date:20131117

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 Doesn't Thorium 232 need plutonium to initiate a fertile reaction into a
 fissile one. That is converting Th232 into U233?


Yes, a LFTR needs a sort of spark plug, a strong source of neutrons to get
the cycle going. Only about 1000 pounds of Uranium enriched to 20% is
required (90% would be needed for a bomb). After that initial start Uranium
is never needed again, just more thorium.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Nuclear power

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Perhaps you should read: The End of Cheap Uranium, by Dr Michael Dittmar,
 of the Institute of Particle Physics (at CERN),

Dittmar wrote that in 2011, since then despite inflation the price of
Uranium has gone down not up. Historically the reason almost all
predictions that natural resource X  will soon run out have turned out to
be wrong is that as X becomes rarer it becomes more expensive and that
increases the incentive to look for previously unknown reserves of X.

Uranium is 40 times more common than silver (and Thorium is much more
common than Uranium). Right now the biggest problem facing the Uranium
industry is a glut not a shortage. Today Uranium costs about $36.50 a
pound, the lowest price since late 2005. And even with today's inefficient
non-breeding reactors one pound of unenriched natural Uranium produces as
much energy as 16,000 pounds (8 tons) of coal. That's a lot of energy for
just $36.50 and that is why high or low the cost of Uranium is a trivial
part of the cost of operating a nuclear power plant.

And at any rate I'm much more interested in Thorium than Uranium.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Nuclear power

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

  A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of
 them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you
 try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft
 obvious.


  Agreed again – but again by the time it is realized it may be too late.

Why would it be too late? It seems to me that a reactor immediately
stopping and a city going dark would be a pretty effective burglar alarm,
it would grab people's attention that something was wrong much better than
just ringing a bell.


  No one has shown me any fundamental reason why this very rapid rate of
 growth in the PV sector will slow in the near term.

I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse
the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In
effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to
the economy of solar cells. Someday it may be different, I hope so, but
right now solar just can't compete against coal or oil or natural gas or
nuclear unless government distorts reality, but this deception cannot
continue indefinitely because as Richard Feynman said reality must take
precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013  Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Global temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 while CO2 atm content was
 rising. Can you explain that?


I can't explain that, nor do I understand why in the late Ordovician period
450 million years ago there was a huge 4400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere
verses 380 today, and yet the world was in the grip of a very severe ice
age. Apparently the climate dynamics of this planet is complicated and the
link between global warming and CO2 is not as straightforward as some would
have us believe.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

 wait to see what happens to the cancer rates over the next fifty years.


I don't now about Fukushima but I do know that the predictions of huge
increases of cancer from Chernobyl have proved to be enormous exaggerations:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html?pagewanted=all_r=0

And however many cancers Fukushima turns out to have been made it is
unlikely to be more than the cancers made by a average run of the mill coal
power electric plant that never had a industrial accident.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Nuclear power

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 9:31 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Nuclear power

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

  A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of
them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you try
stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft
obvious. 

 Agreed again - but again by the time it is realized it may be too late.

Why would it be too late? It seems to me that a reactor immediately
stopping and a city going dark would be a pretty effective burglar alarm, it
would grab people's attention that something was wrong much better than just
ringing a bell.  

Again you are assuming a centralized plant scenario serving an entire metro
area. What if that metro area had twenty or small scale modular LFTR
reactors sprinkled here and there - as is in fact the stated proposal of
many of the new nuclear reactor ideas - including Terrapower backed by Bill
Gates. You say it is a bad idea to have many small modular reactors
sprinkled all over the place - which I agree is a terrible idea - and then
you say don't do it. Where we differ is that I continue to consider the
scenarios, which you exclude because they are clearly a bad idea, but bad
ideas get deployed out into the world with a surprising regularity and just
because something is a bad idea does not ensure that it will not - for other
reasons say profit motive - become a fact on the ground.

In a scenario with many small widely distributed LFTR plants how could they
all be protected?

 No one has shown me any fundamental reason why this very rapid rate of
growth in the PV sector will slow in the near term. 

