Tiny Young Galaxies Full of Stars Discovered
While these http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/galaxies-article.htmlgalaxies are small enough to fit within the central hub of our own Milky Way, they each contain as many stars as larger, more mature galaxies. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080430-dense-galaxies.html (Did you spot the error in the first paragraph?) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Kevin B. O'Brien blasphemed: Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing other people under the wheels in order to save themselves? I don't recognize the acronym you used, WHAT??? You herectic scum! Alberto Monteiro PS: I am a member of a Civilization - Brin's motto I thought his motto was CITOKATE? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
The worst-case estimates I've seen put the carbon produced at arround 4% of coal, Charlie. And true, the deposits are not in the best areas..but neither are the oil reserves, for different reasons. I'd rather depend on Canada and Australia than the OPEC countries. AndrewC On 2 May 2008 at 22:27, Charlie Bell wrote: On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Population control
I was talking in terms of restricting reproduction, not practicing euthanasia. If we leave it to the Four Horsemen, I am certain the worst of it will fall on those populations that are poor, and that will hardly look any better. It will take more than just population control, I suspect, but ignoring root causes is no way to solve the problem. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien i don't know if and when draconian measures will take place, except in china, but if something isn't done mother nature, and human nature will intervene. i believe the earth can handle up to 10 billion humans if sufficient measures are taken to protect the planet. it would require clean technology and a commitment to sustainable solutions... Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 22:27:45 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3 On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Well, the richest deposits are located in wind areas of Australia, I understand that. And, domenstic US and Canadian production are inherently higher cost, due to the lower grade of the ore. But, I have a buddy working on a uraninium minining detector project in the US. The market for uranium has come out of the doldrums of the last 20+ years, so folks are actually looking now. Last year, the US, for example, used about 25-30 tons of uranium for its plants. Canada alone has proven reserves of about 180k tons. One reserve (McCrthur River) is extremely high grade (26%), so the total amount that needs to be mined to get the uranium is low. So, the local impact would be far lower than the present local impact of coal mining. I realize that the newly discovered, offline, Australian reserve is in a national park. Its reasonable to expect the utmost care to be taken in that area. But, given the fact that people haven't looked all that hard for uranium deposits, due to the low historical prices, it seems reasonable that we will signficantly increase the proven deposits when we look hard for uranium. So, it may be that we can choose to ignore deposits in National Parks, or to mine them in such a way that has minimal, temporary impact on the local environment. But, without a doubt, if we went to substitute reactors for coal plants we would see a net dip in environmental effects from mining alone. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 3 May 2008, at 02:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, I have a buddy working on a uraninium minining detector project in the US. The market for uranium has come out of the doldrums of the last 20+ years, so folks are actually looking now. Last year, the US, for example, used about 25-30 tons of uranium for its plants. Canada alone has proven reserves of about 180k tons. One reserve (McCrthur River) is extremely high grade (26%), so the total amount that needs to be mined to get the uranium is low. So, the local impact would be far lower than the present local impact of coal mining. So we don't really know how available some minerals are until we start looking for them harder? Geology Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 03/05/2008, at 11:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize that the newly discovered, offline, Australian reserve is in a national park. Yes, and in indigenous land. But it's not that that I mean. National Parks aren't inherently more sensitive, they're just areas reserved for non-development and wilderness. What I'm talking about is the distances - the NT reserves are several hundred km from Darwin across some of the most unpleasant and difficult terrain. Jungle, biting insects, dry half the year and flooded the other half (there are rivers in the area that change depth by more than 30 metres through the year), and crocodiles. The ore either needs to be refined in situ, which leads to energy generation and chemical waste locally, or refined somewhere else which means trucking the ore out, which means a lot of diesel in trucks or diesel in locomotives if they put a railway in. But I talk your point about other reserves being discovered or becoming viable as the price of U increases, or as the carbon taxes or carbon offsets or carbon licensing schemes increase the coal/oil burning costs closing the gap to nuclear. I'm not against nuclear power in principle, ftr. Certainly Australia has enough U to be totally self-sufficient (instead, we're selling it to China - there are only a couple of very small scale research reactors in Oz for creating medical radioactives) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Just one complaint about Forbidden Kingdom
