Alternate translation: I've dealt with people like you before. I've played this game of argumentum ad verecundiam before and I'm not going to try to argue that my climate scientist is bigger than yours.
Also, you claim that I am "making shit up" or trying to mislead. I am conceding the point to CAGW alarmists, something must be done. I am saying that if these CAGW people fear nuclear power more than CAGW then CAGW is nothing to fear. If people believe that new nuclear power plants will blow up like in Chernobyl and spread radiation over the world then they've got serious issues, that everything is to be feared but the pacifier of windmills.
Again, if there is global warming, human activity is causing it, and such global warming is bad for people then we have really only one choice and that is nuclear power. Continued fossil fuel burning only makes things worse. Using wind and solar power means expensive energy and people dying from industrial accidents. Expensive energy also means people dying from not having the resources to get the food, shelter, clothing, and medical care they need. Wishful thinking on some future technology to save us (including a safer means to deploy wind and solar power) is praying for a boat that may never come to shore.
Nuclear power is safe, affordable, reliable, and carbon free (at least it's closer to that than wind or solar). Instead of agreeing with me on what is important you want o pick a fight on what "catastrophic" means in CAGW.
I will not provide sources because (A) I've dealt with people like you before and I expect not a concession but more arguing over who has the bigger climate scientist in their corner, and (B) this is not what we should be arguing about. If CAGW is a thing then it is bad for us and nuclear power can stop it. If CAGW is not a thing then we should still use nuclear power because it is good for us.
I yield. I concede the point. You win on this matter. Catastrophic global warming does not mean a dead world. Are you happy now?
If you still want to argue then let's talk about nuclear power. I will still say that wind and solar kills people and if anyone believes in CAGW and opposes the use of nuclear power then they are fucked in the head.
I grew up on a family farm and knew a lot of people that also grew up on family farms. A common practice is to use the best ground for corn year after year. Corn is good business as it can be sold locally to dairy, beef, pork, and (more recently) ethanol producers. The rest of the land is rotated between corn, soybeans, hay/alfalfa, and perhaps other crops. I haven't seen wheat grown here but I assume it is possible, and I've seen sunflowers grown once in great while.
A farmer will decide on what to grow based on contract prices (they'll sell the crop even before it is planted), expected future prices, what did well in the past on the land, what crops they need for their own animals (if any), expected weather for the coming year, and other factors. In many ways this is a gamble. The farmer is looking ahead on what will bring the best income and place a bet with what crops they plant.
There are large corporate farms and "co-ops" where the farmer will take orders from someone else on what to plant. In this case that person is less a "farmer" and more a "farmhand". A farmhand will be told what to plant. A farmer will have to take into consideration what will sell well and what the land can produce, but no one "tells" them what to plant.
There are government subsidies but as far as I can tell they are not nearly as common as before, but I may be mistaken. Government subsidies will tend to make a farmer want to plant those crops, which can lead to farmers planting corn on the same land year after year. This continually growing the same crop might require great care and expense to keep from depleting the soil of nutrients. On our farm we'd always grow corn in this one field, while the crops were rotated elsewhere, I suspect that this was largely due to being downhill from the hog shed. Manure overflow from the shed would run into the field.
Some farmers know that growing corn every year in the same field is not optimal for the land, a rotated crop could mean a better yield for several years after. They still choose to grow corn year after year because the loss of corn income that one year is unlikely to be made up by whatever might be grown in the rotation year. I know a lot of people might fall faint from hearing a farmer would choose to not rotate crops but when one is in the business of growing corn then one must grow corn or be out of business. That does not mean a farmer cannot still rotate crops if a business case can be made but when corn prices are high a poor yield of corn can still mean more money than a good crop of beans.
While on the farm I thought government subsidies were great for farming, which may be largely because everyone I knew thought they were great. After leaving the farm I now realize just how bad they are for the consumers AND the farmers. It's these subsidies that coerce farmers to grow corn year after year when if those subsidies didn't exist the long term gain of future yield would offset the loss of growing a rotation crop once in a while.
After thinking about my last post I thought about how the handling of the small bales after harvest must have changed since I last worked on the farm. A bit of internet searching revealed a new kind of automation, the "bale wagon".
A bale wagon is apparently a towed or self propelled device that will pick up small square bales, stack them nicely on a platform on the rear of the device, and then nicely lower this stack where desired. The smaller bales will be picked up by a small "scoop" and the operator has to merely drive alongside a row of these in the field after a baler has deposited them on the ground. Larger square bales require the operator to stop and use an articulated arm to pick up the bale and lower it to the rear platform.
I've seen these bale movers on farms that will hook into a layer of bales that is 2 wide and 4 deep, lift them up into the hay loft, and lower them to the loft floor. This used to require people to stack the bales on a wagon, and then someone in the loft to stack them again once lowered from the bale mover. These bale movers are very old technology, they used to be powered by horses. Now people will use a motor and winch, or just hook an ATV or small tractor to where the horses would have been hitched.
Using a bale wagon and those old bale movers sounds better than the process I described earlier. I can imagine fewer bales lost and more consistent product since they are stacked nicely rather than tossed on a big messy pile.
Also these "bale wagons" are just the latest evolution in this technology. The bale cages on wheels have evolved a bit too. The bale throwers can toss a bale into the bale cage in a big pile and when full the cage does not necessarily have to be emptied by hand. What some of these wagons can do is open up in the back and have a hydraulic ram lift up the front to dump out the load of bales. Somewhere in between the two someone figured out how to have the bales get stacked nicely on the wagon so that the dumping of the bales is a stack instead of a pile.
From what I've seen in the US Midwest and Southeast the use of small bales hasn't completely went away. What is largely gone is a lot of the manhandling of them. Small balers will have "throwers" on them that will toss a bale from the baler onto a wagon that is much like an open top cage on wheels. When full the wagon is pulled to a storage shed, a side door opened, and the bales are pushed out the door (still by hand, I haven't seen this automated yet) onto a sort of catch pan. The pan has a conveyor belt in the middle that will carry the bales away, up into the shed, and a simple mechanism will drop them on to the floor, allowing them to pile up. There is some loss of the bales from broken strings due to the rather rough handling by the machines but the hay is just shoveled up and tossed to the animals (if near a feed pen), back in the baler (if lost near the field), or left to rot (if it's just too far to bother).
