Try to read yourself. The meaning of my post is self-evident. Also, you are being foolish. Nuclear has already scaled as far as it will go for obvious reasons.
Ah, the slashdot stalker. Remember you were defeated by the numbers. And again here. Large scale nuclear power is more expensive than smaller scale alternatives, just the opposite of arguments for scale. Thus, it is economically uncompetitive and the loans will default.
The apparent cost of the project is $7/Watt http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html with Japan providing other loan guarantees. Since Japan has been escalating pricing for the South Texas project, we can guess the same will happen in this case. I'd guess that $14/Watt is about where this will end up, completely uneconomical. The loans will default and the taxpayers will pay.
Extra snow is pretty consistent with warming: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427 The atmosphere holds more moisture at the same relative humidity in a warmer world so precipitation events can end up stronger than usual. Snow is just one form of precipitation.
I've just been having the same discussion with Andy Revkin who seems to be just as confused as you. Here is where the science is at: It is very likely that most of the recent warming is owing to greenhouse gas forcing as a result of our emissions. Look carefully at that statement. It does not mean that we hardly know if some of the warming comes as a result of our emissions. No, if we can say that it is very likely that most of the warming is owing to us, then it is doubtless that some of the warming comes from us. Nothing up in the air about that at all. Non-quantitative people like you or Revkin don't seem to grasp this. There is some small uncertainty about attributing more than half of the warming to us, but that is not the same as not knowing anything at all.
A climate service would be a very good thing since we can finally start to set some policies concerning tidal regions that will be affected by sea level rise. New nuclear power plants, in particular owing to their long planning horizon, need siting guidance that the NRC does not seem able to provide.
The way I see it, by canceling a lot of Earth observing and space science, conservatives pretty much made a mess of NASA. Now it is time to clean it up and try to get back a little of what was rolling before Bush got into office. The manned program is going to have to sustain in the space station for a bit while technical capacity (and confidence) is rebuilt. The planetary protection mission needs a restart.
Since I did the integral for you using published numbers (with a link in the original material) and you come back with something for which you give no reference and which is based on material with inclusions and no process control and, moreover, has a different structure, is seems like we are talking at cross purposes. Next time you go to the Museum of American History, look down to see what the stairs are made of. You'll find that it contradicts much of what you have said. This seems to be because you are wedded to just so stories rather than interested in the actual properties of materials.
To summarizes what I find interesting: a material which is stronger than steel might be synthesized using substantially less energy than needed to forge steel. This may reduce construction costs. Likely, some originality would be needed to make it a substitute, but is seems to have potential. The main thing is that this is a low temperature atmospheric pressure essentially chemical process of the sort that may be amenable to molecular scale quality control such as is available in printed circuit applications. Thus, your assumptions seem to be off base and contribute little of interest.
You are using a number for natural diamond rather than synthesized lonsdalite which would behave more like graphene. You are building flaws in by your method I think.
I guess you will have to demonstrate now that it cracks easily. In my opinion you are demoting engineering methods to wives tales since you won't use numbers.
I gave you the integral, now you are jawboning. Clearly, if we can build an I-beam, we can do quality control. It'll be optical and easy. Who knows if we can build it. But if we can it will be stronger than steel as already demonstrated. What is more important is that we can throw out 50 of them for every one we keep and still save energy over making steel.
Slashdot Mirror
Today a rowdy group of Vermont Yankee worker broke into a press conference being held by Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility to shout lies about renewable power: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100223/THISJUSTIN/100229968 Nuclear Hooligans.
And you are?....
The loan guarantee is connected because Obama promised support for nuclear power only if it was safe. Manifestly it is not.
Quick, call these guys and tell them they are stupid: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/brightsource-energy-offered-nearly-14,1174231.shtml
I read your reply. You made another mistake and I corrected it. You should say "thank you."
Sorry, dry cooling works fine for solar. There is inherently plenty of surface area.
Such as protecting the integrity of the fuel. Such as not having rivers large enough to dump the waste energy.
