We already have. More than 50% of the energy in Britain comes from renewables, about a fifth in the US. If we move the subsidies propping up coal to solar, we could have 100% generated by renewables within three Presidential terms. It's not difficult. Trump's removal of legitimate subsidies for an emergent technology in order to prop up coal will slow down the switch from coal to solar. Slow, not stop. It hasn't stopped, despite Trump's efforts to bankrupt the industry and finance a bankrupt, obsolete alternative.
It's that simple.
Solar is not difficult to mass produce and, with adequate funding to produce isotopically pure silicon (which we can now mass produce) along with the other mass-producible improvements to the energy output, the same number of panels produced can produce double the energy. Simple arithmetic would suggest you then need less than half the solar panels. (Lower transmission loss through fewer connections and less wiring.)
Since most people want solar heating, not solar electricity, to the home, it's trivial to have the government provide incentives to mass produce solar heaters (which don't require rare earths) and to encourage installation of those where they'd be of better value to the consumer, so as to conserve resources.
Reversing the taxes placed on solar power in Nevada and a few other States, mandating compensation, requiring all new homes have direct solar heaters or solar panels installed as part of the Federal building codes, and providing strong incentives to install (such as providing exactly the same subsidies to those selling solar energy to the grid as are currently provided to coal-fired power stations) would solve many of the problems.
I'm a fan of nuclear done right (waste contains radioisotopes that can be used to produce energy, so use them, sodium reactors can't have a meltdown, have superior efficiency and we have actually built those, there's no need to cut corners to save on costs since a good working reactor is cheaper than geoengineering by many orders of magnitude giving us plenty of margin). It takes ten years to build a reactor, although you can probably increase the parallelism to some extent.
If you go all-out on solar, and build a nuclear reactor in each State, then in ten years you should have ample power to completely eliminate fossil fuel.
I'd go further and build in each State the infrastructure and housing likely required for a fusion reactor, which I'd expect to be ready for construction in about ten years. If it isn't, you've housing that's more than adequate to house a fission reactor. Indeed, it should be of vastly superior grade. So, if fusion isn't ready, just build another fission reactor in each State. The modifications needed should be minor, if there are any at all. It's just a shell with easily maintained piping, generator and substation. (Since the subsidies for fossil fuel amount to $20 trillion a year, we can afford to go Manhattan Project on fusion for a ten year spree. If it can be solved at all, that should be more than sufficient.)
So in the worst case scenario, in ten years solar and nuclear are major players, with wind and geothermal next, and in twenty years solar and all forms of nuclear (regardless of whether that's just fission or not) have doubled capacity. That's 2030 and 2040 respectively.
Let's take that worst-case. We've doubled the energy from solar by capacity and again by efficiency. So, we're currently at 50 gigawatts, so that's 200 gigawatts. We subtract the 50 we currently have, since we're only looking at new capacity. 150 gigawatts. Since the US government official figures say that the current output is actually 50 terawatt hours, I am unsure exactly how the numbers are reached. But if we accept that both numbers are valid, then we end up with 200 terawatt hours of power, or 150 terawatt hours of increase.
The state of the art sodium reactors are 880 megawatts per reactor, which is 21120 megawatt hours per reactor. The best reactors out there have an output of 13
First, that was the issue raised. I did not answer questions not asked. And, no, no climate scientist has argued what you claim. You provide no link because there are no credible sources for your claim. There is no cherry-picking, repeated attempts to find any by skeptics - real skeptics - have resulted in them actually siding with climate scientists.
What you are doing is changing the question in order to falsify the answer. You don't get to do that. Acknowledge that I was right, that the original question was wrong, and THEN ask a new question. Or, by deed or default, admit that there are no questions at all.
Irrelevant. What was requested was one prediction from one citation. I provided one prediction from one citation. You don't get to change the question after the fact. Either acknowledge I answered the first question exactly as requested, meeting the specification in full, and then ask a new question regarding further issues, or acknowledge that you've no interest in the facts at all.
That a recent study conducted on beliefs showed that most people who believed global warming was a hoax also believed in the New World Order, ancient aliens, that vaccines caused autism, that JFK was murdered by his own government and/or that their government was trying to replace them with muslims.