These storage sheds are usually placed very close to where the bales are needed. The bales are often just tossed out a door by hand to get to the animals. If moved any distance they'd be hauled by a vehicle suited for the volume carried and distance traveled. The use of small bales usually implies a need for small amounts moved short distances. This means using a common pickup truck, small off road vehicle, or a tractor with a wagon, end loader, or some sort of bale fork on the 3 point implement attachment.
What assurance do I have that you will accept any such sources I provide?
Let me ask you a few questions. Is there global warming? If there is not then we can stop right here.
Is global warming caused by human activity? If not then we should only continue if the goal is to adjust to the warming, not trying to prevent it.
Is global warming bad for human society? If global warming exists, is caused by human activity, then we only need to do something about it if it is bad for us. If it is neutral then we need to do nothing. If it is good then we need to do more.
If you believe that we must do something about global warming then we can only assume that you believe global warming exists, that it is anthropogenic, and that it would be catastrophic if allowed to continue. If you are arguing that "catastrophic" does not necessarily mean "unfit for human life" then you need to calm down and actually think what you are arguing about. Rendering this planet unfit for human life would be catastrophic, no? Not all environmental catastrophes would mean all humans on this planet die, I will concede that, but it seems you are arguing over the wrong aspect here.
I will argue that nuclear power is a good idea whether or not CAGW exists. If CAGW does exist then anyone convinced of its existence should also support nuclear power. In my mind anyone that believes CAGW exists AND that we cannot use nuclear power to stop it has a very messed up set of priorities.
If CAGW is going to put multiple major cities under water from sea level rise, induce resource wars, create "climate refuges", then I'd expect support for nuclear power even if that means having to deal with another Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island every decade or so.
I understand that lives cost money, we cannot spend infinite funds to save a life because that money could be used to feed, clothe, shelter so many. By some measures the deaths caused by nuclear is half that of wind and a quarter that of solar. Since it is might be illogical to hold US nuclear power to the standards of that in other nations we could base this on US deaths alone in which the difference is by a factor of thousands.
You won't pay more money on electricity to save thousands of American lives every year? Who's the heartless people now? Is it the people that want to save lives and clean the air with nuclear power, or those willing to see many thousands of people in the energy sector die from industrial accidents related to wind and solar energy?
The reason it hasn't been disproved is only because nothing has contradicted it yet and the models have been changing year after year as more is understood about sea currents, cloud formation and a pile of other things.
That's not my question. My question is, what would be something that disproves CAGW? Your comment that nothing has disproved it yet because the models get updated is on the very edge of saying that nothing can disprove it. We should see some global warming being explained as mere random variation, caused by non-human activity, or possibly adjust the global warming trend down just a bit.
What we see from IPCC reports and the like is that they will admit to a slowing in the global warming trend but they will still predict the same total warming in a given amount of time. It seems nothing good can happen, or even anything neutral, it must all be bad and humans have caused it.
You are blaming scientists for dumbed down soundbites from politicians and economists.
Then the scientists need to correct the soundbites from the politicians. If I were misquoted, my work used to support a conclusion I did not believe in, and done so in a way that was so public and influential on public policy as a report on global warming then I'd do what I could to make it known. There could be a lot of reasons why these scientists are silent but not all of them can be so silenced. Someone should be speaking out and so far it's been scientists claiming CAGW is not a thing, not those saying that CAGW is still a thing but they've been misrepresented.
So some of those "CAGW types" really are building nukes.
Those people I have no real arguments with. I can argue details if they'd like but I've learned to stay quiet so long as they act in a way not contradictory with my beliefs. I don't just mean my beliefs on CAGW but on politics, energy policy, etc.
It's the people that think we can save the world with windmills, solar panels, and wishful thinking that will get us all killed.
Farming is a business and while driving a tractor is part of the job it is actually a very small part of it. I grew up on a farm and while younger I had a view of what Dad did as largely that of driving a tractor because that is mostly what I saw him do during the summer. As I got older I realized what made the difference between a successful farmer and a not so successful one. What farming is about is managing resources.
One resource is money. Decisions have to be made on what needs to be bought, what kind, how much, at what price, etc. Land needs to be managed. What crops should be planted in a field, what variety, how much fertilizer, what kind of herbicide, etc. Tractors, buildings, and other assets need to be repaired or replaced.
There is a long process to planting a field that starts when the harvest is over. Contracts for fertilizer and seed need to be negotiated and signed. Equipment from the harvest need to be stored in the sheds for the winter, and in a way to make them easily accessible for the planting. If there is a business case for a new piece of equipment this needs to be done in the fall and winter, because once the spring planting starts its real hard to find time to stop and shop for a new tractor.
A similar process takes place for the harvest. Weeks before the crops are due to be harvested the combine needs to be checked out, fired up, lubed, and if anything is found broken then parts need to be ordered. The corn dryer will also need to be checked out, it will be fired up, any frayed wiring replaced, motors lubricated, augers put in place, fuel ordered, and contracts for selling the harvest negotiated and signed.
People might automate the tractor driving but that's what farmers do for fun.
The fact that the DoD has declared that resource wars (over water and oil) will be the biggest military threat to the US in the next 50 years?
I'm not arguing that the DOD got this wrong. I'm arguing that if CAGW is truly a threat to humanity then all options must be explored, not all options except nuclear power.
I saw some very interesting people speaking on this topic from recorded presentations on Youtube. The DOD, and the US Navy in particular, are very interested in addressing a potential threat to the world's oil supply. The USN is fighting hard for more nuclear powered ships. The USN has been doing research on synthesizing aircraft fuel from seawater and nuclear power. The USAF and USN have been testing bio-fuels in their cargo planes, and if this proves successful this research will continue with other aircraft. The US Army has been using an 80% bio-diesel blend for years in their vehicles on domestic bases. The USMC and US Army have been funding research in solar panels that can be used on forward operating bases to reduce demand for diesel used in generating electricity.