I can think of one thing that could dramatically not just slow but reverse
the growth of photovoltaics, removing the tax incentives and subsidies. In
effect government has been lying to the free market about the true cost to
the economy of solar cells. Someday it may be different, I hope so, but
right now solar just can't compete against coal or oil or natural gas or
nuclear unless government distorts reality, but this deception cannot
continue indefinitely because as Richard Feynman said reality must take
precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled.  

Sure it can. Solar easily beats nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas as the
low cost supply of electricity when ALL subsidies for ALL energy systems are
removed. If you complain about the subsidies that solar receives shouldn't
you also address the huge in built subsidies enjoyed by these other energy
systems: including special tax breaks, legal caps on liabilities (for both
nuclear and oil sectors I know about - and very possibly also the gas and
coal sectors as well), all the externalized costs of coal, oil and nuclear.

By all means lets level the playing field and see what energy systems
prevail. But in order to do so the playing field has to be transparently
level and all thre energy systems must bake their true actual long term
costs into the market price they need to charge. If coal had to charge the
actual cost for burning the coal -even just factoring in all the downstream
healthcare costs attributable to the mining, burning and the waste of
burning coal, which is currently dumped onto the public in terms of raising
all of our health care rates to cover the large expenses incurred in
treating the many chronic illnesses of coal, coal would need to raise its
market price to the point that it would no longer be the cost leader, but
would be one of the most expensive supplies.

Even the energy playing field, but complaining about subsidies for
renewables, while failing to complain about subsidies for other energy
sectors is to  -- wittingly or unwittingly - participate in a big lie. The
big lie being that nuclear, coal, gas and oil don't get any subsidies - or
other benefits that amount to subsidies. Let me illustrate with one more
example. Not a single nuclear power plant would be built or even a project
started without the massive subsidy of the legal artifact that there is a
very low cap on the maximum liability that a nuclear plant can occur - NO
MATTER HOW MUCH DAMAGE it causes. Without this cap on their potential
liability no nuclear project could afford to get insured. This is a subsidy.
Because it confers an unfair competitive advantage to nuclear power; I would
love to have a beautifully low cap on my liability in a traffic accident -
it would sure lower my car insurance rates with regard to other drivers who
had no cap on their liability. 

Our corporatist system is riddled with these special laws and tax loopholes
and the fossil fuel sectors continue to enjoy the huge subsidy of being able
to offload onto the commons most of their costs. So by all means - please -
let's get rid of all

RE: Global warming silliness

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 wait to see what happens to the cancer rates over the next fifty years.

I don't now about Fukushima but I do know that the predictions of huge
increases of cancer from Chernobyl have proved to be enormous exaggerations:

No you don't know that at all. You don't have some crystal ball and are just
quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low balling the
ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl. Other studies
have come up with much higher numbers - ranging into the millions. For
example the TORCH report commissioned by the German Green Party that
included areas not covered by the WHO report that produced the 4000 figure
you quote. It concluded that the death toll from cancer is more likely to be
around 30,000 to 60,000 extra incurred deaths. We could go on till the sun
comes up - you present a study and I can present another study. It is hard
to correlate cancer deaths that may happen decades even after the
originating event with some event and the statistical methodologies used are
all open to argument --- and the numbers can be moved about by changing
boundary conditions etc.

Besides the cancer deaths, what about the 2,600 kilometer square exclusion
zone - that is a very big area. What is the dollar value on that? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html?pagewanted=al
l
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html?pagewanted=a
ll_r=0 _r=0

And however many cancers Fukushima turns out to have been made it is
unlikely to be more than the cancers made by a average run of the mill coal
power electric plant that never had a industrial accident. 

So say you. You speak of Fukushima as if it was an event that happened in
the past - the disaster is still unfolding and Tepco cannot even say where
the nuclear material in the  cores of units #1, #2, and #3 is located. A run
of the mill industrial accident does not produce an essentially permanent
and very large exclusion zone - affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands
of uprooted atomic refugees -- as has Chernobyl and now once again
Fukushima. The cost to sequester the Fukushima disaster will run into the
many hundreds of billions of dollars - hardly a run of the mill price tag.  

There is nothing run of the mill about Fukushima - to suggest so is rather
obscene.

Chris

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/16/2013 2:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2013/11/14 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com

Hi Alberto,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
mailto:agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes.