I'm honestly curious why we even bother to discuss things, in that case. I have no objection to you believing whatever you like, but as people like that most certainly DO object to me holding to my views, I see no benefit in bothering to debate things. No, I don't hold those conspiracy theorists in high esteem, but why should that bother them? If they were secure in their views, it would be irrelevant.
Does it really cause that much distress to anyone if we use solar rather than coal for power plants? You get exactly the same amount of power, or maybe more with solar these days. How is that interfering with your lifestyle? Does it really cause a problem to argue that Brazil and Indonesia should stop producing cash crops and replant rainforest? Wow, a few products you weren't even buying anyway go up in price by all of five cents. The agony. Let me see if I can shed a tear... wait... wait... sorry, no.
For crying out loud, it has bugger all impact on anyone here. Not even your 401K will be affected, since the stock brokers will all transfer together, causing the stocks they switch to to skyrocket in price. Ok, you might actually make quite a lot of money on that.
That's it. That's all the affect YOU will ever notice. You becoming a little bit richer, in a few years.
I mean. The tragedy of having more money to spend.
Ah. Must be why the first study was in 1896, and why there have been a steady stream of studies since. After 1960, mostly from NASA. During highly Republican regimes, no less.
Odd.
So you're suggesting Ronald Reagan was an EU communist spy?
Otherwise, I can't see how you can relate what you said with where most of the work was done.
No, we're not supposed to be underwater right now. That was never predicted. No, there was nothing about the ice caps melting by 2015, that's far too specific. Individuals might have gone out on a limb, but then individuals will believe almost anything.
If you want to accuse it of being a far left conspiracy, you can join the New World Order brigade, the antivaxxers and the ancient aliens nuts. Because those are the people who dispute global warming. And they're essentially the only people who do. So if you don't want to be in that crowd, think.
Only the results over overlapping timeframes are relevant. As you can see, the prediction is matched with observation and has not been falsified.
Are you satisfied? Of course not! Because this was never about facts, this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.
The difference between skeptics and cynics is that skeptics are persuaded by data and cynics don't give a shit.
Since cynics don't give a shit, why should we treat them like precious snowflakes? It won't make any difference how we treat them, they still won't be persuaded by the data.
They're happy with the under the table funding from the ISPs, no sense in stirring up trouble.
Besides, we all know that we're getting between a third to a tenth of what we pay for. Only municipal Internet does better in America, which is why the private companies keep trying to ban it.
So long as it was on siprnet and certified to have classified information, none of that matters.
And, yes, it's perfectly legal to have classified machines on the other side of public Internet lines, same reason you can use a STU to call someone overseas, even if there's unsecured cable in there. That's why operating them involves following strict protocols.
Have you ever actually worked in a government communications facility? Or do you get all your info from Infowars?
You sure as hell didn't get it from the government.
That you can't provide links to back your claims up show that you really don't have any. You're just repeating what you've been told. How... precious. You don't know what she ordered, or from whom, you've zero. Difference between you and the Republicans in the Senate is they admitted it. You don't have the guts.
Well, to be fair, since Congress shut down NASA's work with Boeing on the blended wing body, no civilian aircraft manufacturer has taken the work further.
In other words, some research that is arguably essential just can't be done privately.
Now, I could see a case for LaRC doing the work independently and then providing it to everyone, but if I remember rightly from my time there, they're not allowed. They're only allowed to do joint ventures with private companies. That's all LaRC is, these days, a R&D unit for rich aviation companies.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked in a lot of big places. Politics and god complexes have been the two biggest problems, stagnation third.
The underlying problem is the Peter Principle, followed by the notion of the MBA, followed by the messy psychology of geeks.
We already have. More than 50% of the energy in Britain comes from renewables, about a fifth in the US. If we move the subsidies propping up coal to solar, we could have 100% generated by renewables within three Presidential terms. It's not difficult. Trump's removal of legitimate subsidies for an emergent technology in order to prop up coal will slow down the switch from coal to solar. Slow, not stop. It hasn't stopped, despite Trump's efforts to bankrupt the industry and finance a bankrupt, obsolete alternative.
It's that simple.