If anyone is working on this problem the right way it is the DOD. The people that are doing it the wrong way are ignoring the energy potential from nuclear power.
Trump supports the military, supports expanding nuclear power, but is skeptical about CAGW. Even though the CAGW people hate him for being a "denier" he's also dong all the right things to actually fix the problem. If the CAGW people would actually stop protesting and shitting on police cars just long enough to think through what Trump has offered they might actually, though no doubt grudgingly, find him not all that bad on policy.
Unfortunately, nuclear power is the most expensive electricity. High cost, long lead times, unresolved problems with design and waste. Not a good option. Nuclear only gets built with massive subsidies and public liability for cleanup and accidents. Wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner.
Again, if you fear this more than global warming then I have to conclude that global warming is not a threat.
I thought that global warming was supposed to make the entire earth unfit for human life. Even if we can conclude that building up more nuclear power results in more accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, then I assume that is a better alternative than the extinction of our species.
You seem to assume that we've learned nothing from past nuclear accidents, that these unresolved issues with nuclear power cannot ever be resolved, and that number of dead people from wind and solar do not count.
Nuclear power is safer per TWh produced than wind and solar. (That number of dead includes the deaths from mining the uranium, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, not just on site industrial and radiation hazards.) I thought the goal was to save lives. If the goal is saving lives then nuclear power is the best option we have available right now. If the goal is not saving lives then what is it?
That's why all the new wind mills have lubricant heaters. Once the wind is blowing at sufficient speed the heaters are turned off and the friction of the bearings is more than enough to keep them warm. I'm surprised you don't know this. Of course the heaters add to material and operating costs but that is more than compensated by the increased output from year around operation.
Getting nuclear plants online can take 30 years.
Actually it's more like 40 years, at least in the USA. Trump supports nuclear power though, expect that to get down to 2 years real quick.
Likely Finland will buy electricity form the EU and Russia as long as EU exists which may be for another 12 to 24 months.
Finland buys a lot of coal and natural gas from Russia. Expect them to build up more hydro, wind, and nuclear power to replace the coal and natural gas they are abandoning. At some point I'd expect them to sell electricity to Russia.
Yet another nation announces abandoning coal, a nation with ample hydro resources, dropping prices for oil and natural gas, wind getting cheaper, and likely a shrinking electricity demand. Moving from coal now effectively costs nothing and would likely have happened anyway because of economic forces. They announce this anyway to look good to the CAGW crowd even though it seems few people even fear CAGW any more.
It also creates the illusion of a victory for the CAGW crowd where there was none. I'm sure lobbying from the CAGW people had an effect on the choice to make this announcement, but very little on the choice to abandon coal.
I'm skeptical of CAGW because the few predictions made from global warming models proved true. I must ask those in the CAGW crowd, what kind of evidence would disprove AGW in your mind? CAGW is a theory, if we keep releasing CO2 into the atmosphere then really bad things will happen. It's possible that bad things happen because of something else. It is possible that continued CO2 release will do nothing to the climate.
If the answer is that nothing could disprove CAGW then it's not a scientific theory any more, it's a religion.
I'll go along with abandoning fossil fuels so long as nuclear power is part of what replaces it. Wind and solar are too expensive and unreliable to replace coal. Technological or infrastructure development might make it cheaper but does nothing to address the intermittent power production problems. Adding storage to the grid to address the intermittent power problem adds cost. Nuclear power is reliable, inexpensive, safe, and exists now.
I find these announcements to abandon coal so far to be meaningless and unimpressive. What would impress me as a real advancement in the lobbying effort from CAGW people is an announcement to build up nuclear power. This seems unimaginable to many since nuclear power is for some reason a greater threat to humanity than CAGW. I must conclude CAGW is nothing to fear if nuclear power is to remain off the table as a possible solution.
I'll play nice with the CAGW people because I believe much like they do that coal is a poor source of energy. Where I have a problem is if this demand to abandon coal coincides with a demand that nuclear power cannot replace it. Without coal or nuclear power we'll all be in the dark, cold and hungry.
If any of you CAGW types want to convince me that CAGW is real then demanding nuclear power would go a long way in convincing me of the threat it poses. At a minimum it would show me that your belief in CAGW is more than just virtue signalling and/or jumping on the bandwagon.
Just because you *can* charge the plates in seconds doesn't mean you have to.
That's true but since we already have batteries that can do that I fail to see any advantage to this technology. That's not saying there isn't a useful place for this technology, it's just not something that can allow anyone to charge their cell phone in seconds and run all week.
To keep the risks of arcing and electrocution low the voltages of a device would have to be in the tens of volts. I suspect that USB-C is limited to 20 volts for this reason. The same likely goes for the Firewire limit of 30 volts, automotive systems at a nominal 12 volts (which is more like 13.8 or 14.2 volts), most household thermostats at 30 volts, and so on.
When it comes to keeping the wires light, flexible, and cheap that means using copper or aluminum at small gauges. I keep some wire around for such things where it's about 16AWG on the big side, and something like 24 AWG on the small side. Those are good for max current in the range of 5 amps to 0.5 amps. Any bigger than than and they start to get heavy and stiff, even when using finely stranded wire.
So if practical considerations on conductors leaves one with the limits of 20 volts and 5 amps, like USB-C does, then going to a new technology for energy storage that can exceed this is unnecessary.
