Thrity Years From Now

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message


No number of poems makes someone "the most intelligent naturalist that
ever lived." At best, it makes her a prolific poet.

And your actions have been??????
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jonathan" wrote in message


That's fine for many western or prosperous nations.
What about everybody else? The countries undergoing
the biggest growth and rapid industrialization are
in the third world. This is where the biggest increases
of greenhouse gasses and increasing demand for
oil will be coming from.

If the third world ends up gobbling up all the oil while
polluting like crazy, we will be paying the price.
One way or the other.

Tens of thousands of innocent folks have already paid the ultimate
price, and after hundreds of billions (rather it's actually trillions in
global debt), it's still ongoing. As you say, perhaps the entire mad
world needs to go all out nuclear. After all, what could possibly go
wrong?

GOT YELLOWCAKE ? GOT RAD-HARD DNA ?

Instead of WW-III; what about going deep and going big-time geothermal?

Of course, just a portion of wind derived energy is worth an easy 10
terajoules, or at a bit more of an effort, perhaps there's as much as
100 terajoules to behold in the wind.

Other tidal extracted energy has simply got to be worth hundreds of
terajoules.

The new and improved solar PV and even energy extracted via stirling is
actually looking impressive, but like the wind it's clean and nearly
100% renewable, and apparently we can't have that.

There's 2e20 joules related to the orbit of our moon, plus something
other of extra terajoules existing between us and our moon, not to
mention the D+He3/fusion that's there to behold. Or, is it all so
taboo/nondisclosure because of folks like yourself having no honorable
faith in the truths of physics or science?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad, your post got me thinking about other future forms of renewable
energy. Would there be any way to use gravity itself as a force to
create energy?

In one example from my stupid imagination, we could alter the gravity
on paddles on a windmill as it spins around. The paddle changes the
gravitational pull on itself and pulls down in the direction it is
spinning, and up or neutral accordingly.

It seems infeasible considering there is no known way to alter
gravitational pull currently. Sounded like a good idea to me.

--------------------

Back on the topic of the 30 yrs from now. In the likely case of nuclear
war and world-wide poverty, would it be wise to start investing in
water and building pure, almost 100% renewable energy sources such as
solar cells and windmills?

Jonathan wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jonathan wrote:

What has to happen to prevent this future?

Build more nuclear reactors.

That was simple.

That's fine for many western or prosperous nations.
What about everybody else?

Atoms split for the poor as they do for the rich. I suspect that if
the price of oil continues to rise, someone (probably the Canadians)
will go into the business of mass-producing cheap and failsafe nuclear
fission reactors.

Consider this:

1850: We're running out of whale oil. What do we do for heating and
lighting?

Jordan: Use petroleum.

Jonathan: That's fine for Christian or prosperous nations. What about
everybody else?

Same situation. What is one era's elite or prestige technology is the
next era's mundane and standard technology.

The countries undergoing
the biggest growth and rapid industrialization are
in the third world. This is where the biggest increases
of greenhouse gasses and increasing demand for
oil will be coming from.

If the third world ends up gobbling up all the oil while
polluting like crazy, we will be paying the price.
One way or the other.

The oil is going to be irrelevant save as feedstock for plastics within
a half-century or so. Pollution is an issue, but if we're serious
about it, we can enforce global pollution treaties -- if necessary, at
gunpoint.

IF we're serious about it. I'm not sure that we are.

- Jordan

Brad Guth wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message


No number of poems makes someone "the most intelligent naturalist that
ever lived." At best, it makes her a prolific poet.

And your actions have been??????

Rand is head cheerleader for the fledgling commercial space industry. I
picture him like Mr. Cavor's neighbor from H.G. Wells' book "The First
Men in the Moon".

Eric

-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X" wrote in message
oups.com

Brad, your post got me thinking about other future forms of renewable
energy. Would there be any way to use gravity itself as a force to
create energy?

For statrers, there's 2e20 joules existing between Earth and our
extrelemy massive and nearby moon. Secondly, there's terajoules of 100%
clean and renewable tidal actions taking place as we speak, not to
mention our own conservative 13+ terajoules of Earth's core that's
nearly as good as fusion, if not better.

If you can't manage to extract clean energy from any of that, you're
somethin less tha a Village idiot moron. So, the answer to your
question is a very big and renewable clean energy extraction YES!

In one example from my stupid imagination, we could alter the gravity
on paddles on a windmill as it spins around. The paddle changes the
gravitational pull on itself and pulls down in the direction it is
spinning, and up or neutral accordingly.

That's a touch weird. Think Earth/moon instead of those wussy "paddles
on a windmill".

Do you know what our MEL1 is all about, or that of my nifty LSE-CM/ISS ?

It seems infeasible considering there is no known way to alter
gravitational pull currently. Sounded like a good idea to me.

Depending upon how infomercial polluted your mindset is, lots of things
may sound infeasible (D+He3/fusion for example), but if the known laws
of physics and of whatever's replicated science is on your side, as then
it's most likely doable.

Back on the topic of the 30 yrs from now. In the likely case of nuclear
war and world-wide poverty, would it be wise to start investing in
water and building pure, almost 100% renewable energy sources such as
solar cells and windmills?

Not at all unwise because, where's all the spare terajoules of the
required energy going to come from in order to keep inventing,
constructing and deploying our new and improved WMD, such as LEO nukes
and those nifty VX bombs?