I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because
that is a waste of time,

Mentioning apocalyptic narratives is an important point. These are a
fairly common social phenomena across History and they seem to be a
coping mechanism of people who are unhappy with some status quo, and
that also don't understand its complexities. The biblical apocalypse
in the context of the Roman Empire is one example. Another one is the
Illuminati conspiracy theories. They come from people who feel they
got a bad deal from life and initiate this fantasy were the status quo
is evil and it's going to get what's coming.

That is exactly right. but it is necessary to distinguish between passive and active
apocalipticism. The passives do not claim an special knowledge of nature. They believe
in a supernatural phenomenon, and they rest waiting. The active ones believe in a
natural apocalypse and claim an special knowledge of reality, so they reject any critics
and are either open revolutionaries (like the marxists) or have a hidden agenda to
subvert the social order. The core of their motivations are megalomania, pride and will
of power.

This is from Voegelin:

The public interest has shifted from the nature of man to the nature of nature and to
the prospects of domination its exploration opened; and the loss of interest even turned
to hatred when the nature of man proved to be resistant to the changes dreamed up by
intellectuals who want to add the lordship of society and history to the mastery of nature.

Add? Despotic kings long preceded the Enlightenment and the idea of
individual freedom.

And this from Vaklav Klaus, formet Czech president, that know first hand the
ideological predecessors of the eco-alarmists:

A guy who was oppressed by the Communist Part and the Soviet Union two of the *most*
un-environmentalist organizations *ever*, and he want's to blame it on eco-alarmist?? It
is to laugh.

The debate on global warming is not about temperatures and CO2 levels. It is an
ideological war between those who want to change us (not the weather) and those who
believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity and technological progress. Advocates of
climate alarmism ask an unprecedented expansion of government intervention in our lives.
We are being forced to accept rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what
to buy, what to eat, how to travel. Is unacceptable.

But that's nonsense. Typical straw-man the environmentalist are out to get us. Let's
see some actual quote of a respected environmentalist saying they believe in freedom,
markets, human ingenuity and technological progress.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World


On 11/16/2013 12:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Dry rock geothermal certainly does have a big upside potential -- there is a whole lot 
of heat just a few miles below the ground, but it is not as easy or simple as you seem 
to think it is. For example in a lot of dry areas water supply becomes a gating factor 
that puts a limit on scalability -- this also applies to Canadian tar sands and shale 
gas plays -- water requirements will place a limit on how much it can scale; on the 
maximum annual rates of extraction that can be achieved. 


Water use is also, or should be, a limiting factor on fracking for oil 
extraction.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Nuclear power


On 11/16/2013 1:12 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Doesn't Thorium 232 need plutonium to initiate a fertile reaction into a 
fissile one.


No.  It needs some seed of a neutron emitter to get the breeding cycle started, but U235 
will work.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Our Demon-Haunted World

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:43 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

On 11/16/2013 12:51 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Dry rock geothermal certainly does have a big upside potential - there is a
whole lot of heat just a few miles below the ground, but it is not as easy
or simple as you seem to think it is. For example in a lot of dry areas
water supply becomes a gating factor that puts a limit on scalability - this
also applies to Canadian tar sands and shale gas plays - water requirements
will place a limit on how much it can scale; on the maximum annual rates of
extraction that can be achieved. 

Water use is also, or should be, a limiting factor on fracking for oil
extraction.

Yes it is and it should be factored into the projections. Drillers are
discovering that the fracked reservoirs they engineer - by hydraulic
fracturing -- to extract the oil (or gas) need to be re-fracked in just a
few years because of buildup of salt and other deposits in the
micro-fissures. requiring yet more water.

Chris

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

2013-11-17 Thread John Mikes

Chris: you said it. I did not refer to hydraulic fracturing' or injecting
(anything) INTO THE ROCK. I am talking about
EXTRACTING  H E A T  only, in a CLOSED system. The carrying water must not
touch the surrounding 'reservoir', must stay
inside the well-system, in which it heats up for ascending to the surface.
There is NO 'second well, the process goes in ONE.
In and out.
Your last par explains exactly the difference. Accordingly the ascending
steam is NOT corrosive, the reason for using highly de-ionized (ultra-pure)
water to inject into the hot zone INSIDE THE DEVICE.