There are people in other posts that point out it is possible to use a cradle of some sort instead of a cable to allow for higher voltages and higher currents while keeping it safe. This then gets into regulatory territory where laws specify things like if a device uses voltages above a specified level then it must adhere to certain safety standards, such as double insulation, shielding, grounding, circuit breakers, arc fault detection, and perhaps more. There is also the problem that if a cradle is used then the size and shape of the phone is constrained by the cradle. I cannot imagine such a cradle being very successful even if it did in fact allow for charge times in seconds. Most people will sleep for several hours every day and simply plug in their phone to recharge every night, moving away from a perfectly suitable connector for this (like Lightning, USB-C or micro-B, or barrel connector) to a proprietary cradle adds no convenience and potentially considerable monetary cost.
The applications given for this technology, phones, electric vehicles, and wearable electronics, are actually poor uses for it. Or rather, existing technologies work just as well. I would expect this technology to be adopted only if it offers some sort of cost savings, but that was not one of the claims offered.
NASA doesn't develop the satellites. They might draw up some specifications, perhaps even do some of the design work, but the real work is done by private contractors.
When it comes to launching satellites NASA isn't the only game in town any more. Many nations have launch capability, NOAA can contract them. This contracting to other nations is something that even NASA has had to do so it's not unprecedented. We also see private space launch capability now. These facilities might be on NASA owned land right now but that doesn't have to remain either.
Also, if weather satellites are so important to NOAA then maybe the federal government should allow NOAA to operate their own space program. Transfer some of the people and assets from NASA and let NASA focus on space exploration while NOAA does the Earth facing stuff. That's not saying NASA can't still have some Earth orbit capability, or even look at the weather, but it may be a good idea to have NOAA be able to operate independently of NASA so NASA can focus on going beyond orbit.
Do you realize that a 330 amp cable would have to be larger than a garden hose? While you are out this Black Friday at Best Buy shopping for Christmas gifts go wander over to the kitchen appliance section of the store. Next to the ovens there should be a section where they sell the plugs for these ovens. Look at the size of the plug and the wire. These wires are made to handle only 50 or 60 amps. A 300 amp cable would have to be much larger, with a plug also big enough to handle that current and not melt down.
Now imagine having to carry this 300 amp charging cable with you so you can charge up your phone while traveling. That won't fit in your pocket any more.
Forget that even, just imagine having to plug your phone into a standard 120V 15A wall outlet. Those cables you use to plug your computer into the wall is now your cell phone charger cable. How big would your phone have to be to accommodate the connector that is so common on desktop computers?
I'm afraid we'll just have to put up with chargers operating in the 100 watt range, like USB-C with 20V @ 5A, and the charging times that gives us.
That's an interesting claim, that we'd simply charge our cars with 10kV supplies. Protecting the end user is only one of the worries. At those voltages, especially with direct current, arcing is a real hazard. At 10kV the conductors in air would have to be at least 4 inches apart to keep from arcing, and that's with little to no extra safety factor. I simply cannot imagine a connector carrying that kind of voltage being something that any regulatory agency would allow to be handled like we handle gasoline pumps now. We're talking "wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole" kind of stuff here.
Even if we assume the connector to the car, with 10kV @ 100A, is something that could be considered practical there is still the matter of what happens inside the car. To maintain this size of conductor and still be made of cheap aluminum or copper the voltages would have to remain in the kV range inside the car, that's not going to happen. If stepped down to something in the hundreds of volts the conductors get very large or very hot. If some exotic material is used that has a lower resistance and/or can safely handle temperatures that would melt aluminum then the car gets real expensive.
So, take your pick. Is this car going to run at arc inducing voltages? Will it run at molten aluminum temperatures? Will it cost a fortune? I guess that there is another option, make it large enough to carry the weight of the conductors, to dissipate the heat safely, be made of cheap and common materials, and operate at reasonably safe voltages.
There is a reason electric drive trains are really popular for things like trains, forklifts, and such, heavy and slow is something of an advantage there. Not so great for passenger vehicles.
I'm afraid we will be stuck with electric cars that need many hours to charge.
That's enough power to get you 400A at the 4V required to charge a standard phone battery even after accounting for conversion loss.
How large of a conductor would the wire have to be to safely carry 400 amps? According to the National Electrical Code it would be something like an inch in diameter.
There's some serious practical limits on the sizes of conductors for handheld devices. Something that can carry 400 amps of current, with feed and return lines, insulation, safety ground, etc. to make a cable would be the size of a fire hose. The connector would have to be even larger.
Even if we assume we are using this technology for something like electric cars, where such large connectors might be much more practical, there are limits to the voltage. The prongs on an electrical plug are insulated by air. To keep the prongs from arcing continuously from excessive voltage the breakdown voltage of air cannot be exceeded along with a considerable safety factor.
A battery that charges in seconds and last for days is simply impractical unless one is talking about very low voltages and power consumption.
He has NO clue what abilities of the President are, the powers that come with job or even what the job entails.
Remember that as POTUS he is the de facto head of his party. Republicans control the House, Senate, and many state governments. If he wants to make it good business to build factories in the USA then he's in a good position to do so. As a now former CEO he should understand that there are a lot of things outside of his control but he had a lot of influence on people in his company, on his past customers, current and past suppliers, upon which he can rely to make a lot of things go his way. He can use his influence as the head of the Republican party to get laws passed, his power as POTUS to enact and execute laws, and his experience in business to make the sale to other business people.
When Trump talks business I tend to believe him. When he talks about things he is much less experienced with then I'm much less likely to believe any of his promises. That's when he should rely on his VP, military advisors, cabinet members, etc., and have them speak for the executive branch and/or GOP.
When Trump started his campaign he was out of control. He was often disrespectful, loud, and long winded. I noticed a big change in his demeanor about the time of his second debate. He calmed down, became more pensive and reserved, and generally became "presidential". I realize he's slipped up a few times since then but I expect him to grow into the role.
At least I hope that he'll grow into his new role as POTUS because if he doesn't then the next four years will be "interesting".
Oh, and about this comment:
He's never even read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, nor does he have a clue about the history of this country or the world.
I believe that he's grabbing up GOP governors to positions in his administration because he realizes he needs people with experience in government administration to help him out here. He will do his homework, including reading the Constitution, because that is what successful business people do. He's been running international corporations for a very long time, I think he's got an idea on how the world works. What he doesn't know he'll have to learn on the job like every other POTUS before him did.