WW-III is most likely going to faught to our mutual death over the
global domination likes of the remaining cache of fossil fuels and
yellowcake, isn't it?

Thus far we've been accomplishing a real bang-up job of keeping
affordable clean energy out of the starving hands of the poor.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

OOPS! here's my dyslexic corrected reply. Sorry about that.

"Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X" wrote in message
oups.com

Brad, your post got me thinking about other future forms of renewable
energy. Would there be any way to use gravity itself as a force to
create energy?

For starters, there's 2e20 joules existing between Earth and our
extremely massive and nearby moon. Secondly, there's terajoules of 100%
clean and renewable tidal actions taking place Iinside and out) as we
speak, not to mention our own conservative 13+ terajoules of Earth's
core that's nearly as good as fusion, if not better. (I'm thinking
Earth's core might actually be worth 100+ terajoules)

If you simply can't manage to extract clean energy from any of that,
you're something less than a Village idiot moron. So, the answer to
your question is a very big and renewable clean energy extraction YES!

In one example from my stupid imagination, we could alter the gravity
on paddles on a windmill as it spins around. The paddle changes the
gravitational pull on itself and pulls down in the direction it is
spinning, and up or neutral accordingly.

That's getting a touch weird. Think Earth/moon instead of those wussy
"paddles on a windmill".

Do you know what our MEL1 is all about, or that of my nifty LSE-CM/ISS ?

It seems infeasible considering there is no known way to alter
gravitational pull currently. Sounded like a good idea to me.

Depending upon how infomercial polluted your mindset is, lots of things
may sound infeasible (D+He3/fusion for example), but if the known laws
of physics and of whatever's replicated science is on your side, as then
it's most likely doable.

Back on the topic of the 30 yrs from now. In the likely case of nuclear
war and world-wide poverty, would it be wise to start investing in
water and building pure, almost 100% renewable energy sources such as
solar cells and windmills?

Not at all unwise because, where's all the spare terajoules of the
required energy going to come from in order to keep inventing,
constructing and deploying our new and improved WMD, such as LEO nukes
and those nifty VX bombs?

WW-III is most likely going to fought to our mutual death over the
global domination likes of the remaining cache of fossil fuels and
yellowcake, isn't it?

Thus far we've been accomplishing a real bang-up job of keeping
affordable clean energy out of the starving hands of the poor.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

IF we're serious about it. I'm not sure that we are.

Yourself and the likes of Exxon are NOT serious about it, are you.
Besides, there's not enough affordable yellowcake to go around, and the
poor simply can not afford your still environmentally dirty $1/kwhr.

The all-inclusive nuclear footprint of energy density/m2 sucks big time,
and above all, it's folks exactly like yourself that damn well know it
does.

What's the best birth to grave (all inclusive) worth of energy
density/m2 if going all out and best of everything nuclear that's proven
to work?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
ps.com

Rand is head cheerleader for the fledgling commercial space industry. I
picture him like Mr. Cavor's neighbor from H.G. Wells' book "The First
Men in the Moon".

You're too kind. I put such individuals as MI6/NSA spooks/moles and
otherwise into the entire lot of rusemasters, or of whatever's worse.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

IF we're serious about it. I'm not sure that we are.

Yourself and the likes of Exxon are NOT serious about it, are you.

Actually, I'm quite serious about switching away from fossil fuels to
combat global warming. I don't know what Exxon's policy on the matter
is: I _suspect_ they're anti-nuclear.

Besides, there's not enough affordable yellowcake to go around,

That's simply not true: uranium is a common substance on the Earth.

and the poor simply can not afford your still environmentally dirty $1/kwhr.

Nuclear fission power is not "environmentally dirty" -- it is in fact
one of the cleanest known means of power generation.

The all-inclusive nuclear footprint of energy density/m2 sucks big time
and above all, it's folks exactly like yourself that damn well know it does.

I actually don't have a clue what you're talking about. Measured by
square meters required per megawatt of energy generation at the plant,
and even more so by square meters of fuel storage required per
megawatt-YEAR of energy generation, nuclear fission is the _densest_
form of energy production.

What power generation system do you consider to be more energy-dense?
Some chemical fuels have greater energy density per kilogram _per
second_, but all of them have less energy density over the long term.
For a stationary power reactor, long-term efficiency is far more
important than short-term efficiency.

Thus, I assume that you mean something else, and I don't know what that
"something else" happens to be.

What's the best birth to grave (all inclusive) worth of energy
density/m2 if going all out and best of everything nuclear that's proven
to work?

Probably the _densest_ means would be controlled nuclear fusion
detonation (setting off hydrogen bombs to heat water and extracting
electricity via steam turbines) but that also has a very large minimum
safe size reactor. When we develop actual nuclear fusion reactors,
they are likely to produce more energy per tonne, cubic or square meter
than nuclear fission reactors, but so far we have not yet developed
them to the point of commercial practicality, while nuclear fission
passed that point sometime in the 1960's.

The most efficient nuclear fusion reaction is likely to be deuterium -
trihelium (this is also one of the cleanest in terms of radiation), but
that requires very high temperatures, and it is probable that the first
nuclear fusion reaction we will use on a commercial scale is deuterium
- tritium. If we gain greater control over the nuclear forces we might
be able to use lithium or boron afterburner type reactions, but that
would require at least one physics breakthrough, and might be forever
impossible.

- Jordan