|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Jun 9, 7:38*am, barney wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:25*pm, Quadibloc wrote: Fortunately, though, we have another choice. We don't have fusion power. But we do have fission power. And breeder reactors. And in addition to breeding fissionable Plutonium-239 from plentiful Uranium-238, we can breed fissionable Uranium-233 from even more plentiful Thorium-232. Inexpensive, abundant energy = light pollution. *:-( The places where there would be more light pollution if there was more energy are generally places where not many people can afford telescopes. So I'm not going to worry about that one... John Savard |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
In article ,
Quadibloc wrote: On Jun 8, 11:30*pm, "MIB" wrote: Fortunately, though, we have another choice. We don't have fusion power. But we do have fission power. And breeder reactors. And in addition to breeding fissionable Plutonium-239 from plentiful Uranium-238, we can breed fissionable Uranium-233 from even more plentiful Thorium-232. And the irony of the dismantling of nuclear weapons is that we have all the Pu239 and U235 we need for boosted civilian reactors. A Thorium mix will need around 3% Pu239 to give a decent yield, and with that mix we can feed 10k nuclear power plants for almost 150 years just with plentiful Thorium and the peace windfall of Plutonium. Swords to plowshares indeed. And we have around twice that amount of U235. Just burning the nuclear weapons wisely will give us centuries of power. -- mrr |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
"Quadibloc" wrote in message ... On Jun 8, 11:30 pm, "MIB" wrote: And, like gravity, there is nothing that can be done about global warming, or cooling for that matter. Both are cycles that will follow the variations that they have always followed, as unknown (seemingly) to most of humanity as they are. Sorry. Just as the law of gravity gives you a choice about whether or not you want to jump off the top of a twenty-story building, the greenhouse effect gives you a choice about how much carbon dioxide you want to dump into the atmosphere. There are natural cycles that influence the climate as well, but human fossil fuel consumption has had a big and obvious effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide, one which is now of significant magnitude to affect global temperatures. Not really, but it is your choice to believe so. If our only choice to massively reduce carbon dioxide emissions were to massively reduce our energy consumption, with the attendant economic consequences, I certainly could understand the reluctance to take action until all the variables, like absorption of carbon dioxide in the oceans, were fully understood, so we could isolate the exact contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the chances are good that, based on what we know now, if we waited that long, it would be too late. We aren't even close to a level that "might" be of concern. Talk to me when we get past 4000ppm. Even then, I really can't muster up enough "oh ****" to get into a lather about. Fortunately, though, we have another choice. We don't have fusion power. But we do have fission power. And breeder reactors. And in addition to breeding fissionable Plutonium-239 from plentiful Uranium-238, we can breed fissionable Uranium-233 from even more plentiful Thorium-232. I'm not against doing what is necessary to progress beyond fossil fuels. That being said, the tactics currently in use will do nothing to address any perceived issue at hand. I've long been a proponent of nuclear power, in any form, and the new systems coming down the pipe will provide a great benefit to the countries that will use them. Sadly, they won't see the light of day in the U.S.A. There are too many morons of the pseudo-environmental movement in the way. There is zero concern regarding spent fuel, only a need to reclassify what is spent fuel, and the regulations about the handling of said fuel. The China Syndrome bots have poisoned the minds of a generation of people. I wonder if anyone has done a cost analysis about extracting thorium, uranium and the carbon from coal. One could have a nuclear plant, plus a processing facility at the same location. We may reduce the need for fossil fuels, but we may never truly be free from them. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW Scam
On Jun 9, 9:44*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:00*am, "B ; O ; N ; Z ; O" (the Republican lap dog) whined: *NASA needs to start looking back outward and not downward and they need to do it FAST, or any further space flight will only be commercial and won't include a national space agency. Do you support a national rail service? Or a national bus service? Or a national freight service? Or a national air carrier? *Or a national postal service? Most services run by governments, at the taxpayer's expense, are ruinously inefficient, disastrously expensive and blatantly wasteful of national and human resources. Wages are usually pegged artificially low. Resulting in very poor quality recruits and internally promoted, corrupt, empire-building, inferior managers without the qualities to survive for five minutes in privately owned business. NASA was once effective, even for a government agency. They are so rare, I knew it wouldn't last. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Jun 10, 3:43*am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote: Give it a rest. *The proof for global warming is completely thin, all based on models and skewed real data, unlike the other things you cite. *But I notice you KOOKS no longer use the Holocaust in your dimwitted, sheep-like arguments. Your sponsors aren't keeping you up to date: There's loadsamoney to waste: http://www.costofwar.com/ Keep taking the money. +NOT that suffocating CO2 recycler and all round BaRstewArD Guff+ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Jun 9, 4:43*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