Call me a GOP shill if you like, I don't care. I'm trying to be realistic here.
Speaking of being realistic...
I guess I'll get to see what it was like living in the 40's and 50's for 4 years. Fortunately I'm a white man. I feel bad for all the women and other races living in America though.
For someone that just pointed out the constitutional limits on POTUS just how do you expect Trump to make the USA worse for women and minorities? Is he going to single-handedly reinstate segregated schools? Revoke women's right to vote? I think you need to read the Constitution.
It doesn't follow that they offer a superior product to their competitors. What it tells you is they are deliberately over-priced and under-delivered. And what you've bought into is snake-oil.
I believe you've misunderstood what the products are in the examples you gave.
You're seriously expecting me to believe that fossil fuel companies are bad at making money ?
No, I expect you to believe that they are very good at making money. If they honestly believe that there are alternatives that can conceivably compete with their existing business then they are going to invest in it, not try to kill it off.
Politicians cost money. A viable alternative to fossil fuels makes money. If an oil and coal baron sees that something else that can make more money, especially with the customers they already have, then they are going to invest in that business. If a utility is in the business of making electricity and wind is cheaper than coal then they will build windmills, because demand tends to increase and things wear out. Rather than sink money in maintaining the coal plant a smart business would invest in the cheaper alternative.
Since utilities invest in wind power only so much as governments subsidize it then I must conclude that wind is not competitive with coal. If it was then the utilities would take the government subsidy, build the windmills, and let the coal plant rust away. Something is keeping them from abandoning the coal plants and you seem to know why but fail to understand the magnitude of the problem. Wind is not reliable but coal is. The utilities cannot abandon the coal plants because doing so puts their ability to keep customers at risk. People don't like it when the power goes out and if that happens often enough they will switch to a utility that offers reliable power. Energy storage and smart grids cost money, and those are required technologies to make wind a viable alternative to coal. Therefore wind is more expensive than coal despite what your charts tell you.
So the whole time we were talking about power production - and when you lose the argument you suddenly switch the topic vehicle fuel - which is ironic because there the alternative is already on the market, new companies are investing in it and the current companies ARE already investing in it as well - and have vehicles using it. The alternative for vehicles is electricity.
I thought the argument was to eliminate all carbon based fuels and so I used fuel oil and other liquid fuel as an example and/or how to address one aspect of the problem.
There is no such thing as a renewable fuel for an internal combustion engine - the very concept would violate the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass. What you can do is use an electric car and charge it from renewable sources.
That is either a vary narrow definition of a renewable fuel or you have just told the entire fuel ethanol and bio-diesel industries that they do not exist.
But we were never talking about vehicles - which are unique among fossil fuels, we were discussing electricity production.
So just shift my example from vehicles to power generation. Sell this alternative as a means to run small campsite generators, there's a market. Sell it to small physical plants where they burn whatever it is you want to sell to heat and light buildings and small campuses. As infrastructure and technology develops move up to municipal power. The US federal government can't say a whole lot about the fuels a city burns, they have a certain level of autonomy over federal laws. Or, again, do it in any of a number of countries that would love to get in the energy business. You say that big oil buys these government people off, well I doubt that they can buy them all off and if you can show your fuel is cleaner and cheaper than the coal and oil people then you can use each installation as not only a customer but as sales people for the next sale.
That's why it hasn't - oil companies couldn't prevent electric cars from appearing. Right now the upfront costs is still counting against them. Though they cost less than comparable cars over their lifetime (and that's WITHOUT counting externalities) - people still balk at the upfront cost. But then, cars are not energy sources - they are energy CONSUMERS. We were discussing power plants.
Here's a news flash for you, power plants are energy consumers AND energy producers. They need fuel to produce that electricity. This may not be in the strictest sense of say cutting down trees for burning. This might be an analogy of how we use thorium as "fuel" in a fission reactor and "burn" it for heat, and then we have to dispose of the fission product "ash", which hopefully involved extracting medical isotopes so I can get my bone scan next month.
All I know is that you are not making much sense, dismissing my argument because you fail to see the analogy, and seem to have a rather messed up idea on how "renewable" is defined. I think you may be drunk. But then maybe I'm drunk. I don't care, I'm going to bed now.
When I think of an OS that makes it easy to switch from one I have used before the UI is just one of many things I consider. The article mentions some scripting languages that are supported out of the box, a few applications that are included, and how it's got a great kernel and package manager but those are really important only to software developers and the like.
What I'd think people that are switching operating systems would be concerned about are things like being able to read their existing media and files, has drivers/utilities for their peripherals (like a printer/scanner/fax MFD), can connect to their network (wired, wireless, whatever DSL/cable/satellite/dial-up modem they might have), and probably most importantly can run the programs they are used to and/or invested a lot of money into. There was a brief mention of supporting graphical hardware, and being able to play MP3 files but not much else.
For long time users of computers they will have a stockpile of older files and potentially software they'd like to access even on a new system. This computing inertia has been a big reason why Microsoft has been so successful, people can move from one version to the next and not worry too much about losing the ability to do things as they did before. This is especially true for technologies like VirtualPC and Boot Camp that allow people to run their old OS on their new computer alongside the new OS. (I realize the two technologies I mention don't do exactly the same thing but it does allow one to run an older Windows OS relatively painlessly and run some other OS with little difficulty for people that wish to do so.)
Fedora is much like any other Linux based OS I assume, so I assume it can run VirtualBox. WINE is probably available too. I assume it can at least read NTFS and HFS volumes, even if writing is not available the ability to read is huge. I assume it runs a few nice web browsers, office productivity suites, and e-mail programs too. I'd like to hear about those. I'm sure access to games is important to a lot of people so adding that would be a good idea but it won't be much of a selling point to people like me or for corporations.