Try to read yourself. The meaning of my post is self-evident. Also, you are being foolish. Nuclear has already scaled as far as it will go for obvious reasons.
Ah, the slashdot stalker. Remember you were defeated by the numbers. And again here. Large scale nuclear power is more expensive than smaller scale alternatives, just the opposite of arguments for scale. Thus, it is economically uncompetitive and the loans will default.
So large scale should cost more than small scale? That seems backwards.
The apparent cost of the project is $7/Watt http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html with Japan providing other loan guarantees. Since Japan has been escalating pricing for the South Texas project, we can guess the same will happen in this case. I'd guess that $14/Watt is about where this will end up, completely uneconomical. The loans will default and the taxpayers will pay.
Posted again below. Didn't see yours. Good catch.
In the US, warm years have more snow storms that cold years. You can read all about US snow storms here: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf Inhofe is usually wrong and this is just another example.
Well, it is normal for uncertainties to behave that way. But it sounds like it would take several bottles to settle this. More discussion here: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/the-distracting-debate-over-climate-certainty/?permid=228#comment228
Well, that is a silly thing to write.
I should add that in attribution studies, from which this statement comes, one is examining causal mechanisms by definition.
Wow, have you got things wrong. There is no extrapolation into the future of the Mann et al. diagram. Better study up.
Extra snow is pretty consistent with warming: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427 The atmosphere holds more moisture at the same relative humidity in a warmer world so precipitation events can end up stronger than usual. Snow is just one form of precipitation.
Actually it follows from a normal distribution of uncertainties.
I've just been having the same discussion with Andy Revkin who seems to be just as confused as you. Here is where the science is at: It is very likely that most of the recent warming is owing to greenhouse gas forcing as a result of our emissions. Look carefully at that statement. It does not mean that we hardly know if some of the warming comes as a result of our emissions. No, if we can say that it is very likely that most of the warming is owing to us, then it is doubtless that some of the warming comes from us. Nothing up in the air about that at all. Non-quantitative people like you or Revkin don't seem to grasp this. There is some small uncertainty about attributing more than half of the warming to us, but that is not the same as not knowing anything at all.
A climate service would be a very good thing since we can finally start to set some policies concerning tidal regions that will be affected by sea level rise. New nuclear power plants, in particular owing to their long planning horizon, need siting guidance that the NRC does not seem able to provide.
The way I see it, by canceling a lot of Earth observing and space science, conservatives pretty much made a mess of NASA. Now it is time to clean it up and try to get back a little of what was rolling before Bush got into office. The manned program is going to have to sustain in the space station for a bit while technical capacity (and confidence) is rebuilt. The planetary protection mission needs a restart.
Since I did the integral for you using published numbers (with a link in the original material) and you come back with something for which you give no reference and which is based on material with inclusions and no process control and, moreover, has a different structure, is seems like we are talking at cross purposes. Next time you go to the Museum of American History, look down to see what the stairs are made of. You'll find that it contradicts much of what you have said. This seems to be because you are wedded to just so stories rather than interested in the actual properties of materials.
To summarizes what I find interesting: a material which is stronger than steel might be synthesized using substantially less energy than needed to forge steel. This may reduce construction costs. Likely, some originality would be needed to make it a substitute, but is seems to have potential. The main thing is that this is a low temperature atmospheric pressure essentially chemical process of the sort that may be amenable to molecular scale quality control such as is available in printed circuit applications. Thus, your assumptions seem to be off base and contribute little of interest.
You are using a number for natural diamond rather than synthesized lonsdalite which would behave more like graphene. You are building flaws in by your method I think.
I guess you will have to demonstrate now that it cracks easily. In my opinion you are demoting engineering methods to wives tales since you won't use numbers.
I gave you the integral, now you are jawboning. Clearly, if we can build an I-beam, we can do quality control. It'll be optical and easy. Who knows if we can build it. But if we can it will be stronger than steel as already demonstrated. What is more important is that we can throw out 50 of them for every one we keep and still save energy over making steel.