Re: Grand Reopening of chat
That should be http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/brinl/chat/ On 6 Jul 2010, at 01:21, William T Goodall wrote: > The ten year old Blueberry iMac the chat was running on died recently and > I've replaced it with a low-power server that will save me some electricity. > The chat is now up and running 24/7 at > > http:/wtgab.demon.co.uk/brinl/chat/ > > for anyone who wants to kick the tyres before Wednesday. The automated > reminders will resume once I get around to sorting out the mail configuration > :-) And I'll try to set up cron properly this time ;-) > > **Note that the URL is slightly different for anyone who had it bookmarked.** > > This a resource for all members of brinl and if anyone wants to take a > discussion to live chat feel free to use it anytime, not just the regular > Wednesday chat hours. > > > -- > 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 > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Grand Reopening of chat
The ten year old Blueberry iMac the chat was running on died recently and I've replaced it with a low-power server that will save me some electricity. The chat is now up and running 24/7 at http:/wtgab.demon.co.uk/brinl/chat/ for anyone who wants to kick the tyres before Wednesday. The automated reminders will resume once I get around to sorting out the mail configuration :-) And I'll try to set up cron properly this time ;-) **Note that the URL is slightly different for anyone who had it bookmarked.** This a resource for all members of brinl and if anyone wants to take a discussion to live chat feel free to use it anytime, not just the regular Wednesday chat hours. -- 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: replacing fossil fuels
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:40 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: replacing fossil fuels On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" wrote: [Dan] >>In fact, the candidates that now exist require a rare supplement that >>isn't found in ocean water. ?It won't be costly to supply it, but they >>don't grow without it. ?It's kinda like worrying that corn will displace >>the woodlands. [Keith] >>If you are going to grow it inside of glass tubes where you can supply >>the rare supplement, then the cost of the tubes has to be around 1/5th >>of the cost of solar power on an area basis. > > That's not the plan. _Right now_ a pilot plant is either in operation or > about to start up near Austin TX. They have trays that collect the > hydrocarbons that are sweated off the plants. The person who is CEO is a > rich, successful venture capitalist, who's Phd in biology from MIT a ways > back proposed the mapping of the human gnome. My understanding was this > practical plan was the starting point for the project. > > We'll see how well he does. But, he has been successful in the past in > bioengeering, and has a net worth in the mulit-millions. He thinks he can > get the price of diesel down to $30/barrel with his process. >You didn't address my objection which is the low efficiency with which >plants convert light into chemical energy. That's what causes the >high area requirements. You are making an argument from authority >which I don't see as being backed up by physics and chemistry It's not actually an argument from authority. It's an argument that I'd trust someone who has a track record of having done stuff more than someone who hasn't. For example, you would have been reasonable to take a physics argument on a new topic from Richard Feynman more than Dan Minette. We know bioengeering costs are going down quickly. We know solar costs aren't. From their website, we know they are now producing at 1/4th of their projected output. If they can make close to that output, it will work. If they can't, in a cost effective manner, it won't. But, since they are working in a field where the fundamental costs are dropping faster than Moore's law for computer chips, I'd rate them as having a chance. Solar has been around for decades, and costs in that area have not come down a factor of 2 in the last decade. I don't see fundamentals in mesoscopic physics that will afford such an improvement on the horizon, either. So, let's see what would they require to replace foreign oil if they do meet their production goals. At 15,000 gallons/acre of diesel , that's roughly 360 barrels/acre. So, if we use roughly 20 million barrels/day of oil, we'd need roughly 20 million acres. We planted about 88 billion acres of corn this year. IIRC, we were looking at 20% of that acreage for the little ethanol we use. Plus, these plants don't need fresh water or prime soil. And they grow, they aren't expensive to manufacture. So, we are talking a lot of acreage, but we can use all that scrubland folks were talking about and brackish water. _If_ it works, mind you, I think the chances they have of meeting their goals is less than 50-50. But compare that with solar power which has been promising pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye since I was in college in the '70s. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: replacing fossil fuels
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, "Dan Minette" wrote: [Dan] >>In fact, the candidates that now exist require a rare supplement that >>isn't found in ocean water. ?It won't be costly to supply it, but they >>don't grow without it. ?It's kinda like worrying that corn will displace >>the woodlands. [Keith] >>If you are going to grow it inside of glass tubes where you can supply >>the rare supplement, then the cost of the tubes has to be around 1/5th >>of the cost of solar power on an area basis. > > That's not the plan. _Right now_ a pilot plant is either in operation or > about to start up near Austin TX. They have trays that collect the > hydrocarbons that are sweated off the plants. The person who is CEO is a > rich, successful venture capitalist, who's Phd in biology from MIT a ways > back proposed the mapping of the human gnome. My understanding was this > practical plan was the starting point for the project. > > We'll see how well he does. But, he has been successful in the past in > bioengeering, and has a net worth in the mulit-millions. He thinks he can > get the price of diesel down to $30/barrel with his process. You didn't address my objection which is the low efficiency with which plants convert light into chemical energy. That's what causes the high area requirements. You are making an argument from authority which I don't see as being backed up by physics and chemistry > http://www.jouleunlimited.com/ There is remarkably little actual information at this URL. > > As with solar, no offense Keith, but it's all for the True Believer. For > example, lift costs have not come down appreciably in 50 years. Of course not. The present cost and the present market are and largely government projects. If it helps any, I no longer think power satellites or serious human presence in space will *ever* happen. Something that I don't think is as good but is certainly a lot less expensive has come along. I am now working on that project to the exclusion of any work on space transportation. Tell you more about it in August. Keith > The costs > of things like gene splicers have been going down by close to 50% per year. > Now, past history doesn't guarantee future performance, but I know it is > much more likely that we will have a computer that's 20x as fast in 10 years > for the same cost than a plane that?s 2x as fast in 10 years for the same > money. > > Now, I'd rate his odds as less than 50/50, but it's the most likely thing > I've seen in 30 years. > > Dan M. > > > > > -- > > ___ > Brin-l mailing list > bri...@box535.bluehost.com > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com > > > End of Brin-l Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1 > * > ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Beds, FM Radiation, and Left-Sided Cancer
At 07:49 AM Sunday 7/4/2010, KZK wrote: > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=left-sided-cancer-blame-your-bed-an-2010-07-02 > >"The first line of evidence they cite comes from a 2007 study in Sweden conducted between 1989 and 1993 that revealed a strong link between the incidence of melanoma and the number of FM and TV transmission towers covering the area where the individuals lived. Despite epidemiological correlations like this one suggesting the possibility that electromagnetic radiation from FM and TV broadcasts stations could suppress the immune system and promote cancer, the strength of these electromagnetic fields is so feeble it has been difficult to imagine any biological basis for the correlation." >So if true perhaps the rate in the U.S. should show a drop starting a year ago? I think the spectrum has been or will be reauctioned off, for use by other companies for stuff like wi-fi or 4G cell-phone whatnot. So probably for a while at least until it's new owners ramp up it's new usage to whatever. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
