yachts as they can afford. Just direct us to the pictures of their mansions.

Or shut the fuggup about what YOU don't know.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33799 Jan 24, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You state it as fact. Let's see your proof.
I've had this debate with deniers/trolls before. No one has ever answered my question satisfactorily. Can you?
If climatologists like Mann, Trenberth, Jones, etc., are scamming the government and getting rich, shouldn't there be some material proof? Their salaries/grants are legal and taxed, so they have nothing to hide. They are free to buy any and as many homes and cars and yachts as they can afford. Just direct us to the pictures of their mansions.
Or shut the fuggup about what YOU don't know.
First I don't have to prove anything to you. You do a fine job proving that it is all scientific science fiction. Second you spoke of riches I agreed with the exception that riches does not necessary include money, cars, boats airplanes and mansions. It’s your issue that you are a small minded person. Your last sentence explains it all. You suffer from what is called the rodent effect. Your back is against the wall so you launch a personal attack. See you don't have a clue what you’re talking about. Now you need to shut your pie hole. See I do respond in kind.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33800 Jan 24, 2013
Obama is making people poor through Obamacare.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33801 Jan 24, 2013
They all are making everyone poor with their 6th grade school yard nonsense. More spending more taxes more cut backs.Say By By to the Middle class.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33802 Jan 24, 2013
The rich have to much taxes. Twinkies had to opt out of business!
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33803 Jan 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Teddy R
I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that Helium-3 fusion obviates, or at least reduces, both of these concerns. He-3 fusion doesn't release neutrons, just protons. Their interaction with the magnetic field generates power directly, at least theoretically eliminating the need for heating something to run a turbine. They claim theoretical efficiences of ~70%. Not releasing neutrons also means the vessel doesn't break down or become radioactive, dramatically reducing waste.
The Chinese & Indians have already noted that one of their prime goals in wanting to explore the Moon is to mine the regolith for He-3. Many barriers remain, but there is significant long-term potential. He-3 + D "runs hot," & He-3 + He-3 is an even "hotter" reaction, meaning difficult confinement.
I'm sure you know the joke - fusion power (at least "traditional" D + T) is 30 years away - & will ALWAYS be 30 years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
Yes - you're totally correct, I think. If someone figures out how to make a He3-D fusion reactor go, with an MHD direct electric power generation plant on the back end, that will certainly be the tits, no question. Then all we have to figure out is how to deal with all that radioactive plasma spewing out the back of that MHD unit ...
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33804 Jan 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Teddy R
AGW/CC & epidemics unresponsive to antibiotics are hardly mutually exclusive. We've often discussed how we expect climate change to "bring tropical diseases north again."
Even now, e.g., Anopheles mosquitoes might be able to survive in Florida, allowing malaria to make a comeback in the US. Treatment remains very, very problematic, with widespread resistence.
Good news - so the AGW problem is self-limiting ... a die-off of all those pesky humans ... now that's attacking the problem at source!
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33805 Jan 24, 2013
Humans aren't the problem, not finding a way to cool the earth through technology is, the democrat way is the problem.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33806 Jan 24, 2013
The the world’s biggest ice sheets have been stable for most of the current interglacial period. However, since temperatures began to soar a couple of decades ago, Greenland and Antarctica have been losing ice fast. Between 1992 and 2011, they lost around 2,700 billion and 1,350 billion tonnes of ice, respectively — enough to raise sea levels by about 0.6 mm per year. Scientists think that by 2100, the global sea level will rise by 0.5–1.2 metres above current levels.

Given ice loss is so far greater in Greenland, that could change: some parts of Antarctica are warming almost twice as fast as known, and glaciers in western Antarctica have retreated at a worrisome rate in the past few decades. Furthermore, Eemian sea-level rise seems to have proceeded in drastic jumps, rather than gradually, suggesting that the ongoing sea-level rise could further accelerate.

