Re: Br?n on global warming (paper)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy. Alberto Monteiro I left off the other factor, lack of interest. But if any of you want a copy of my 14 page paper Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power and the spread sheets that were used to construct the models, let me know. Please don't ask if you are not willing to read the paper (or at least try). As expected, nobody from this list asked for a copy. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On 20/02/2010, at 3:23 AM, Michael Harney wrote: Seriously? You put this much weight in a non-academic, purely speculative and, by my reasoning bullshit article. For crying out loud, the only cite in the whole article is from wikipedia. http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP/WEAP.html Contains considerably more cites than the reprint. But few, if any, from peer-review, and I can't see anywhere who this guy is. That he's done all the fitting of curves himself (second-order - or any order - polynomial fits are notoriously bad for projections) does not fill me with confidence that he knows what he's doing. I'd like to see more than one self-published article to convince me that world population will be below a billion by the end of this century. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote: snip You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much electric power would it take to make that much synthetic oil. What do you want synthetic oil for, except as plastic feedstock? Please explain what you're trying to do with that much sythetic oil, other than attempt to keep running the same kinds of ICE powered vehicles that we do today? What it would be used for wasn't part of the question. But how do you propose to power aircraft, heavy trucks and ships after we run out of fossil fuels? Also, how long will it take to replace ICE powered vehicles? snip Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand for energy. That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. If you're talking per capita CO2 emissions, yes you're correct. If we're talking energy usage across a city (especially mainly suburban cities like in Australia), we're talking significant savings through these steps - they're the low-hanging fruit that it's crazy not to get on with. Tanks compared to desalination, for example, are so sensible and yet there's a push from politicians to huge wasteful desal. We've got our per capita mains consumption down to under 100l a day, and a few more changes to our home system will take us to using no more than 10l/pp/pd. This across a city the size of Melbourne can save at least 200gigalitres per annum, which would save building the 788GWh per annum 788/8760 is 90 MW. desal plant planned for Melbourne is expected to use. Melbourne's power stations burn lignite... so you'll see the sorts of real consumption savings that can be achieved easily here with ease. There's no one-size-fits-all solution of course, but with some leadership we can save a lot of waste which is just as important as transitioning to new forms of energy production. How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a need to suffer. What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with business as usual then a lot of people will suffer. If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Please, show your working. I don't disbelieve you but if you can point to work on this I will read, ponder and digest. As always. Not my work. Try here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3091 Keith Leaving for work now - will look in this evening to see where this goes... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a need to suffer. What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with business as usual then a lot of people will suffer. If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Please, show your working. I don't disbelieve you but if you can point to work on this I will read, ponder and digest. As always. Not my work. Try here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3091 Keith Seriously? You put this much weight in a non-academic, purely speculative and, by my reasoning bullshit article. For crying out loud, the only cite in the whole article is from wikipedia. Alarmist hypotheses about running out of resources has been going on for decades, I remember growing up in the 80s and people saying that at the consumption level at that time, the majority of the world's oil reserves would be completely depleted by the year 2000. Strangely, our use of oil have dramatically increased since that time, and we still have oil now in the year 2010. And why would our Nuclear power resources be falling in the coming years as the article claims? Decommissioning old reactors? Sure, tear down an old reactor and put up a new one that is twice as efficient and a hundred times safer. I made the mistake of buying into hype all the time when I was younger. Heck, 10 years ago I was convinced that 1/3 of the land in the world would be consumed by rising oceans due to ice on Greenland and Antarctica falling into the ocean within a few decades. At the time, I could have pointed to numerous sources saying that this was going to happen, and they actually have some data from NASA, the EPA, and other credible sources to back their claims. Of course, the claims were greatly exaggerated, but at least the people tried to back up their claims with cold hard facts. This article doesn't back up anything it claims. It just states it and expects the reader to accept it blindly. Having a blog and making graphs in Microsoft Office doesn't make someone an expert. Here is a quote from the one study that the author referred to. I further claimed, based on some preliminary and overly general calculations, that it would take on the order of three times our current total primary energy output to stabilize the world population at around 10 billion people. This is the author of that article you posted saying this. Their own words state that their claims were based on preliminary and overly general calculations. In other words: Bullshit. Michael Harney ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On 19/02/2010, at 3:16 PM, Keith Henson wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote: snip You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much electric power would it take to make that much synthetic oil. What do you want synthetic oil for, except as plastic feedstock? Please explain what you're trying to do with that much sythetic oil, other than attempt to keep running the same kinds of ICE powered vehicles that we do today? What it would be used for wasn't part of the question. But how do you propose to power aircraft, heavy trucks and ships after we run out of fossil fuels? Also, how long will it take to replace ICE powered vehicles? Well, your question was how do you replace the entire current US oil usage with synthetic oil. Which is the wrong question, IMO. It's how much synthetic oil do we need to run those things we can't do other ways. So the first question is how much can we reduce the need for oil before we're lowering standard of living. How much of that oil is wasted in profligate burning... I'll come back to this later today or tomorrow - haven't got time to look carefully at the discussion (explain below). But cheers for discussing, always interesting. snip Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand for energy. That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. If you're talking per capita CO2 emissions, yes you're correct. If we're talking energy usage across a city (especially mainly suburban cities like in Australia), we're talking significant savings through these steps - they're the low-hanging fruit that it's crazy not to get on with. Tanks compared to desalination, for example, are so sensible and yet there's a push from politicians to huge wasteful desal. We've got our per capita mains consumption down to under 100l a day, and a few more changes to our home system will take us to using no more than 10l/pp/pd. This across a city the size of Melbourne can save at least 200gigalitres per annum, which would save building the 788GWh per annum 788/8760 is 90 MW. ie a whole power station you don't have to build... \ Please, show your working. I don't disbelieve you but if you can point to work on this I will read, ponder and digest. As always. Not my work. Try here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3091 Cheers. Will look tonight (not delaying, just the time difference to here and that I'm doing a hundred mile bike ride today - it's 05:45 and I've got collect a carload of people and bikes and get out to the start). C. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much electric power would it take to make that much synthetic oil. (I have worked it out but I would appreciate someone else doing it to check my numbers.) I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is preached by the global warming community. Um, exactly what is this global warming community that preaches a need to suffer? That looks like just another straw man to me. There are nutters on both sides of the politics of climate, but the people really concerned about taking action are busy showing how you can live very similarly to the way you do now, without being so wasteful. Most of the science and engineering of starting to live sustainably is no-brainer stuff that's easy to implement. Sure, we do need a few big-ticket items and the space based solar that you've been advocating for years may well be one of those, but in the short-term there's a lot individuals and communities can do to green their homes, businesses and towns that will have at worst a very small affect on standard of living. Dr. David Mackay has put a lot of effort into this and doesn't think so. His analysis is for the UK, but something similar applies to the rest of the world as well. Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand for energy. That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a need to suffer. What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with business as usual then a lot of people will suffer. If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... The US uses about 20 million bbs of oil per day. How much electric power would it take to make that much synthetic oil. What do you want synthetic oil for, except as plastic feedstock? Please explain what you're trying to do with that much sythetic oil, other than attempt to keep running the same kinds of ICE powered vehicles that we do today? Um, exactly what is this global warming community that preaches a need to suffer? That looks like just another straw man to me. There are nutters on both sides of the politics of climate, but the people really concerned about taking action are busy showing how you can live very similarly to the way you do now, without being so wasteful. Most of the science and engineering of starting to live sustainably is no-brainer stuff that's easy to implement. Sure, we do need a few big-ticket items and the space based solar that you've been advocating for years may well be one of those, but in the short-term there's a lot individuals and communities can do to green their homes, businesses and towns that will have at worst a very small affect on standard of living. Dr. David Mackay has put a lot of effort into this and doesn't think so. His analysis is for the UK, but something similar applies to the rest of the world as well. Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand for energy. That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. If you're talking per capita CO2 emissions, yes you're correct. If we're talking energy usage across a city (especially mainly suburban cities like in Australia), we're talking significant savings through these steps - they're the low-hanging fruit that it's crazy not to get on with. Tanks compared to desalination, for example, are so sensible and yet there's a push from politicians to huge wasteful desal. We've got our per capita mains consumption down to under 100l a day, and a few more changes to our home system will take us to using no more than 10l/pp/pd. This across a city the size of Melbourne can save at least 200gigalitres per annum, which would save building the 788GWh per annum desal plant planned for Melbourne is expected to use. Melbourne's power stations burn lignite... so you'll see the sorts of real consumption savings that can be achieved easily here with ease. There's no one-size-fits-all solution of course, but with some leadership we can save a lot of waste which is just as important as transitioning to new forms of energy production. How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a need to suffer. What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with business as usual then a lot of people will suffer. If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Please, show your working. I don't disbelieve you but if you can point to work on this I will read, ponder and digest. As always. Leaving for work now - will look in this evening to see where this goes... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy. Alberto Monteiro I left off the other factor, lack of interest. But if any of you want a copy of my 14 page paper Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power and the spread sheets that were used to construct the models, let me know. Please don't ask if you are not willing to read the paper (or at least try). Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Wayne Eddy wrote: Found what I thought was a terrific paper on carbon sequestration. It suggests that it should be possible to use nanotechnology to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into diamond bricks by the 2030's. http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep043.pdf ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Why not convert it back to coal -- or wood -- so we can burn it again? Cleaner energy through reverse entropy and perpetual motion. (OK. I looked over the table of contents. There seems to be a solar input.) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Keith Henson wrote: If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Where will they live? (I am a member of a tribe. Global civilization can go stuff itself.) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Charlie Bell wrote: On 18/02/2010, at 11:29 AM, Keith Henson wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand for energy. That's not as true as most people hope. All the saving you can make in a year are blown on one short aircraft trip. If you're talking per capita CO2 emissions, yes you're correct. If we're talking energy usage across a city (especially mainly suburban cities like in Australia), we're talking significant savings through these steps - they're the low-hanging fruit that it's crazy not to get on with. Tanks compared to desalination, for example, are so sensible and yet there's a push from politicians to huge wasteful desal. We've got our per capita mains consumption down to under 100l a day, and a few more changes to our home system will take us to using no more than 10l/pp/pd. This across a city the size of Melbourne can save at least 200gigalitres per annum, which would save building the 788GWh per annum desal plant planned for Melbourne is expected to use. Melbourne's power stations burn lignite... so you'll see the sorts of real consumption savings that can be achieved easily here with ease. There's no one-size-fits-all solution of course, but with some leadership we can save a lot of waste which is just as important as transitioning to new forms of energy production. For a little while longer I work for the local electric utility. We had a newsletter item that the Australian leadership had ruled out nuclear as an option and instead was making a bet on carbon sequestration from coal plants ... which will surely pan out eventually. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On Feb 18, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Trent Shipley wrote: Keith Henson wrote: If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Where will they live? (I am a member of a tribe. Global civilization can go stuff itself.) I assume that you mean where would they live if they _didn't_ die, by way of arguing that a certain degree of culling is necessary, or at least acceptable. That is, I assume that you're not asking the old trick question, Quick: A plane with 200 people crashes right on the border of two countries. Where do they bury the survivors? Like a lot of people, I suspect, I care far more for my family than I do for, say, members of my church (a proxy for tribe). I care more for members of that tribe than for other San Joseans, Californians, USAans, and so forth. Once I get beyond my Dunbar number (and certainly less than an order of magnitude above it), the difference between how much I actually care about individuals in those larger and larger groups is down in the noise. But it never reaches zero. Apparently, for someone like Keith, it appears to be further above zero than it is for you, with your Global civilization can go stuff itself frame. Evidently, John Donne's bell, at least insofar as any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, doesn't toll as loudly for thee. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Hey Trent. I hear what your saying. If you use all the energy you gained by burning carbon locking it back up again it is all a bit pointless isn't it. The article assumes an exponential increase in the use of solar energy over the next 20 years, which basically solves our biggest problem (cheap renewable energy) anyway. AIl the same I love the article, and I love the dry humour - the idea of a such mega-scale engineering project appeals to me and it ties in nicely with Keiths space based solar power plans too. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com wrote: Why not convert it back to coal -- or wood -- so we can burn it again? Cleaner energy through reverse entropy and perpetual motion. (OK. I looked over the table of contents. There seems to be a solar input.) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On 19/02/2010, at 9:17 AM, Trent Shipley wrote: For a little while longer I work for the local electric utility. We had a newsletter item that the Australian leadership had ruled out nuclear as an option and instead was making a bet on carbon sequestration from coal plants ... which will surely pan out eventually. Yeah. Crazy to rule it out out of hand (especially as we have plenty of uranium...). Pebble bed reactors are at least partly Australian innovation. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On 17 Feb 2010, at 23:21, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy. My math doesn't extend much beyond cryptography. Prime Numbers Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://blog.williamgoodall.name/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Alberto wrote: Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy. Alberto Monteiro Or very sarcastic. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Found what I thought was a terrific paper on carbon sequestration. It suggests that it should be possible to use nanotechnology to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into diamond bricks by the 2030's. http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep043.pdf ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com wrote: snip If you want to solve global warming it better not cost me my job, increase my electricity bill, make me pay more for transportation, sacrifice the quality or quantity of my transportation, or otherwise degrade my lifestyle. Also, it better not prevent increasing prosperity in less developed countries. Indeed, it better not reduce the rate at which prosperity increases. If you can do those things, then we can talk about fighting global warming. Global warming is the wrong problem to solve, but solving the correct one, low cost energy that carbon neutral or negative solves at least the CO2 buildup and global warming to the extent that contributes. It's an engineering problem. It happens I have worked out one way, a method to reduce the cost of lifting power satellite parts to GEO so that space based solar energy could displace fossil fuels on price. There is at least one *other* way that gets energy cost into the range where synthetic gasoline can be made for a dollar a gallon. I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is preached by the global warming community. Far as I know engineers have never been asked how they would refreeze the Arctic Ocean or slow the glaciers sliding into the sea. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. You'd be surprised. My maths isn't great (ie i'm not a natural mathematician), but my chemistry is fine... I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is preached by the global warming community. Um, exactly what is this global warming community that preaches a need to suffer? That looks like just another straw man to me. There are nutters on both sides of the politics of climate, but the people really concerned about taking action are busy showing how you can live very similarly to the way you do now, without being so wasteful. Most of the science and engineering of starting to live sustainably is no-brainer stuff that's easy to implement. Sure, we do need a few big-ticket items and the space based solar that you've been advocating for years may well be one of those, but in the short-term there's a lot individuals and communities can do to green their homes, businesses and towns that will have at worst a very small affect on standard of living. Examples such as water tanks, solar hot water, decent insulation are small steps that if taken by large numbers of people can massively lower the demand for energy. How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a need to suffer. What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with business as usual then a lot of people will suffer. Far as I know engineers have never been asked how they would refreeze the Arctic Ocean or slow the glaciers sliding into the sea. Need to stop the forcing first before you can think about reversing the effects, surely... The solutions are different depending where you live, of course. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 13/02/2010, at 7:05 AM, Keith Henson wrote: I think people are properly skeptical of the need to suffer that is preached by the global warming community. Um, exactly what is this global warming community that preaches a need to suffer? I have the same impression as Keith. There seem to be a lot of global warming activists who want to switch everyone to much more expensive technologies. Or else they have not understood the numbers and think that the cost of making a large reduction in worldwide CO2 emission is not very high -- thinking that little things that don't cost much will make much of a dent in worldwide CO2 emissions. Far as I know engineers have never been asked how they would refreeze the Arctic Ocean or slow the glaciers sliding into the sea. Need to stop the forcing first before you can think about reversing the effects, surely... Surely not, if by stop forcing you mean change people worldwide enough to drastically reduce CO2 emissions. Much more realistic to work on mitigating the effects. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Very few people that I know are skeptical that human activity is causing more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere or that this is contributing to a rise in global temperatures. I do think that a lot of people are legitimately skeptical that it is the existential threat that some people make it out to be, or that it is the single most pressing issue of our time. If people are skeptical it is of politicians and lobby groups, not of scientists. I agree that humanity should work at developing renewable energy sources, that we should strive to make everything more energy efficient and that we should try to eradicate waste, but I don't believe that carbon emissions are the most pressing reason to do so. I'd prefer to see money being spent on fusion power research, and finding ways to harness the collective intelligence of the human race, than flying plane loads of delegates to Copenhagen. In fact I think that collective intelligence is the key to everything. When people talk about the Technological Singularity they mostly seem to think about smart computers making smarter computers, but I think it is more about humankind collaborating together to find better ways of collaborating.I have this vision of a day in the not to distant future when the collective intelligence of humankind will be unleashed like a sort of benevolent great eye of Modor, whose gaze when directed at even the most intractable problems, will cause them to evaporate in a puff of logic. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Michael Harney wrote: Trent wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. You're kidding right? If we go down we're taking the world with us? A little Bond-villain-esqe don't you think? Can't compromises be reached? The majority of Americans are willing to give up a great portion of civil rights during times of war. We can't change our lifestyles just a little to preserve a more stable future? I'm half kidding, but I partly feel this way. More importantly, I think it reflects political reality. Polls are showing people are less concerned about global warming and more skeptical. It really comes home when you ask if you can raise electricity rates to prevent global warming. Polls come up with a resounding NO!. If you want to solve global warming it better not cost me my job, increase my electricity bill, make me pay more for transportation, sacrifice the quality or quantity of my transportation, or otherwise degrade my lifestyle. Also, it better not prevent increasing prosperity in less developed countries. Indeed, it better not reduce the rate at which prosperity increases. If you can do those things, then we can talk about fighting global warming. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Michael Harney wrote: Trent wrote: Why not nuclear power? Less people have died in nuclear accidents than mining coal. Mining coal is more hazardous to your health than working in a modern nuclear power plant. It doesn't produce CO2. It doesn't produce environmental pollution other than the obvious radioactive waste that is slated to start being stored at Yucca Mountain starting in a few years, where it won't be a concern for tens of thousands of years. If the human contribution to global climate change is significant and is something that can significantly impact us within the next one or two centuries, then why not trade the more immediate global problem for one that is more localized and we will have a much longer time period to solve? The problem with nuclear power is that we can't get all the uranium we need from reliable countries. A lot of it comes from Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and less stable African states. The ex-Soviet sources are worse for the Europe and the U.S. than Saudi oil since those countries still treat the West as a strategic threat. Saudia Arabia treats America as a necessary evil and a protector, but not a threat. Uranium is a finite resource, and energy use always increases even with improved conservation. As time goes on, access to uranium may become an even bigger energy security problem for the West than it is now. So if your primary motivation is energy security (not climate change), nuclear power is only a marginal improvement over oil. For America, however, Coal is the ultimate in energy security. It's right here. We can even export the stuff and gain a strategic advantage over other countries by becoming part of their energy supply chain. Trent Shipley wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Trent said: The problem with nuclear power is that we can't get all the uranium we need from reliable countries. A lot of it comes from Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and less stable African states. Aren't the worlds most productive uranium mines in Canada and Australia? Those two countries combined account for almost half of the world's uranium output, Russia around 8%, other former Soviet states 22%, Africa about 15%. Rich ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
As you said. http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm Uranium mining (reserves?) in tonnes Australia 725,000 t Brazil 157,400 t Canada 329,200 t * Kazakhstan 378,100 t South Africa 284,400 t Namibia 176,400 t * Niger 243,100 t * Russia 172,400 t Ukraine 135,000 t * Uzbekistan 72,400 t USA 339,000 t Richard Baker wrote: Trent said: The problem with nuclear power is that we can't get all the uranium we need from reliable countries. A lot of it comes from Russia, the Central Asian Republics, and less stable African states. Aren't the worlds most productive uranium mines in Canada and Australia? Those two countries combined account for almost half of the world's uranium output, Russia around 8%, other former Soviet states 22%, Africa about 15%. Rich ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
FYI, unless the word Brin in the subject is followed by a colon, he won't see it... so it's not really necessary to replace the i like that. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Trent wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. You're kidding right? If we go down we're taking the world with us? A little Bond-villain-esqe don't you think? Can't compromises be reached? The majority of Americans are willing to give up a great portion of civil rights during times of war. We can't change our lifestyles just a little to preserve a more stable future? Why not nuclear power? Less people have died in nuclear accidents than mining coal. Mining coal is more hazardous to your health than working in a modern nuclear power plant. It doesn't produce CO2. It doesn't produce environmental pollution other than the obvious radioactive waste that is slated to start being stored at Yucca Mountain starting in a few years, where it won't be a concern for tens of thousands of years. If the human contribution to global climate change is significant and is something that can significantly impact us within the next one or two centuries, then why not trade the more immediate global problem for one that is more localized and we will have a much longer time period to solve? Trent Shipley wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
