Hydrogen can be produced efficiently (along with distilled water) from nuclear power sources. Unfortunately, this research is also cut from Obama's budget...
Don't forget Pelosi too:\
Pelosi? Controlled by big finance (you know the british island hedge fund types)
Reid? Mormon's are way to liable to be controlled by "religious" interests.
Nuclear power is rarely mentioned when discussing "alternatives" (and nuclear is THE alternative).
anyone know how much power maglevs require? it seems like 27 billion should buy me a lot more train...
also for a power source, sustaining generation for 110MW trains by solar or wind or anything like that is rather expensive and inefficient... how about a small pebble bed type reactor instead? that way the train can transport freight by night...
This isn't a housing crisis... this is the derivatives bubble popping. The good news? Most of the value of the estimated $1 quadrillion is bogus... so with concentrated effort we can demand an investigation and subsequent banking holiday + receivership & reorganization. Bad news? Well, I think we need more people to see it this way, the way Roosevelt saw this same sort of issue...
The fact of the matter is that financial derivatives were sold in orders of magnitude higher than the actual contract. "Investors" made highly leveraged purchases, then with mark-to-market, predicted a profit, then leveraged that to buy more of them. All of these numbers are completely bogus and bunk. We need to defuse this time bomb. We need a new bank holiday to go through the books and write off all the fraudulent debt. In order for these objects to be politically feasible (WTF?!) we need a new Pecora commission, one with full subpoena powers, and one that will look at ALL angles, including Pelosi's sweethearts Soros and Rohatyn.
I agree with most of your points, but I'd like to point out that the auto-bailouts have been designed to save the money, save the finance arms, not to save production. If our gov't was serious about wanting to save jobs AND improve our economy AND our quality of life, they would immediately launch a maglev rail buildout using the excess capacity of the auto-plants. Since they haven't done this it leads me to the conclusion that Obama is NOT like FDR and that the elites have more fascist, more sinister intentions.
Well, my general point is that this cycle has been going on for quite some time. I have a hard time seeing how these ongoing cycles are going to change. They believe that these CO2 cycles are only interrupted by ice ages, correct? We probably can't stop polar melting, but we can stop glacial advance if we had the motivation. If sea levels really are going to rise any significant amount, engineering projects could keep cities safe, and the waters at bay. Also, if we completely stop using fossil fuels, this cycle will continue, because it is fueled by various factors including astrological forces and gas release from the planet.
I'm glad to hear that there is one more pro-nuclear person in the world. They have a lot of benefits nobody is talking about like being able to produce hydrogen fuels from non-fossil origins, and fresh water for agriculture. These benefits are a lot greater than the benefits I can see from renewables.
You are absolutely right about the current rate for plant production. We're limited by the quantity of casing that Japan Steel can produce (currently enough for 4 plants per year). However, we can start producing them here in the US again if a government corporation would take over surplus steel production. Additionally various types of 4th gen plants can be manufactured in our auto-plants (if retooled). Again, I think a government company should take over the unused portion of our automotive sector to start making these things.
Currently we have approximately 100 plants in the US producing approximately 20% of the power we consume. We could replace the coal portion of our power production by building 250 more. Globally, we need 6000 GW of new power generation to support provide 1.5kw per capita, which would equate to 6000 new 1GW plants. This might seem daunting, but if we made an effort like we did during WW2, and fought this economic collapse like a war it's completely conceivable to make a recovery based on new power and water systems, and new high speed rail lines. It would also undo the net production decreases the world has experienced since it began to practice globalization. 6000 new plants might seem like a large number, but just imagine how many solar arrays or wind farms we'd need to do the same (and that power is only on some of the time, you always need a reliable backup power source).
I agree that disposal could be a problem for that many plants, but we should begin reprocessing again. Carter made a blunder... we should completely burn uranium. Even without reprocessing, if you took all the spent fuel we have ever produced, it will fill a football field 5 meters deep. Not too bad... especially considering that this spent fuel is a resource that we can extract new fuel from. Additionally, the 4% that is not recyclable contains valuable medical isotopes that can be further processed.
If fusion was properly funded the past 30 years as it should have been, I'm confident we'd have a commercially viable reactor by now. I think we should roll out as many 3rd and 4th gen fission plants as we can now, while investing heavily into experimental technologies like fusion. Renewables currently power less than 1% of our total energy, and most of that is biomass. I really think it's all hype.
About the costs: I thought nuclear was the 2nd cheapest power source next to natural gas for plant construction... how is solar cheaper? I know it survives on government subsidy... can you provide me with more information on that? Also something to keep in mind are the other byproducts of nuclear, like the hydrogen fuel that is possible to create, and the fresh water. These benefits should be factored in as well instead of just watt to dollar.