Solar is not difficult to mass produce and, with adequate funding to produce isotopically pure silicon (which we can now mass produce) along with the other mass-producible improvements to the energy output, the same number of panels produced can produce double the energy. Simple arithmetic would suggest you then need less than half the solar panels. (Lower transmission loss through fewer connections and less wiring.)
Since most people want solar heating, not solar electricity, to the home, it's trivial to have the government provide incentives to mass produce solar heaters (which don't require rare earths) and to encourage installation of those where they'd be of better value to the consumer, so as to conserve resources.
Reversing the taxes placed on solar power in Nevada and a few other States, mandating compensation, requiring all new homes have direct solar heaters or solar panels installed as part of the Federal building codes, and providing strong incentives to install (such as providing exactly the same subsidies to those selling solar energy to the grid as are currently provided to coal-fired power stations) would solve many of the problems.
I'm a fan of nuclear done right (waste contains radioisotopes that can be used to produce energy, so use them, sodium reactors can't have a meltdown, have superior efficiency and we have actually built those, there's no need to cut corners to save on costs since a good working reactor is cheaper than geoengineering by many orders of magnitude giving us plenty of margin). It takes ten years to build a reactor, although you can probably increase the parallelism to some extent.
If you go all-out on solar, and build a nuclear reactor in each State, then in ten years you should have ample power to completely eliminate fossil fuel.
I'd go further and build in each State the infrastructure and housing likely required for a fusion reactor, which I'd expect to be ready for construction in about ten years. If it isn't, you've housing that's more than adequate to house a fission reactor. Indeed, it should be of vastly superior grade. So, if fusion isn't ready, just build another fission reactor in each State. The modifications needed should be minor, if there are any at all. It's just a shell with easily maintained piping, generator and substation. (Since the subsidies for fossil fuel amount to $20 trillion a year, we can afford to go Manhattan Project on fusion for a ten year spree. If it can be solved at all, that should be more than sufficient.)
So in the worst case scenario, in ten years solar and nuclear are major players, with wind and geothermal next, and in twenty years solar and all forms of nuclear (regardless of whether that's just fission or not) have doubled capacity. That's 2030 and 2040 respectively.
Let's take that worst-case. We've doubled the energy from solar by capacity and again by efficiency. So, we're currently at 50 gigawatts, so that's 200 gigawatts. We subtract the 50 we currently have, since we're only looking at new capacity. 150 gigawatts. Since the US government official figures say that the current output is actually 50 terawatt hours, I am unsure exactly how the numbers are reached. But if we accept that both numbers are valid, then we end up with 200 terawatt hours of power, or 150 terawatt hours of increase.
The state of the art sodium reactors are 880 megawatts per reactor, which is 21120 megawatt hours per reactor. The best reactors out there have an output of 13
First, that was the issue raised. I did not answer questions not asked. And, no, no climate scientist has argued what you claim. You provide no link because there are no credible sources for your claim. There is no cherry-picking, repeated attempts to find any by skeptics - real skeptics - have resulted in them actually siding with climate scientists.
What you are doing is changing the question in order to falsify the answer. You don't get to do that. Acknowledge that I was right, that the original question was wrong, and THEN ask a new question. Or, by deed or default, admit that there are no questions at all.
Irrelevant. What was requested was one prediction from one citation. I provided one prediction from one citation. You don't get to change the question after the fact. Either acknowledge I answered the first question exactly as requested, meeting the specification in full, and then ask a new question regarding further issues, or acknowledge that you've no interest in the facts at all.
That a recent study conducted on beliefs showed that most people who believed global warming was a hoax also believed in the New World Order, ancient aliens, that vaccines caused autism, that JFK was murdered by his own government and/or that their government was trying to replace them with muslims.
I'm honestly curious why we even bother to discuss things, in that case. I have no objection to you believing whatever you like, but as people like that most certainly DO object to me holding to my views, I see no benefit in bothering to debate things. No, I don't hold those conspiracy theorists in high esteem, but why should that bother them? If they were secure in their views, it would be irrelevant.
