We'll if it comes to blockades, I doubt Russia will be selling much gas. On savings, do we need to build a cruise missile defense, or can Russia be brought back to its treaty obligations? Idle natural gas terminals say honor your treaty obligations.
Precisely. So, how many fission products require treatment other than neutron capture or laser assisted transmutation. That gives us the mass that would need the more energetic proton (or perhaps tritium) treatment. It is obviously feasible to do all sorts of transmutations in small accelerators. Nuclear energies don't require large ones. And, just the laser fusion example demonstrates that we can do things macroscopically now. But what fraction of fission products are hard nuts to crack? It seems small, and if my tritium idea pans out, it may go to zero. In which case, the nuclear waste problem is solved....
I think we can retain our domestic supply while curbing Russia by building but not using export terminals. We could save quite a lot on military expenses if we held that card in our hand: play nice or we'll take away your revenue in less than a month. So, the cost of building the (idle) terminals would be well justified.
Particularly in the Midwest, wind power is shaving off gas price excursions http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R... so the manufacturing consequences of your scenario seem irrelevant.
Fracking for natural gas seems to be happy with a price of $4/MMBTU so long as we treat it as a strategic fuel and don't link it up with the $10/MMBTU international market. So, it can support onshoring of manufacturing for a while. But, Midwest wind is selling power purchase agreements at essentially the fuel cost for natural gas generation using combined cycle power plants. The cost of wind is likely to fall further. So, natural gas may end up being just a foretaste of low cost energy boosting onshored manufacturing as renewable energy displaces it.
Haven't forgotten you. It just occurred to me when classifying by neutron capture, laser transmutation or a big splat that tritium might work for some poor neutron capture candidates so I'm looking into that.
They'll test the batteries? Wonder if they'll ship them charged? Wonder if there might be lots of storage available if the answers are yes and no respectively.
So, gas is trading around $4/MMBTU and you get about 175 kWh of electricity from that $4 with a good combined cycle gas plant. So, the fuel cost is about 2.5 cents per kWh, about the same as delivered wind power. For a peaker plant, competing with solar, the fuel cost would be over 5 cents per kWh. That is just the fuel cost. So, why pay more?
In a lot of ways, consensus in science is what is lacking in both controversy and ignorance. It is what goes into text books. If a subject is controversial then some people know somethings about it but the details have not been worked out and agreed upon. If a subject has had no study, for example is there DNA under the ice on Europa? Then that is a subject of ignorance and perhaps speculation but not subject to consensus.
So consensus forms on topics that feel like they have pretty much been studied to death. It should be noted though that contrarians may remain active even when a consensus exists. That may look like controversy, but really the contrarian's arguments have all been addressed to everyone's satisfaction except the contrarian's. So, basically, the contrarian is the guy who does not get it. The faster a field moves, the more likely a contrarian will still be professionally active.
Slashdot Mirror
There will be a march for the climate to put pressure on the UN to take action on September 21 in NYC. http://peoplesclimate.org/marc...
On shoring of manufacturing has some economic benefits.
We need to single out countries that are not cutting emissions, that is the leverage that the GATT Article XX tariffs give us.
We'll if it comes to blockades, I doubt Russia will be selling much gas. On savings, do we need to build a cruise missile defense, or can Russia be brought back to its treaty obligations? Idle natural gas terminals say honor your treaty obligations.
OK, so while Midwest wind is cheap and getting cheaper and abundant and getting more abundant, natural gas can go do its own thing?
I guess because it is discussing a peer reviewed study in an unbiased manner.
Precisely. So, how many fission products require treatment other than neutron capture or laser assisted transmutation. That gives us the mass that would need the more energetic proton (or perhaps tritium) treatment. It is obviously feasible to do all sorts of transmutations in small accelerators. Nuclear energies don't require large ones. And, just the laser fusion example demonstrates that we can do things macroscopically now. But what fraction of fission products are hard nuts to crack? It seems small, and if my tritium idea pans out, it may go to zero. In which case, the nuclear waste problem is solved....
I think we can retain our domestic supply while curbing Russia by building but not using export terminals. We could save quite a lot on military expenses if we held that card in our hand: play nice or we'll take away your revenue in less than a month. So, the cost of building the (idle) terminals would be well justified.
You need a global array. Last December-January-February together were the seventh warmest on record globally. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
So.... We are not discussing Midwest manufacturing? Not quite sure how Midwest conditions are not relevant.....
Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The diplomacy is already complete for imposing carbon tariffs on China. We should proceed now. http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Well, that's a silly thought since we have laser transmutation already on a macroscopic scale in our fusion program.
Recycling pretty much negates your point on raw materials. And, wind power seems to provide energy out of thin air.
Particularly in the Midwest, wind power is shaving off gas price excursions http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R... so the manufacturing consequences of your scenario seem irrelevant.
Fracking for natural gas seems to be happy with a price of $4/MMBTU so long as we treat it as a strategic fuel and don't link it up with the $10/MMBTU international market. So, it can support onshoring of manufacturing for a while. But, Midwest wind is selling power purchase agreements at essentially the fuel cost for natural gas generation using combined cycle power plants. The cost of wind is likely to fall further. So, natural gas may end up being just a foretaste of low cost energy boosting onshored manufacturing as renewable energy displaces it.
Haven't forgotten you. It just occurred to me when classifying by neutron capture, laser transmutation or a big splat that tritium might work for some poor neutron capture candidates so I'm looking into that.
OK, there is discussion up thread that this is net zero emissions. So, they'll be on the grid. Likely that will be a revenue stream for them.
Why do we care about residential?
Unless you have to do it anyway.
They'll test the batteries? Wonder if they'll ship them charged? Wonder if there might be lots of storage available if the answers are yes and no respectively.
RTFA. They are building batteries.
So, gas is trading around $4/MMBTU and you get about 175 kWh of electricity from that $4 with a good combined cycle gas plant. So, the fuel cost is about 2.5 cents per kWh, about the same as delivered wind power. For a peaker plant, competing with solar, the fuel cost would be over 5 cents per kWh. That is just the fuel cost. So, why pay more?
Wind is going for 2.5 cents per kWh http://www.greentechmedia.com/... and solar is going for 5 cents a kWh http://www.greentechmedia.com/... Why would you pay more?
In a lot of ways, consensus in science is what is lacking in both controversy and ignorance. It is what goes into text books. If a subject is controversial then some people know somethings about it but the details have not been worked out and agreed upon. If a subject has had no study, for example is there DNA under the ice on Europa? Then that is a subject of ignorance and perhaps speculation but not subject to consensus.
So consensus forms on topics that feel like they have pretty much been studied to death. It should be noted though that contrarians may remain active even when a consensus exists. That may look like controversy, but really the contrarian's arguments have all been addressed to everyone's satisfaction except the contrarian's. So, basically, the contrarian is the guy who does not get it. The faster a field moves, the more likely a contrarian will still be professionally active.