What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The missing link in the global warming problem is the efficient battery.

ObSf: Friday, by Robert A. Heinlein.

The point is, we don't *have* efficient batteries at present. Thus, it is
impossible to set a fixed date by which they will become available. It might
take a million years before we unlock the secret of a battery adequate for
equalling the energy storage capacity of gasoline.

However, there may be proven technologies available that would be as good. I
recently read an article suggesting that ammonia be used to fuel cars - that
could be made using solar electricity from remote desert areas too.

Or just use *inefficient* batteries, and cars that are smaller and lighter.

Nuclear, however, is a proven technology. And the idea is to take off the
ceiling on energy use that would be imposed by a reduction in allowed fossil
fuel use - instead, industrial production is to continue to increase without
limit, until the *entire world's population* enjoys the same command over
material goods and services presently enjoyed by the so-called "1%" of the
United States.

Of course, since the entire world's population obviously can't buy goods and
services cheaply produced by poor people somewhere else (space transportation
is so expensive) in *some* respects the net result will be a level of
prosperity more limited in scope - like 1950s America, or present-day South
Korea. A decent living, but you only get as many color TV sets and radios and
personal computers and cell phones as you can afford to pay for when they're
made by people who live in the same country as you, and make the same kind of
wages.

Keeping everyone blissfully happy under such more realistic circumstances is
the basic problem that has caused me to see a need for vat-girls. When
resources are limited, the possibility of economic winners and losers exists,
which would cause intolerable levels of strife and contention.

John Savard

On 15/04/2015 08:19, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 2:19:07 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

Taking trolley buses to work with electricity from a nuclear power plant is the
right way to go, and is a small sacrifice for people in the rich world.

What if you don't live near a bus line?

Then you're a farmer, and you only travel to the city on occasion.

You seem to have a very binary view of the town and country split.

There are plenty of places in the UK where all rural bus services have
been completely axed to save city tax payers money. It has become an
issue in the current election since there are rural poor who can no
longer economically get to work and have ended up unemployed as a
result. Where I live the nearest bus stop is about 3 miles away.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32289225

Basically if you don't drive and can't walk a 6 mile daily round trip in
all weathers you are out of luck. Mostly the elderly are affected.

Or maybe you're working in a remote mining camp.

Obviously, if it is intended to significantly reduce carbon emissions through
trolley buses being the primary mode of transportation to work and back home
again for the 9-to-5 crowd at least... the provision of a decent level of
public transit service, so that *no one* who lives in a built-up urban area is
not within reasonable walking distance of a bus line... is a given.

A few UK cities have trams again now. Sheffield and Manchester being
amongst the front runners. Newcastle and London have underground Metros.
Edinburgh's nice new tramways are a national disgrace vastly over
budget, incredibly late and delivered in very short measure.

Many more UK cities have satellite parking at the outer ring road and a
park & ride scheme. The main reason for using them being that parking in
the congested inner city streets is both very expensive and it is
horrendously difficult to find a vacant space.

But then, I live in Edmonton, Alberta - not Los Angeles, California.

In a major city then trams or underground trains for mass transit make
perfect sense but out in the sticks you can't afford that level of infra
structure. Not far from me is the least busy railway station in all of
the UK. I think it had 8 passengers visit last year and they were all
train spotters doing it for the novelty value. The only reason that it
is still open is because closing it permanently costs money!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

The missing link in the global warming problem is the efficient battery.

ObSf: Friday, by Robert A. Heinlein.

The point is, we don't *have* efficient batteries at present. Thus, it is
impossible to set a fixed date by which they will become available. It might
take a million years before we unlock the secret of a battery adequate for
equalling the energy storage capacity of gasoline.

However, there may be proven technologies available that would be as good. I
recently read an article suggesting that ammonia be used to fuel cars - that
could be made using solar electricity from remote desert areas too.


Ammonia is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Hydrogen is easily made by electrolysis and can be used for internal
combustion engines or fuel cells.

Or just use *inefficient* batteries, and cars that are smaller and lighter.

Nuclear, however, is a proven technology. And the idea is to take off the
ceiling on energy use that would be imposed by a reduction in allowed fossil
fuel use - instead, industrial production is to continue to increase without
limit, until the *entire world's population* enjoys the same command over
material goods and services presently enjoyed by the so-called "1%" of the
United States.