The places where there would be more light pollution if there was more energy are generally places where not many people can afford telescopes. So I'm not going to worry about that one... You think people without telescopes don't deserve a dark sky? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Jun 8, 7:50*pm, "James" wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"columbiaaccidentin wrote in message On Jun 8, 6:44 pm, Realist wrote: Studies have shown support for the agency is dropping. With idiot Obama and NASA's cancellation of both the versatile Space Shuttle and Moon mission, and idiot Hansen's embracing of global warming like some cultist, the public sees less and less reason to support the space agency. Obama the lazy flea brain was smart enough to promise a Mars mission, which we know will never, EVER happen with today's (chemical rocket) technology, so it's merely a carrot the public will never catch. NASA needs to start looking back outward and not downward and they need to do it FAST, or any further spaceflight will only be commercial and won't include a national space agency. First, atmospheric studies started with goddards first rocket flight, so you need to do a little studying of history before you make such statements. *Next you should take a look further in the past than just the current administration as the shuttle program started in the late 60's (meaning it has spanned 9 administrations), so there was ample time for both the legislative and executive branches (held by by both parties) to do better in providing the funding for the next generation vehicle. * *Now i would ask you a simple question, do you think we study other planets in greater detail than our own? Interesting. yet stupid.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - you mean over your head, thats ok take your time to think about it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Jun 10, 5:40*am, barney wrote:
On Jun 9, 4:43*pm, Quadibloc wrote: The places where there would be more light pollution if there was more energy are generally places where not many people can afford telescopes. So I'm not going to worry about that one... You think people without telescopes don't deserve a dark sky? No, but I think that relieving their poverty might be higher on their list of priorities. John Savard |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Jun 9, 4:22*pm, "MIB" wrote:
We aren't even close to a level that "might" be of concern. *Talk to me when we get past 4000ppm. *Even then, I really can't muster up enough "oh ****" to get into a lather about. Please take the time to learn a little about radiative transfer, energy balances and physical meteorology before you shoot you mouth off. I suggest you try your library for a copy of "Introduction to Theoretical Meteorology" by Seymor Hess and "Global Physical Climatology" by Dennis Hartmann. Then you would see just how foolish you comment is. I've long been a proponent of nuclear power, in any form, and the new systems coming down the pipe will provide a great benefit to the countries that will use them. *Sadly, they won't see the light of day in the U.S.A. There are too many morons of the pseudo-environmental movement in the way. There is zero concern regarding spent fuel, only a need to reclassify what is spent fuel, and the regulations about the handling of said fuel. *The China Syndrome bots have poisoned the minds of a generation of people. Oh I get it if you legislate that the long lived radio-nuclides are dangerous then suddenly they aren't. I guess you can just legislate that the 4000 people who died in the areas around Chenobyl who died of ARS really didn't die. Nuclear power may well be a wise choice, but given the typical uneducated, unethical, clueless, "this quarters profits are all that matter" MBA managing the industry, it won't be a safe choice. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
NASA cutting own throat embracing GW
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:48:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: On Jun 10, 5:40*am, barney wrote: On Jun 9, 4:43*pm, Quadibloc wrote: The places where there would be more light pollution if there was more energy are generally places where not many people can afford telescopes. So I'm not going to worry about that one... You think people without telescopes don't deserve a dark sky? No, but I think that relieving their poverty might be higher on their list of priorities. John Savard A silly analogy at any rate. The largest concentrations of dirt poor in the US live in Urban areas with more than abundant lighting. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cutting the ISS in half. | Derek Lyons | Space Station | 13 | May 29th 09 10:01 PM |
NASA budget cutting 2 flights per year | Bob Haller | Space Shuttle | 23 | January 14th 06 05:37 AM |
NASA budget cutting 2 flights per year | Michael Kent | Space Shuttle | 1 | December 29th 05 02:12 PM |
Deep Throat Finally Spits It Out! | Double-A | Misc | 8 | June 1st 05 06:23 PM |