I know some of this stuff because I'm a regular user of Linux, Mac, and Windows but honestly I don't know a whole lot about what a recent version of Linux might do to help me ditch one of my non-Linux OSes. I use my Mac for e-mail and web browsing, Linux for writing code, and Windows to run Office. I don't really try to do away with any one OS because I literally have a dozen computers in my basement, I have options.
If someone wants to sell me an OS as an alternative to MacOS or Windows then they will have to try harder. I believe I am not alone in this.
Your argument for anything other than nuclear power still breaks down to finding some new technology. Until this technology for smart grids and grid level storage exists we are left with nuclear power, expensive energy, or coal.
Carbon taxes only hurt the effort. First it increases the costs to build the coal alternatives, they still need energy to do stuff until this new thing comes online. Carbon taxes create an incentive for the government to keep coal burning. Governments don't like to see tax revenue decrease, so they'll do what they can to keep the coal burning. Carbon taxes ultimately don't fix anything, the cost to society as a whole is increased because now energy just cost more. All the taxes do is move things around a bit to disguise the fact that everyone is poorer from the taxes, including the people with the solar panels on their roof.
The profits you can protect by keeping renewables out exceed what you can make from investing in them if you're a fossil fuel company - because keeping them out means that billions of dollars you have invested in existing infrastructure and mining rights and equipment do not have to be abandoned. Any fossil fuel company switching to renewables would first have to suffer a loss equal to practically their entire nett worth - then the cost of investing, before they make any profit. Only new companies can reasonably be expected to invest in renewables because they don't have all those existing assets they would need to liquidate for no return.
That would only be true if the fossil fuel alternative could be produced at a quantity comparable with current fossil fuel output and build the infrastructure to do so nearly overnight.
This shift in fuels also requires people to accept this new fuel. I'm not putting a "gasoline alternative" in my truck even if it costs half as much because I don't know if it will ruin my engine. I want to hear from Ford that my engine will burn this stuff without damage because I can buy a lot of $50 tanks of gas if it means I don't have to worry about replacing the engine.
Even if we ignore the over the road vehicles there are a lot of airplanes and ships that burn fossil fuels. No airline is going to switch until its been tested because that is millions of dollars and a lot of lives at stake. This is assuming the FAA and whatever other government agency that regulates such things allow it.
The oil companies have nothing to worry about and they know it. The typical lifespan of a large vehicle like an airplane or ship is about 30 years. Even the typical passenger car lasts 10 years. If some magical oil alternative showed up tomorrow then we'd still be burning a lot of oil for decades. This is with or without the interference of the oil companies.
I just don't understand how any oil company lobbying can prevent an alternative from appearing. The alternative fuel people can start small and create a market in non-critical uses. Create a fuel that can run things like R/C cars, garden tools, camping lanterns, or off road vehicles. What kind of government intervention would prevent this? The oil companies can lobby all they like, it's not keeping things like olive oil lamps off the market. Once the fuel is proven for those things then move to bigger markets, like motor boats and construction vehicles. After that then get an automotive manufacturer on board. It doesn't have to be in the USA even, none of this does. Do it in India or something. You can't imagine some foreign government salivating over the potential tax income if a fossil fuel alternative was made in their borders? Oil companies can buy a lot of influence, but they'd have to by off every nation world wide for the plan you propose to work.
If the technology existed to replace fossil fuels then we'd know about it real quick, as would the oil companies. At that point the oil companies can make an orderly transition to the new fuel because it would be in their interests to do so. The alternative is to buy the silence of everyone that knows of this technology, and do so indefinitely, and not even the oil companies can spend enough money to do that.
Yeah, you've never looked at any economic studies on the subject.
I have looked at some economic studies and I concluded that any reduction in carbon output that does not include nuclear power is a drop in the ocean or economically unfeasible.
Energy consumption is pretty inflexible, raising the price by taxation will not reduce demand by much. All a carbon tax will do is make people poorer and government bigger. Decades of ever increasing efficiency demands means that there is not much room left to improve efficiency. Cutting energy use will mean reduced standard of living. This means replacing carbon based energy with something else if we want to reduce carbon output. Bio-fuels are a dead end because we simply cannot grow enough bio-mass, at least not with current technology and infrastructure. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. are expensive, unreliable, and/or geography dependent. That leaves us only with nuclear or some unforeseen leap in technology.
I took a look at your links and saw no mention of nuclear power. That's not saying they didn't consider it but by not mentioning it makes me wonder if they did. All too often I see the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmists backing us into an impossible corner by denying the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. That leaves us with the very expensive unreliable energy sources or wishful thinking of some fantasy technology that will save us in the next five years. That is assuming we even have five years to fix this.
I find the CAGW arguments lacking and leaving me wondering if this can be nearly as bad as they claim. This is especially true if they say nuclear power is not to be part of the solution. If nuclear power is to be feared more than CAGW then I must conclude that CAGW is nothing to be feared. If CAGW is to be feared then nuclear power must be considered, and in a big way. Due to the operational lifespans of the typical coal and nuclear power plant we'd need to be building something like a new gigawatt scale power plant every week in the world if we are going to have carbon free energy. Maybe it's two per week, maybe its two per month, but something about that scale of nuclear build out is going to be needed to make any difference in carbon output.
If the idea of another nuclear power plant going on line every week makes you uncomfortable then you are going to be uncomfortable one way or another. Our choices are carbon based fuel, energy scarcity, or nuclear power. Anyone offering a fourth option did not do an economic study on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternate translation: I've dealt with people like you before. I've played this game of argumentum ad verecundiam before and I'm not going to try to argue that my climate scientist is bigger than yours.
Also, you claim that I am "making shit up" or trying to mislead. I am conceding the point to CAGW alarmists, something must be done. I am saying that if these CAGW people fear nuclear power more than CAGW then CAGW is nothing to fear. If people believe that new nuclear power plants will blow up like in Chernobyl and spread radiation over the world then they've got serious issues, that everything is to be feared but the pacifier of windmills.