Of course, since the entire world's population obviously can't buy goods and
services cheaply produced by poor people somewhere else (space transportation
is so expensive) in *some* respects the net result will be a level of
prosperity more limited in scope - like 1950s America, or present-day South
Korea. A decent living, but you only get as many color TV sets and radios and
personal computers and cell phones as you can afford to pay for when they're
made by people who live in the same country as you, and make the same kind of
wages.

Keeping everyone blissfully happy under such more realistic circumstances is
the basic problem that has caused me to see a need for vat-girls. When
resources are limited, the possibility of economic winners and losers exists,
which would cause intolerable levels of strife and contention.

John Savard

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:23:36 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
This reminds me of the news item about someone who invented an affordable
gasoline powered motor vehicle for the masses of India.

Well, that is something one has to expect would happen.

Taking trolley buses to work with electricity from a nuclear power plant is the
right way to go, and is a small sacrifice for people in the rich world.

John Savard

This was invented in the 1960s. The Honda 50 cub.

I had one of those 50cc Hondas when I was attending college.
Had it for 3 years. Cost me 25 cents to fill 'er up and it would
take me between 60 and 80 miles. Used it rain or shine to go
between my restaurant job, my grocery store job and my school.

I left one at Ft. Sill, chained to a bicycle rack at the Officer's
Club. I had to leave and was expecting to go back. I still have the
title.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 2:19:07 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

Taking trolley buses to work with electricity from a nuclear power plant is the
right way to go, and is a small sacrifice for people in the rich world.

What if you don't live near a bus line?

Then you're a farmer, and you only travel to the city on occasion.

Or maybe you're working in a remote mining camp.

Obviously, if it is intended to significantly reduce carbon emissions through
trolley buses being the primary mode of transportation to work and back home
again for the 9-to-5 crowd at least... the provision of a decent level of
public transit service, so that *no one* who lives in a built-up urban area is
not within reasonable walking distance of a bus line... is a given.

Bull****. I live in a suburb of Detroit. And Detroit is not a city
for public transportation, much less the suburbs.



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 07:51:39 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

In a major city then trams or underground trains for mass transit make
perfect sense but out in the sticks you can't afford that level of infra
structure. Not far from me is the least busy railway station in all of
the UK. I think it had 8 passengers visit last year and they were all
train spotters doing it for the novelty value. The only reason that it
is still open is because closing it permanently costs money!

You live near Teesside Airport station? Most of these low-usage stations only host 1 train per week, and therefore is a very unlikely place to find train spotters. They /may/ have been railway enthusiasts, which are a totally different animal.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:23:36 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
This reminds me of the news item about someone who invented an affordable
gasoline powered motor vehicle for the masses of India.

Well, that is something one has to expect would happen.

Taking trolley buses to work with electricity from a nuclear power plant is the
right way to go, and is a small sacrifice for people in the rich world.

John Savard

This was invented in the 1960s. The Honda 50 cub.

I had one of those 50cc Hondas when I was attending college.
Had it for 3 years. Cost me 25 cents to fill 'er up and it would
take me between 60 and 80 miles. Used it rain or shine to go
between my restaurant job, my grocery store job and my school.

I left one at Ft. Sill, chained to a bicycle rack at the Officer's
Club. I had to leave and was expecting to go back. I still have the
title.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

I had one for years. I finally got rid of it and bought a car when my
wife's pregnancy made the pillion seat too small for her.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:18:51 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Hydrogen is easily made by electrolysis and can be used for internal
combustion engines or fuel cells.

But they're still trying to research ways to store hydrogen in cars with adequate density for long trips between refuellings.

John Savard

On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:55:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:18:51 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Hydrogen is easily made by electrolysis and can be used for internal
combustion engines or fuel cells.

But they're still trying to research ways to store hydrogen
in cars with adequate density for long trips between refuellings.

John Savard

I guess huge dirigibles are out of the question.
You could carry the car on long trips.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:45:37 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

I guess huge dirigibles are out of the question.
You could carry the car on long trips.

Oh, the humanity!

John Savard