If Antarctica’s massive ice sheets disintegrate as they did before, we would face an extremely rapid sea-level rise around the world like the past Eemian in consequence.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33807 Jan 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
The the world’s biggest ice sheets have been stable for most of the current interglacial period. However, since temperatures began to soar a couple of decades ago, Greenland and Antarctica have been losing ice fast. Between 1992 and 2011, they lost around 2,700 billion and 1,350 billion tonnes of ice, respectively — enough to raise sea levels by about 0.6 mm per year. Scientists think that by 2100, the global sea level will rise by 0.5–1.2 metres above current levels.
Given ice loss is so far greater in Greenland, that could change: some parts of Antarctica are warming almost twice as fast as known, and glaciers in western Antarctica have retreated at a worrisome rate in the past few decades. Furthermore, Eemian sea-level rise seems to have proceeded in drastic jumps, rather than gradually, suggesting that the ongoing sea-level rise could further accelerate.
If Antarctica’s massive ice sheets disintegrate as they did before, we would face an extremely rapid sea-level rise around the world like the past Eemian in consequence.
Do they have statistics? The north pole isn't melting!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33808 Jan 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Teddy R
I'm no nuclear engineer, but I understand that Helium-3 fusion obviates, or at least reduces, both of these concerns. He-3 fusion doesn't release neutrons, just protons. Their interaction with the magnetic field generates power directly, at least theoretically eliminating the need for heating something to run a turbine. They claim theoretical efficiences of ~70%. Not releasing neutrons also means the vessel doesn't break down or become radioactive, dramatically reducing waste.
The Chinese & Indians have already noted that one of their prime goals in wanting to explore the Moon is to mine the regolith for He-3. Many barriers remain, but there is significant long-term potential. He-3 + D "runs hot," & He-3 + He-3 is an even "hotter" reaction, meaning difficult confinement.
I'm sure you know the joke - fusion power (at least "traditional" D + T) is 30 years away - & will ALWAYS be 30 years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
Neither is Teddy,[my guess] but if he were he would not know about fusion. Few people on Earth could deal with both fission reactors and fusion research machines.

Any way, you are merely getting excited about science fiction with the Moon and everything else. At least we've managed D-T reaction in certain machines but not reactions with He-3. I frankly think you are way off in your optimism dealing with alpha particles and protons for power production. You could read more carefully your link, especially study the comparison table.

There are fundamental problems like power density that Teddy hinted.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33809 Jan 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Neither is Teddy,[my guess] but if he were he would not know about fusion. Few people on Earth could deal with both fission reactors and fusion research machines.
Any way, you are merely getting excited about science fiction with the Moon and everything else. At least we've managed D-T reaction in certain machines but not reactions with He-3. I frankly think you are way off in your optimism dealing with alpha particles and protons for power production. You could read more carefully your link, especially study the comparison table.
There are fundamental problems like power density that Teddy hinted.
Few people? Nothing wrong with it is the experts do it! People can get educated! Cool the earth, don't try to stop the heat. Make the earth itself cooler with chemicals! The earth can be cooled!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33810 Jan 24, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they have statistics? The north pole isn't melting!
You must love statistics. Why the data include all kinds of measurements including those that satellites produce. We've been sharing even movies in this forum.

There have been many threads on this topic that I posted about. However, the North pole isn't seeing any sun right now. Catch some daily reports from litesong in various threads. He even covered the weather at the Baniff Island, Teddy's place.:-)
TrollBot

Mclean, VA

#33811 Jan 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just nonsense that there's money in supporting AGW/CC theory.
You're claiming no one is pulling down huge taxpayer-subsidized profits off selling these?

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/16/ju...
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33812 Jan 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You must love statistics. Why the data include all kinds of measurements including those that satellites produce. We've been sharing even movies in this forum.
There have been many threads on this topic that I posted about. However, the North pole isn't seeing any sun right now. Catch some daily reports from litesong in various threads. He even covered the weather at the Baniff Island, Teddy's place.:-)
Hasn't been seeing any sun? The earth always goes round, it would have seen just as much sun! We want real stats, not science fiction stats from your novels!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min RealDave 1,126,701
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 35 min Mandela 70,098
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr cpeter1313 306,263
Popular '80s West Hartford Music Hall To Be Dem... (Jun '09) 7 hr AWXYZ 254
Black males often struggle to stay ahead (Jan '09) 7 hr AWXYZ 423
Why are puerto ricans so lazy & don't work? (Nov '13) 7 hr PRW101 4
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 11 hr TRD 68,658
Hartford Dating
Find my Match

Hartford Jobs

Hartford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hartford News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hartford

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]