On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:

 John – The term reservoir has a well understood usage, when speaking about
 hydraulic fracturing, to describe the engineered rock volume that is filled
 by micro-fissures, created by injecting water under immense pressure into
 the rock, at the well head.

 The injected slurry contains poppants. Poppants are either sand or
 engineered small ceramic beads. It is this gritty material that maintains
 the micro-fissures and allows for the creation of a three dimensional
 volume – i.e. the reservoir – in which water can be injected and absorb
 heat from the rock volume that has been exposed – a much vaster surface
 area – by the hydraulic fracking.

 I am using the term reservoir very correctly – in the terms that it is
 used when speaking of hydraulic fracturing. Eventually the engineered rock
 volume that has been created by this process of fracking begins to reseal
 (the overburden is immense and squeezes the micro-fissures shut over time).
 In addition the engineered reservoir – in the specific sense that this term
 is used when speaking about hydraulic fracturing – will over time become
 depleted as heat is removed from it. Eventually that volume of rock will
 get hot again, but by the time it does the engineered micro-fissures will
 have been squeezed shut and the reservoir will have to be re-fracked.

 Water is injected into this reservoir, where it is turned into hot high
 pressure steam that comes up the second well. This steam is far too
 corrosive laden with minerals to use directly and must instead be used to
 boil the actual water, whose high pressure steam will transfer energy into
 the spinning turbine. If you used the steam from the well head you would be
 replacing turbines every year or two.

 Chris



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes
 *Sent:* Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:49 PM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World



 Chris: if you utter reservoir - you are on the wrong track. Nothing must
 COME OUT from the depth.

 Not even what YOU pumped in into open plenum. (My objection against the NZ
 plant).

 In Hungary in the 1950s a 'hot spring well' was tried to bring out 'heat'
 by its own pressure. By the time

 it reached the surface cooling a bit (and expanded(!) from the pressure)
 the  M U D  solidified into a hot mass. There was no private enterprise in
 commi Hungary at that time, so the idea was scrapped.

 John M



 On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
 wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Mikes
 *Sent:* Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:33 PM


 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Our Demon-Haunted World



 Telmo:

 unfortunately I reflected to the NZ solution on another list... - it is a
 convoluted - I could say:

 inadeqyate - technology, just as the Au version of the surface
 utilization.

 SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD??? let us say: the surface?

 Solar woulrd cover immense surfaces just for supplying the energy as
 needed TODAY and we

 will need a multiple of that soon... See my remark to Russell.

 So far NOBODY was interested in my suggestions: ewverybody blows his OWN
 pipe.

 Geotherm is under our feet - dry lamd or oceans. Pipes are stuck down for
 OIL, similar - if a bit

 longer for geothermic energy extraction with 2 pipes inserted: ONE for
 pumping DOWN the

 ultrapure (Si-free) water into a heat-exchanger at ~140+C environment, the
 OTHER to ascend

 the high pressure steam straight into the turbine. No deposit, as in NZ.

 JOhn Mikes



 If it were that easy…. Dry rock geothermal requires amongst other things
 large amounts of fresh water for hydraulic fracturing of the reservoir.
 This process needs to be repeated periodically as the reservoirs reseal up
 over a period of years (as is being experienced by the shale oil fracked
 wells) and in the case of dry rock geothermal when the heat reservoir
 becomes drawn down. The hot steam that comes out of the wells is too laden
 with minerals and salts to be used directly and it thus requires a duel
 loop system in which the primary loop boils water in a boiler to produce
 clean steam that is passed through the generators.

RE: Our Demon-Haunted World

How exactly then is the heat exchanged. Heat exchangers work by exposing a
large surface area in which to transfer heat from the source into the
working fluid or conversely from the  working fluid into the heat sink if
heat is being pumped in the opposite direction.

If you do not accomplish creating this vast surface area - which is required
in order to exchange heat - by fracking and filling the engineered fissures
with water that picks up heat and becomes steam. How do you do it?

You cannot just drill a well down into some hot rock then circulate water
through it and expect to pick up very much heat at all. Without fracking the
only way that this could be accomplished would be to physically drill a very
large network of capillary wells in order to engineer the required surface
area needed in order to have an effective heat exchanger.

