|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
"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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
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? |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
"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 |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
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 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
"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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
"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 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Thrity Years From Now
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Humanity could live for 5 billion years but will likely go extinct in the next 100,000 years ultimate Renewables and when Economics and humanity die out | a_plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 8 | September 26th 06 09:36 AM |
Since some Astronomers take 76 years to define a planet, maybe it's time to Fund Astronomy only once every 76 years. | Ed | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | August 25th 06 07:16 AM |
14,000 years | starlord | Amateur Astronomy | 18 | December 30th 04 04:34 AM |
4.000 years | Michael John | SETI | 0 | July 3rd 04 12:05 AM |