I'm not going to the library for the purpose of this discussion. For now, let us agree to disagree. We'll see the new data from the spacecraft soon enough.
Here is something I found while looking for the sea shell study from the 70s. I couldn't find the one I mentioned earlier. Again, I don't think we should be using fossil fuels. We should be using oil solely for petrochem manufacturing like plastics, fertilizers, etc. My position is that I don't agree that we're going to have as drastic changes as people like you claim, and I don't think the solution is low-tech renewable energy. The solution is fast-breeder high tech nuclear energy (you know, the reactors that produce more fuel than they use). That's renewable, and it being high tech will save and boost all aspects of our industries should we produce them on a wide scale. I can't say the same for windmills. Advanced design nuclear plants should be rolled out while we have a full scale drive to fusion energy. If you impose renewable energy on us it's probably going to drain the last of our resources and doom humanity to a painful die down.
Not that I expect somebody who resorts to ad hominem attacks to even care, but I can cite Beck (2007) Figure 5: First Reconstruction of Trends in CO2 Atmospheric concentration based on actual measurement. The figure is transposed against the Antarctic ice core samples. You can see it here. My link is free. I did not read your article. If you will copy and paste the relevant part or present it for me in a free manner, I will be happy to review it.
As you cited an article saying that we are going to experience a longer interglacial (you know, the one I can't even read the abstract on), I'm going to shoot you one that says the opposite. This is why I argue for more research to be done on what exactly is happening here, and I applaud this new orbital observatory. Note that I did not once call for continued pollution, which is insane. I think we need to be prepared for an ice age. The authors of these papers somewhere write to prevent advancing glaciers, lots high temperature nuclear reactors must be deployed with enough energy density to cull back the advancing glaciers if the situation arises. Therefore, this is just one reason that to attempt to abandon nuclear energy is insanity for the survival and prosperity of humanity. Read it here.
I'm referring to net 0 sum financial models which state given enough time (infinite) the system will rebound, never mind the amount of death and destruction in between now and infinity. It's funny you should bring up Alan Greenspan, the creator of these creative financial instruments which are the reason why the system is collapsing right now. One accurate model which predicted the current collapse is Larouche's triple curve function, which basically says as production decreases, financial aggregates and money will increase at an inversely proportional rate. We can't have less production globally and support a growing population. It's just not possible. This crash is a reflection of that fact. Now, it's still quite possible to reform and change our economic models. It remains to be seen if our leaders are ready to confront the parasitic "international" interests and do the right thing.
In regards to Global Warming, I think we need to look at the ocean floor. Some seashells contain carbon records that are quite contradictory to the ice core measurements Gore hyped up. My mind isn't made up about global warming. There are astronomical functions that researchers are blowing off. The Earth's axis shift (precession), the earth's elliptical degree of orbit, and the sun's position in galactic space all play roles in the climate cycle. Also, isn't the human contribution to CO2 only a small fraction of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses? This new satellite is great because it will give us more details. We're overdue for an ice age anyway. Maybe this is the only thing saving us from glacial advance. You know, in an ice age, the southern hemisphere is supposed to get quite warm in the summer =) (think Australian wildfires). We'll know soon enough I suppose.
I doubt these models. Computer models predicted that the financial crash would never happen. The derivatives were just too advanced to ever possibly crash, right?
Look at the weatherman. He has a hard time predicting rain 48 hours from now. You think you really know anything about the weather 50 years from now? Give me an f'in break.
who modded this insightful? you think genocide is insightful?? you want to wipe out 6 billion people... the british eugenics movement must be proud... their disgusting thoughts and world wildlife fund are really making an impact on the retards of the planet today...
Your response is well written, but you are wrong. For one you are comparing an inorganic solar panel to a living tree. Trees cool the atmosphere by releasing water vapor. I do not agree with you that solar panels will cool the planet. Only living, carbon absorbing lifeforms will do that (short of dumping dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere).
You linked old data... current food prices are declining and growers are cutting back production in protest (sorry can't link it at the moment). Additionally, transportation problems are arising due to credit markets. Nobody will ship goods if financial institutions don't issue letters of credit. Presently food is rotting in cargo holds in the worlds ports. In April the World Food Programme called for action on this "silent tsunami."
Let me ask you, is the infrastructure there for a massive solar roll out of this size? Isn't there a global silicon feedstock shortage? Is this feasible? How does the energy density per sq. ft. compared to nuclear (by far the most efficient source of power, in my understanding)? Is it even feasible to desalinate water with solar energy? How does the cost per watt compare?