All the dry hot rock geothermal I have ever heard about uses fracking in
order to engineer this volume of micro-fissures within a region of hot rock
to turn that into a heat exchanger. Without all these micro-fissures there
is no way to effectively transfer large amounts of heat into the working
fluid.

Drilling the thousands of miles of capillary heat exchange pipes - it sounds
like you are envisioning - would present an exorbitant cost. If this is not
what you are proposing then how do you propose the heat - on a massive scale
- will be transferred into the distilled water?

Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 12:15 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

 

Chris: you said it. I did not refer to hydraulic fracturing' or injecting
(anything) INTO THE ROCK. I am talking about 

EXTRACTING  H E A T  only, in a CLOSED system. The carrying water must not
touch the surrounding 'reservoir', must stay

inside the well-system, in which it heats up for ascending to the surface.
There is NO 'second well, the process goes in ONE. 

In and out. 

Your last par explains exactly the difference. Accordingly the ascending
steam is NOT corrosive, the reason for using highly de-ionized (ultra-pure)
water to inject into the hot zone INSIDE THE DEVICE. 

 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

John - The term reservoir has a well understood usage, when speaking about
hydraulic fracturing, to describe the engineered rock volume that is filled
by micro-fissures, created by injecting water under immense pressure into
the rock, at the well head. 

The injected slurry contains poppants. Poppants are either sand or
engineered small ceramic beads. It is this gritty material that maintains
the micro-fissures and allows for the creation of a three dimensional volume
- i.e. the reservoir - in which water can be injected and absorb heat from
the rock volume that has been exposed - a much vaster surface area - by the
hydraulic fracking.

I am using the term reservoir very correctly - in the terms that it is used
when speaking of hydraulic fracturing. Eventually the engineered rock volume
that has been created by this process of fracking begins to reseal (the
overburden is immense and squeezes the micro-fissures shut over time). In
addition the engineered reservoir - in the specific sense that this term is
used when speaking about hydraulic fracturing - will over time become
depleted as heat is removed from it. Eventually that volume of rock will get
hot again, but by the time it does the engineered micro-fissures will have
been squeezed shut and the reservoir will have to be re-fracked.

Water is injected into this reservoir, where it is turned into hot high
pressure steam that comes up the second well. This steam is far too
corrosive laden with minerals to use directly and must instead be used to
boil the actual water, whose high pressure steam will transfer energy into
the spinning turbine. If you used the steam from the well head you would be
replacing turbines every year or two.

Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 2:49 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

 

Chris: if you utter reservoir - you are on the wrong track. Nothing must
COME OUT from the depth.

Not even what YOU pumped in into open plenum. (My objection against the NZ
plant). 

In Hungary in the 1950s a 'hot spring well' was tried to bring out 'heat' by
its own pressure. By the time 

it reached the surface cooling a bit (and expanded(!) from the pressure) the
M U D  solidified into a hot mass. There was no private enterprise in commi
Hungary at that time, so the idea was scrapped. 

John M

 

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Sent:

Re: Nuclear power


On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state.  My
definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and interrogate 
anyone
at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and enforce some 
political
orthodoxy that in turn supports their power.  It has nothing to do with 
having very
tight security around some particular installation (like nuclear weapons 
plants and
ICBM silos). It wouldn't even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants.



Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ? Certainly 
that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and I'm not sure BO has 
changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others are eagerly following suit...



Yes, I'm sure.  We moved a little toward a police state with the war on drugs then the 
war on terrorists but we're not there yet and I don't see anything about protecting 
nuclear power plants that require it to get worse.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is
not

trusted. However, it is not the government that is warning us about
global
warming. It is in the scientific research literature. You didn't find
lies
about drones or drugs or the Patriout act in Physical Review or even in
arXiv.

No, but then they come up with this plan

What plan? Where is it? As far as I know there is no plan whatsoever.

Here with they I mean the people with the most political clout,
access to the media an so on who campaign for the reduction of CO2
emissions. Their demand seems to be for the signing of a global
treaty. This is a demand for empowering governments to further
regulate economic activity, now at a global scale, and one of the main
suggestions is some global tax based on carbon emissions. Is this not
correct?