The moon. The frakkin' moon. By what they said in dialogue at one point, I figured it was waning. Then when we saw it on the screen, it was waxing. Do they need to hire someone who understands the phases of the moon there? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An interesting response
Charlie Bell wrote on April 16th: Re: An interesting response On 17/04/2008, at 12:26 PM, Dan M wrote: Well, Concord was a political animal from the very beginning wasn't it? It was a tax subsidized showcase for Britain and France from the start. IIRC, it never really was a profit center. All aircraft mfrs are subsidised. Yes, it was supposed to be a technology It sounds as though this is a reflection of the common EU argument that the USs concentrating its purchases of military aircraft amounts to a subsidy of US commercial aircraft. But, the big US commercial aircraft maker (Boeing) hasnt had much luck in the military marker in the last 15 years. Boeing has received tax breaks, like every company, but the governments are not involved the way the EU is involved with AirBus. its successor would have been an efficient supersonic plane. I don't doubt that a successor would have been better, but you putting efficient in quotes seems to indicate that you aren't arguing against the fundamental increase in cost per passenger mile when a plane goes at Mach 1.05 compared to Mach 0.95. Fundamental? No. Substantial, yes. Well, we may be arguing semantic again. Ive seen fundamental costs being about a factor of 5 or so per passenger. I guess that would allow for That's not political. The decision to use tax money to subsidize the travel of the richest businessmen is, of course, political. The politics came in when a swathe of countries banned the Concorde from overflying. That's what killed it. Didn't take long before the only route for Concorde was the transatlantic shuttle, and even then, only the very rich could afford it. After looking into this, there is some truth in this. But, you do know it was environmental politics, right? Thats what killed the US SST program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 I know how loud sonic booms sounded when I was a kid. I can see how easy it was to get people opposed to them happening all the time. That's a scale issue. When only a handful are ever built, the RD isn't every going to be repaid. Thats OK, and I understand it. But, at the same time, I recall the tremendous pride of Britain and France on stealing a march on the US at the time. You seem to think the subsidies were aimed towards Concorde's final fate. They weren't, they were aimed at getting the time of long-haul flights down. Even today, it takes a day to get from London to Sydney. Concorde was supposed to halve that. But, supersonic flight is a fuel hog. Look at the range of the 747 vs. the Concord and their fuel loads per passenger. One would have to stop for fueling several times to make that distance. I realize that most planes have to stop once, including the 747, but the 777 can make it in one. The Concord would still be faster, and the point is moot due to environmental concerns that wont go away. But, I think without those, it is reasonable to assume that some businessmen would be willing to pay 5x the fare for a thin seat to save half of the time. But, granting that, my point is that natural barriers do exist. Some lines of inquiry and technology are easier than others. Right now, computer chips remain under Moores law and it appears that gene manipulation is doing even better. Let me try an analogy to illustrate my point. We scientists and RD engineers are like 16th century explorers. Part of where they went was determined by their will, our abilities, their technology, etc. But, part of it was determined by the lay of the land. The Northwest passage didnt exist until last year (the Northeast passage existed for a few years before that). There was no easy way around the Americas. Valley that were explored seemed promising as passages over the Continental divide, but few good ones exist. My argument is that we shouldnt think of green energy as merely a test of our will. It is also dependant on the lay of the land. Past behavior doesnt guarantee future behavior, but its much more likely that, in 10 years, we will have a 1 terabyte drive for $100 than have a plane that can carry 1500 passengers that flies for the same price (not price per passenger but total price) as a plane that carries 100. t's chicken wire on poles, Dan. Strung over land that can still be used for other stuff. The rectennas are by far the smallest costs in the whole thing... Im not sure its quite that simple. I agree it will probably be a lot cheaper than the transmitter. But, I don't think the process is trivial. If the transmission is that simple, why wouldnt we be using it for remote locations now. Just put a tower up and transmit the energy? I understand that, but there was a huge inertia ...? I understand that, but there was a huge inertia with mainframe computers in the 70s and they soon became dinosaurs. Yet, the capital invested in the Z-density I helped design was small, yet it was 20 years before it was worth the bother to design a new
Re: An interesting response
On 03/05/2008, at 1:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You seem to think the subsidies were aimed towards Concorde's final fate. They weren't, they were aimed at getting the time of long-haul flights down. Even today, it takes a day to get from London to Sydney. Concorde was supposed to halve that. But, supersonic flight is a fuel hog. Look at the range of the 747 vs. the Concord Concorde. With an e. and their fuel loads per passenger. One would have to stop for fueling several times to make that distance. I realize that most planes have to stop once, including the 747, but the 777 can make it in one. London to Sydney? In one hop? No current commercial aircraft can do it. London to Sydney is almost 13.500 miles and the 777 has a range of a bit over 9000. I'll come back to the rest of the post later. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