Also, we must consider how many jobs will be created by building a solar array vs. nuclear powered desalination plants? Building modern nuke plants will require a reindustrialization and retooling of our production to a higher, more precise level. Any production with greater complexity is preferable to lower, simpler methods. The point is to get more complex, higher skill level jobs, and jobs that can build and feed off each other. Think about the chain reaction of jobs affecting the petrochem, agricultural, machine tool, mining, steel production, and construction materials sectors. Also consider how many displaced Mexicans who were looking for work and now returning to Mexico will starve if this is not done. Flooding the deserts of North America will create the food we need to feed the almost 7 billion of us.
Kofi Annan in 2006 said 1 in 6 live without clean water. The solution is not to use less water, but to make more of it.
What better way to cool the planet than to green the deserts? We don't currently produce enough food for the whole planet, so creating lush landscapes in barren deserts seems like quite the solution for our many problems.
Think jobs, economy, agriculture, feeding people, cooling the planet, solving the fresh water crisis... and yes, plants need CO2 for food. If we green the deserts we will need higher levels to support them.
Now, imagine you cover the deserts in solar panels instead. Darker colors retain heat. Purple solar cells are darker than light colored sand and thus will add to Earth's temperature.
So we can build nuclear plants with byproducts being hydrogen fuel, AND potable water, AND heat for homes, AND electricity, AND grow food in the deserts, OR we can have solar arrays in the deserts. What say you?
Solar panels warm the planet. Here is something to annoy and confuse the Greenies:
The only way to cool the planet is to build desalination plants (or build nuclear plants with distilled water as a byproduct) and irrigate the deserts. We can turn the vast deserts of North America green which will cool the world. However, in order to do so, we must have higher levels of CO2:)
You probably mean that would rather have a "fair market economy" where everybody plays by the rules. You need a strong government to enforce rules because the big boys don't play fair. The end result of pure capitalism is the same as communism and fascism. You get one big monopoly merged with the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen can be produced efficiently (along with distilled water) from nuclear power sources.
Unfortunately, this research is also cut from Obama's budget...
Don't forget Pelosi too :\
Pelosi? Controlled by big finance (you know the british island hedge fund types)
Reid? Mormon's are way to liable to be controlled by "religious" interests.
Nuclear power is rarely mentioned when discussing "alternatives" (and nuclear is THE alternative).
What he also unfortunately cut was research into nuclear powered hydrogen production (and desalination).
anyone know how much power maglevs require? it seems like 27 billion should buy me a lot more train... also for a power source, sustaining generation for 110MW trains by solar or wind or anything like that is rather expensive and inefficient... how about a small pebble bed type reactor instead? that way the train can transport freight by night...
This isn't a housing crisis... this is the derivatives bubble popping. The good news? Most of the value of the estimated $1 quadrillion is bogus... so with concentrated effort we can demand an investigation and subsequent banking holiday + receivership & reorganization. Bad news? Well, I think we need more people to see it this way, the way Roosevelt saw this same sort of issue...
The fact of the matter is that financial derivatives were sold in orders of magnitude higher than the actual contract. "Investors" made highly leveraged purchases, then with mark-to-market, predicted a profit, then leveraged that to buy more of them. All of these numbers are completely bogus and bunk. We need to defuse this time bomb. We need a new bank holiday to go through the books and write off all the fraudulent debt. In order for these objects to be politically feasible (WTF?!) we need a new Pecora commission, one with full subpoena powers, and one that will look at ALL angles, including Pelosi's sweethearts Soros and Rohatyn.
I agree with most of your points, but I'd like to point out that the auto-bailouts have been designed to save the money, save the finance arms, not to save production. If our gov't was serious about wanting to save jobs AND improve our economy AND our quality of life, they would immediately launch a maglev rail buildout using the excess capacity of the auto-plants. Since they haven't done this it leads me to the conclusion that Obama is NOT like FDR and that the elites have more fascist, more sinister intentions.
... and tell me why these are modded flamebait?
what about the big money promoting twitter right now as the solution to counter the swine flu? intentions? discuss...
how about something productive?
damn... no points to mod up when i need them >
launch costs to geo are very high... better off to properly fund fusion research and reach ignition...
Well, my general point is that this cycle has been going on for quite some time. I have a hard time seeing how these ongoing cycles are going to change. They believe that these CO2 cycles are only interrupted by ice ages, correct? We probably can't stop polar melting, but we can stop glacial advance if we had the motivation. If sea levels really are going to rise any significant amount, engineering projects could keep cities safe, and the waters at bay. Also, if we completely stop using fossil fuels, this cycle will continue, because it is fueled by various factors including astrological forces and gas release from the planet.