That's the market based approach to reducing CO2 emissions by charging for the
externalities. But there is no treaty even on the table to require any particular
solution or even to enforce any degree of reduction.

that the way to solve the
problem is to give more power to the above-mentioned government.

So even the proposals don't give any new power to governments - they always had the power
to tax.

You're protesting against a plan that you imagine.

Any
proposed solution that does not involve further government intrusion
in our lives is rejected.

What solution is that?

More nuclear power and geo-engineering. Both these proposals exists
and there is interest on the part of investors. They are always met
with a lot of resistance from environmentalists. I'm not saying that
all of this resistance is unjustified, caution is a good thing in
these matters, but I definitely see a lot of resistance that comes
from some moral framework that sees these ideas as fundamentally
immoral, even more so if someone can profit from them.

Sure, there's a lot of luddite resistance fed by scares like Fukushima. The important
role I see for government is driving the RD to LFTRs. It's too big and too politically
risky to expect private investment to take it on. It needs government funded and
government protected development - just like the internet, spaceflight, uranium reactors,
vaccination, intercontinental railroads, and just about any other really big technological
development.

Brent

Re: Our Demon-Haunted World

Well, those PV panels are of course using a handy fusion reactor.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Everything you wanted to know about physics...

If the universe exists for long enough they appear to be inevitable. No
doubt that leads to some sort of Bayesian argument about the universe not
being able to last too long, or we'd all be BBs (too long would be an
awfully long time, to misquote Peter Pan).

However, can we be sure we aren't? Maybe comp has something to say about
this... :)

On 18 November 2013 03:23, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 I think K. Susskind, is, or was a supporter of Boltzmann Brains, which is
 a wild, subject, if true.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Nuclear power

On 18 November 2013 03:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 Perhaps  I am raising the technology bar, way too high, but I have
 suspected, that there is some sort of nuclear phenomena, be it fission or
 fusion, that is usable for human civilization-some laboratory phenomena,
 that never got looked at, because with all the focus on carbon fuel,
 renewable, fission and fusion, there's no desire to hunt beyond the things
 we know already works. Why go out for dinner if you're already full? But
 this is my guess none the less-something that we all have missed, or
 considered impractical. or, there's no need. Just speculation on my part.


That would be the thorium reactors that have been mentioned recently. It
sure ain't cold fusion.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Nuclear power

On 18 November 2013 11:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/16/2013 10:17 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

  First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police
 state.  My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and
 interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and
 enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power.  It has
 nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular
 installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos).  It wouldn't
 even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants.


  Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several)
 ? Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for,
 and I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and
 others are eagerly following suit...

 Yes, I'm sure.  We moved a little toward a police state with the war on
 drugs then the war on terrorists but we're not there yet and I don't see
 anything about protecting nuclear power plants that require it to get worse.

 I wasn't suggesting that. I was simply pointing out the irrelevancy of the
police state argument when we're being quietly ushered towards one
(ironically, it would seem the right wing are equally keen on this).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Global warming silliness

This is quite simple. Markets ignore the commons, hence a free market
solution can't - or is highly unlikely - to work. No one is going to clean
up the commons, just as they didn't in medieval villages, because there is
no incentive for an individual, or a specific group, to do so. The tragedy
of the commons is one reason to have governments, because everyone wants
something done that no one will do off their own bat - but they are
prepared to chip in a donation towards the government doing it, or
organising somone else to do it. And if no one does it, we all end up worse
off (perhaps fatally so in this case). It ain't rocket science, although
game theory has something to say about it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Everything is real or unreal?

2013-11-17 Thread Jason Resch




On Nov 16, 2013, at 8:56 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

Quantum mechanics is only an approximate description of the  
Mathematical Multiverse. The only things that are real are the  
elements of that Multiverse, which are algorithms (some of them  
describe people in some computational state).


While the details have yet to be worked out (I have been working on  
this along a completely different approach compared to Bruno, less  
rigorous but more likely to yield some real physics), I can see  
rough outlines of how you get quantum field theory out of this.




Saibal,

That is fascinating.  Are you able to share any preliminary results?

Jason


Saibal


Citeren Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:

Neils Bohr is famously quoted as saying: 'Everything we call real  
is made

of things that cannot be regarded asreal. If quantum mechanics hasn't
profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.
What's your take on this?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Nuclear power