Does it really cause that much distress to anyone if we use solar rather than coal for power plants? You get exactly the same amount of power, or maybe more with solar these days. How is that interfering with your lifestyle? Does it really cause a problem to argue that Brazil and Indonesia should stop producing cash crops and replant rainforest? Wow, a few products you weren't even buying anyway go up in price by all of five cents. The agony. Let me see if I can shed a tear... wait... wait... sorry, no.
For crying out loud, it has bugger all impact on anyone here. Not even your 401K will be affected, since the stock brokers will all transfer together, causing the stocks they switch to to skyrocket in price. Ok, you might actually make quite a lot of money on that.
That's it. That's all the affect YOU will ever notice. You becoming a little bit richer, in a few years.
I mean. The tragedy of having more money to spend.
Ah. Must be why the first study was in 1896, and why there have been a steady stream of studies since. After 1960, mostly from NASA. During highly Republican regimes, no less.
Odd.
So you're suggesting Ronald Reagan was an EU communist spy?
Otherwise, I can't see how you can relate what you said with where most of the work was done.
Actually, they do.
No, we're not supposed to be underwater right now. That was never predicted. No, there was nothing about the ice caps melting by 2015, that's far too specific. Individuals might have gone out on a limb, but then individuals will believe almost anything.
If you want to accuse it of being a far left conspiracy, you can join the New World Order brigade, the antivaxxers and the ancient aliens nuts. Because those are the people who dispute global warming. And they're essentially the only people who do. So if you don't want to be in that crowd, think.
Ok, sure.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh...
Prediction: An increase in CO2 will result in net increase in global temperatures.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...
There's the global temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
Only the results over overlapping timeframes are relevant. As you can see, the prediction is matched with observation and has not been falsified.
Are you satisfied? Of course not! Because this was never about facts, this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.
No, sorry, it's your lot that's legalizing it in the US. Progressives are vehemently opposed.
The difference between skeptics and cynics is that skeptics are persuaded by data and cynics don't give a shit.
Since cynics don't give a shit, why should we treat them like precious snowflakes? It won't make any difference how we treat them, they still won't be persuaded by the data.
https://www.theguardian.com/so...
You're in good company, or bad company. That national health services aren't government run, just government financed, is probably beyond you.
Reality will simply conform to expectation. I'd have thought all systems would converge on that.
I'm a time lord. I can predate it tomorrow.
We need complex numbers. That way, we can give it an imaginary mod.
They're happy with the under the table funding from the ISPs, no sense in stirring up trouble.
Besides, we all know that we're getting between a third to a tenth of what we pay for. Only municipal Internet does better in America, which is why the private companies keep trying to ban it.
So you've no links, no credible evidence, just gossip.
I can see why America's average IQ is rated at below 100.
So long as it was on siprnet and certified to have classified information, none of that matters.
And, yes, it's perfectly legal to have classified machines on the other side of public Internet lines, same reason you can use a STU to call someone overseas, even if there's unsecured cable in there. That's why operating them involves following strict protocols.
Have you ever actually worked in a government communications facility? Or do you get all your info from Infowars?
You sure as hell didn't get it from the government.
That you can't provide links to back your claims up show that you really don't have any. You're just repeating what you've been told. How... precious. You don't know what she ordered, or from whom, you've zero. Difference between you and the Republicans in the Senate is they admitted it. You don't have the guts.
Unless they're pink Slashdot ponies.
You're right, my posts contain facts. Thank you.
Reagan believed it was his holy duty to bring about the end of the world. Do you think it was MAD that stopped him?
Well, to be fair, since Congress shut down NASA's work with Boeing on the blended wing body, no civilian aircraft manufacturer has taken the work further.
In other words, some research that is arguably essential just can't be done privately.
Now, I could see a case for LaRC doing the work independently and then providing it to everyone, but if I remember rightly from my time there, they're not allowed. They're only allowed to do joint ventures with private companies. That's all LaRC is, these days, a R&D unit for rich aviation companies.
A typical English car gets 45mpg, that's best of the best in the US. A humvee gets 12, downhill.
Well, there is that.
That is a requirement for servers holding Federal data.
Would you rather she broke the law?
Nothing in the Federal Information Processing Standards, NSA advisories on government use or Common Criteria mention handing anything to anyone.
Don't recall any such instruction when working for the DoD, either.
What's your source?