I'm glad to hear that there is one more pro-nuclear person in the world. They have a lot of benefits nobody is talking about like being able to produce hydrogen fuels from non-fossil origins, and fresh water for agriculture. These benefits are a lot greater than the benefits I can see from renewables.
You are absolutely right about the current rate for plant production. We're limited by the quantity of casing that Japan Steel can produce (currently enough for 4 plants per year). However, we can start producing them here in the US again if a government corporation would take over surplus steel production. Additionally various types of 4th gen plants can be manufactured in our auto-plants (if retooled). Again, I think a government company should take over the unused portion of our automotive sector to start making these things.
Currently we have approximately 100 plants in the US producing approximately 20% of the power we consume. We could replace the coal portion of our power production by building 250 more. Globally, we need 6000 GW of new power generation to support provide 1.5kw per capita, which would equate to 6000 new 1GW plants. This might seem daunting, but if we made an effort like we did during WW2, and fought this economic collapse like a war it's completely conceivable to make a recovery based on new power and water systems, and new high speed rail lines. It would also undo the net production decreases the world has experienced since it began to practice globalization. 6000 new plants might seem like a large number, but just imagine how many solar arrays or wind farms we'd need to do the same (and that power is only on some of the time, you always need a reliable backup power source).
I agree that disposal could be a problem for that many plants, but we should begin reprocessing again. Carter made a blunder... we should completely burn uranium. Even without reprocessing, if you took all the spent fuel we have ever produced, it will fill a football field 5 meters deep. Not too bad... especially considering that this spent fuel is a resource that we can extract new fuel from. Additionally, the 4% that is not recyclable contains valuable medical isotopes that can be further processed.
If fusion was properly funded the past 30 years as it should have been, I'm confident we'd have a commercially viable reactor by now. I think we should roll out as many 3rd and 4th gen fission plants as we can now, while investing heavily into experimental technologies like fusion. Renewables currently power less than 1% of our total energy, and most of that is biomass. I really think it's all hype.
About the costs: I thought nuclear was the 2nd cheapest power source next to natural gas for plant construction... how is solar cheaper? I know it survives on government subsidy... can you provide me with more information on that? Also something to keep in mind are the other byproducts of nuclear, like the hydrogen fuel that is possible to create, and the fresh water. These benefits should be factored in as well instead of just watt to dollar.
I'm not going to the library for the purpose of this discussion. For now, let us agree to disagree. We'll see the new data from the spacecraft soon enough.
Here is something I found while looking for the sea shell study from the 70s. I couldn't find the one I mentioned earlier. Again, I don't think we should be using fossil fuels. We should be using oil solely for petrochem manufacturing like plastics, fertilizers, etc. My position is that I don't agree that we're going to have as drastic changes as people like you claim, and I don't think the solution is low-tech renewable energy. The solution is fast-breeder high tech nuclear energy (you know, the reactors that produce more fuel than they use). That's renewable, and it being high tech will save and boost all aspects of our industries should we produce them on a wide scale. I can't say the same for windmills. Advanced design nuclear plants should be rolled out while we have a full scale drive to fusion energy. If you impose renewable energy on us it's probably going to drain the last of our resources and doom humanity to a painful die down.
Not that I expect somebody who resorts to ad hominem attacks to even care, but I can cite Beck (2007) Figure 5: First Reconstruction of Trends in CO2 Atmospheric concentration based on actual measurement. The figure is transposed against the Antarctic ice core samples. You can see it here. My link is free. I did not read your article. If you will copy and paste the relevant part or present it for me in a free manner, I will be happy to review it.
As you cited an article saying that we are going to experience a longer interglacial (you know, the one I can't even read the abstract on), I'm going to shoot you one that says the opposite. This is why I argue for more research to be done on what exactly is happening here, and I applaud this new orbital observatory. Note that I did not once call for continued pollution, which is insane. I think we need to be prepared for an ice age. The authors of these papers somewhere write to prevent advancing glaciers, lots high temperature nuclear reactors must be deployed with enough energy density to cull back the advancing glaciers if the situation arises. Therefore, this is just one reason that to attempt to abandon nuclear energy is insanity for the survival and prosperity of humanity. Read it here.
