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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
___
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
29 matches
Mail list logo