Again, if there is global warming, human activity is causing it, and such global warming is bad for people then we have really only one choice and that is nuclear power. Continued fossil fuel burning only makes things worse. Using wind and solar power means expensive energy and people dying from industrial accidents. Expensive energy also means people dying from not having the resources to get the food, shelter, clothing, and medical care they need. Wishful thinking on some future technology to save us (including a safer means to deploy wind and solar power) is praying for a boat that may never come to shore.
Nuclear power is safe, affordable, reliable, and carbon free (at least it's closer to that than wind or solar). Instead of agreeing with me on what is important you want o pick a fight on what "catastrophic" means in CAGW.
I will not provide sources because (A) I've dealt with people like you before and I expect not a concession but more arguing over who has the bigger climate scientist in their corner, and (B) this is not what we should be arguing about. If CAGW is a thing then it is bad for us and nuclear power can stop it. If CAGW is not a thing then we should still use nuclear power because it is good for us.
I yield. I concede the point. You win on this matter. Catastrophic global warming does not mean a dead world. Are you happy now?
If you still want to argue then let's talk about nuclear power. I will still say that wind and solar kills people and if anyone believes in CAGW and opposes the use of nuclear power then they are fucked in the head.
but aren't farmers 'almost' told what to plant?
I grew up on a family farm and knew a lot of people that also grew up on family farms. A common practice is to use the best ground for corn year after year. Corn is good business as it can be sold locally to dairy, beef, pork, and (more recently) ethanol producers. The rest of the land is rotated between corn, soybeans, hay/alfalfa, and perhaps other crops. I haven't seen wheat grown here but I assume it is possible, and I've seen sunflowers grown once in great while.
A farmer will decide on what to grow based on contract prices (they'll sell the crop even before it is planted), expected future prices, what did well in the past on the land, what crops they need for their own animals (if any), expected weather for the coming year, and other factors. In many ways this is a gamble. The farmer is looking ahead on what will bring the best income and place a bet with what crops they plant.
There are large corporate farms and "co-ops" where the farmer will take orders from someone else on what to plant. In this case that person is less a "farmer" and more a "farmhand". A farmhand will be told what to plant. A farmer will have to take into consideration what will sell well and what the land can produce, but no one "tells" them what to plant.
There are government subsidies but as far as I can tell they are not nearly as common as before, but I may be mistaken. Government subsidies will tend to make a farmer want to plant those crops, which can lead to farmers planting corn on the same land year after year. This continually growing the same crop might require great care and expense to keep from depleting the soil of nutrients. On our farm we'd always grow corn in this one field, while the crops were rotated elsewhere, I suspect that this was largely due to being downhill from the hog shed. Manure overflow from the shed would run into the field.
Some farmers know that growing corn every year in the same field is not optimal for the land, a rotated crop could mean a better yield for several years after. They still choose to grow corn year after year because the loss of corn income that one year is unlikely to be made up by whatever might be grown in the rotation year. I know a lot of people might fall faint from hearing a farmer would choose to not rotate crops but when one is in the business of growing corn then one must grow corn or be out of business. That does not mean a farmer cannot still rotate crops if a business case can be made but when corn prices are high a poor yield of corn can still mean more money than a good crop of beans.
While on the farm I thought government subsidies were great for farming, which may be largely because everyone I knew thought they were great. After leaving the farm I now realize just how bad they are for the consumers AND the farmers. It's these subsidies that coerce farmers to grow corn year after year when if those subsidies didn't exist the long term gain of future yield would offset the loss of growing a rotation crop once in a while.
After thinking about my last post I thought about how the handling of the small bales after harvest must have changed since I last worked on the farm. A bit of internet searching revealed a new kind of automation, the "bale wagon".
A bale wagon is apparently a towed or self propelled device that will pick up small square bales, stack them nicely on a platform on the rear of the device, and then nicely lower this stack where desired. The smaller bales will be picked up by a small "scoop" and the operator has to merely drive alongside a row of these in the field after a baler has deposited them on the ground. Larger square bales require the operator to stop and use an articulated arm to pick up the bale and lower it to the rear platform.
I've seen these bale movers on farms that will hook into a layer of bales that is 2 wide and 4 deep, lift them up into the hay loft, and lower them to the loft floor. This used to require people to stack the bales on a wagon, and then someone in the loft to stack them again once lowered from the bale mover. These bale movers are very old technology, they used to be powered by horses. Now people will use a motor and winch, or just hook an ATV or small tractor to where the horses would have been hitched.
Using a bale wagon and those old bale movers sounds better than the process I described earlier. I can imagine fewer bales lost and more consistent product since they are stacked nicely rather than tossed on a big messy pile.
Also these "bale wagons" are just the latest evolution in this technology. The bale cages on wheels have evolved a bit too. The bale throwers can toss a bale into the bale cage in a big pile and when full the cage does not necessarily have to be emptied by hand. What some of these wagons can do is open up in the back and have a hydraulic ram lift up the front to dump out the load of bales. Somewhere in between the two someone figured out how to have the bales get stacked nicely on the wagon so that the dumping of the bales is a stack instead of a pile.
these huge wrapped bales that you have to use trucks to haul around.
Define "truck", is it this kind of truck?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This kind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From what I've seen in the US Midwest and Southeast the use of small bales hasn't completely went away. What is largely gone is a lot of the manhandling of them. Small balers will have "throwers" on them that will toss a bale from the baler onto a wagon that is much like an open top cage on wheels. When full the wagon is pulled to a storage shed, a side door opened, and the bales are pushed out the door (still by hand, I haven't seen this automated yet) onto a sort of catch pan. The pan has a conveyor belt in the middle that will carry the bales away, up into the shed, and a simple mechanism will drop them on to the floor, allowing them to pile up. There is some loss of the bales from broken strings due to the rather rough handling by the machines but the hay is just shoveled up and tossed to the animals (if near a feed pen), back in the baler (if lost near the field), or left to rot (if it's just too far to bother).
