A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA cutting own throat embracing GW



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 9th 10, 04:43 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 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  
Old June 9th 10, 08:12 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
Morten Reistad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default 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  
Old June 9th 10, 10:22 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
MIB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 02:36 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 07:00 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 12:40 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
barney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 02:33 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 02:48 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 03:51 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default 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  
Old June 10th 10, 04:04 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.astro.amateur
First Post.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.