I'm referring to net 0 sum financial models which state given enough time (infinite) the system will rebound, never mind the amount of death and destruction in between now and infinity. It's funny you should bring up Alan Greenspan, the creator of these creative financial instruments which are the reason why the system is collapsing right now. One accurate model which predicted the current collapse is Larouche's triple curve function, which basically says as production decreases, financial aggregates and money will increase at an inversely proportional rate. We can't have less production globally and support a growing population. It's just not possible. This crash is a reflection of that fact. Now, it's still quite possible to reform and change our economic models. It remains to be seen if our leaders are ready to confront the parasitic "international" interests and do the right thing.
In regards to Global Warming, I think we need to look at the ocean floor. Some seashells contain carbon records that are quite contradictory to the ice core measurements Gore hyped up. My mind isn't made up about global warming. There are astronomical functions that researchers are blowing off. The Earth's axis shift (precession), the earth's elliptical degree of orbit, and the sun's position in galactic space all play roles in the climate cycle. Also, isn't the human contribution to CO2 only a small fraction of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses? This new satellite is great because it will give us more details. We're overdue for an ice age anyway. Maybe this is the only thing saving us from glacial advance. You know, in an ice age, the southern hemisphere is supposed to get quite warm in the summer =) (think Australian wildfires). We'll know soon enough I suppose.
I doubt these models. Computer models predicted that the financial crash would never happen. The derivatives were just too advanced to ever possibly crash, right? Look at the weatherman. He has a hard time predicting rain 48 hours from now. You think you really know anything about the weather 50 years from now? Give me an f'in break.
who modded this insightful? you think genocide is insightful?? you want to wipe out 6 billion people... the british eugenics movement must be proud... their disgusting thoughts and world wildlife fund are really making an impact on the retards of the planet today...
melting ice from glaciers on land has already caused a staggering 1/4" rise in sea level... lord help us.
what the heck is a global average anyway? it doesn't make sense (to me) to measure it like that...
Your response is well written, but you are wrong. For one you are comparing an inorganic solar panel to a living tree. Trees cool the atmosphere by releasing water vapor. I do not agree with you that solar panels will cool the planet. Only living, carbon absorbing lifeforms will do that (short of dumping dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere).
You linked old data... current food prices are declining and growers are cutting back production in protest (sorry can't link it at the moment). Additionally, transportation problems are arising due to credit markets. Nobody will ship goods if financial institutions don't issue letters of credit. Presently food is rotting in cargo holds in the worlds ports. In April the World Food Programme called for action on this "silent tsunami."
Let me ask you, is the infrastructure there for a massive solar roll out of this size? Isn't there a global silicon feedstock shortage? Is this feasible? How does the energy density per sq. ft. compared to nuclear (by far the most efficient source of power, in my understanding)? Is it even feasible to desalinate water with solar energy? How does the cost per watt compare?
Also, we must consider how many jobs will be created by building a solar array vs. nuclear powered desalination plants? Building modern nuke plants will require a reindustrialization and retooling of our production to a higher, more precise level. Any production with greater complexity is preferable to lower, simpler methods. The point is to get more complex, higher skill level jobs, and jobs that can build and feed off each other. Think about the chain reaction of jobs affecting the petrochem, agricultural, machine tool, mining, steel production, and construction materials sectors. Also consider how many displaced Mexicans who were looking for work and now returning to Mexico will starve if this is not done. Flooding the deserts of North America will create the food we need to feed the almost 7 billion of us.
Kofi Annan in 2006 said 1 in 6 live without clean water. The solution is not to use less water, but to make more of it.
What better way to cool the planet than to green the deserts? We don't currently produce enough food for the whole planet, so creating lush landscapes in barren deserts seems like quite the solution for our many problems. Think jobs, economy, agriculture, feeding people, cooling the planet, solving the fresh water crisis... and yes, plants need CO2 for food. If we green the deserts we will need higher levels to support them. Now, imagine you cover the deserts in solar panels instead. Darker colors retain heat. Purple solar cells are darker than light colored sand and thus will add to Earth's temperature. So we can build nuclear plants with byproducts being hydrogen fuel, AND potable water, AND heat for homes, AND electricity, AND grow food in the deserts, OR we can have solar arrays in the deserts. What say you?
Solar panels warm the planet. Here is something to annoy and confuse the Greenies: The only way to cool the planet is to build desalination plants (or build nuclear plants with distilled water as a byproduct) and irrigate the deserts. We can turn the vast deserts of North America green which will cool the world. However, in order to do so, we must have higher levels of CO2 :)
You probably mean that would rather have a "fair market economy" where everybody plays by the rules. You need a strong government to enforce rules because the big boys don't play fair. The end result of pure capitalism is the same as communism and fascism. You get one big monopoly merged with the government.
somebody mod this up +1