These storage sheds are usually placed very close to where the bales are needed. The bales are often just tossed out a door by hand to get to the animals. If moved any distance they'd be hauled by a vehicle suited for the volume carried and distance traveled. The use of small bales usually implies a need for small amounts moved short distances. This means using a common pickup truck, small off road vehicle, or a tractor with a wagon, end loader, or some sort of bale fork on the 3 point implement attachment.
What assurance do I have that you will accept any such sources I provide?
Let me ask you a few questions. Is there global warming? If there is not then we can stop right here.
Is global warming caused by human activity? If not then we should only continue if the goal is to adjust to the warming, not trying to prevent it.
Is global warming bad for human society? If global warming exists, is caused by human activity, then we only need to do something about it if it is bad for us. If it is neutral then we need to do nothing. If it is good then we need to do more.
If you believe that we must do something about global warming then we can only assume that you believe global warming exists, that it is anthropogenic, and that it would be catastrophic if allowed to continue. If you are arguing that "catastrophic" does not necessarily mean "unfit for human life" then you need to calm down and actually think what you are arguing about. Rendering this planet unfit for human life would be catastrophic, no? Not all environmental catastrophes would mean all humans on this planet die, I will concede that, but it seems you are arguing over the wrong aspect here.
I will argue that nuclear power is a good idea whether or not CAGW exists. If CAGW does exist then anyone convinced of its existence should also support nuclear power. In my mind anyone that believes CAGW exists AND that we cannot use nuclear power to stop it has a very messed up set of priorities.
If CAGW is going to put multiple major cities under water from sea level rise, induce resource wars, create "climate refuges", then I'd expect support for nuclear power even if that means having to deal with another Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island every decade or so.
Nuclear power is too expensive to save lives?
I understand that lives cost money, we cannot spend infinite funds to save a life because that money could be used to feed, clothe, shelter so many. By some measures the deaths caused by nuclear is half that of wind and a quarter that of solar. Since it is might be illogical to hold US nuclear power to the standards of that in other nations we could base this on US deaths alone in which the difference is by a factor of thousands.
You won't pay more money on electricity to save thousands of American lives every year? Who's the heartless people now? Is it the people that want to save lives and clean the air with nuclear power, or those willing to see many thousands of people in the energy sector die from industrial accidents related to wind and solar energy?
The reason it hasn't been disproved is only because nothing has contradicted it yet and the models have been changing year after year as more is understood about sea currents, cloud formation and a pile of other things.
That's not my question. My question is, what would be something that disproves CAGW? Your comment that nothing has disproved it yet because the models get updated is on the very edge of saying that nothing can disprove it. We should see some global warming being explained as mere random variation, caused by non-human activity, or possibly adjust the global warming trend down just a bit.
What we see from IPCC reports and the like is that they will admit to a slowing in the global warming trend but they will still predict the same total warming in a given amount of time. It seems nothing good can happen, or even anything neutral, it must all be bad and humans have caused it.
You are blaming scientists for dumbed down soundbites from politicians and economists.
Then the scientists need to correct the soundbites from the politicians. If I were misquoted, my work used to support a conclusion I did not believe in, and done so in a way that was so public and influential on public policy as a report on global warming then I'd do what I could to make it known. There could be a lot of reasons why these scientists are silent but not all of them can be so silenced. Someone should be speaking out and so far it's been scientists claiming CAGW is not a thing, not those saying that CAGW is still a thing but they've been misrepresented.
So some of those "CAGW types" really are building nukes.
Those people I have no real arguments with. I can argue details if they'd like but I've learned to stay quiet so long as they act in a way not contradictory with my beliefs. I don't just mean my beliefs on CAGW but on politics, energy policy, etc.
It's the people that think we can save the world with windmills, solar panels, and wishful thinking that will get us all killed.
Farming is a business and while driving a tractor is part of the job it is actually a very small part of it. I grew up on a farm and while younger I had a view of what Dad did as largely that of driving a tractor because that is mostly what I saw him do during the summer. As I got older I realized what made the difference between a successful farmer and a not so successful one. What farming is about is managing resources.
One resource is money. Decisions have to be made on what needs to be bought, what kind, how much, at what price, etc. Land needs to be managed. What crops should be planted in a field, what variety, how much fertilizer, what kind of herbicide, etc. Tractors, buildings, and other assets need to be repaired or replaced.
There is a long process to planting a field that starts when the harvest is over. Contracts for fertilizer and seed need to be negotiated and signed. Equipment from the harvest need to be stored in the sheds for the winter, and in a way to make them easily accessible for the planting. If there is a business case for a new piece of equipment this needs to be done in the fall and winter, because once the spring planting starts its real hard to find time to stop and shop for a new tractor.
A similar process takes place for the harvest. Weeks before the crops are due to be harvested the combine needs to be checked out, fired up, lubed, and if anything is found broken then parts need to be ordered. The corn dryer will also need to be checked out, it will be fired up, any frayed wiring replaced, motors lubricated, augers put in place, fuel ordered, and contracts for selling the harvest negotiated and signed.
People might automate the tractor driving but that's what farmers do for fun.
The fact that the DoD has declared that resource wars (over water and oil) will be the biggest military threat to the US in the next 50 years?
I'm not arguing that the DOD got this wrong. I'm arguing that if CAGW is truly a threat to humanity then all options must be explored, not all options except nuclear power.
I saw some very interesting people speaking on this topic from recorded presentations on Youtube. The DOD, and the US Navy in particular, are very interested in addressing a potential threat to the world's oil supply. The USN is fighting hard for more nuclear powered ships. The USN has been doing research on synthesizing aircraft fuel from seawater and nuclear power. The USAF and USN have been testing bio-fuels in their cargo planes, and if this proves successful this research will continue with other aircraft. The US Army has been using an 80% bio-diesel blend for years in their vehicles on domestic bases. The USMC and US Army have been funding research in solar panels that can be used on forward operating bases to reduce demand for diesel used in generating electricity.
If anyone is working on this problem the right way it is the DOD. The people that are doing it the wrong way are ignoring the energy potential from nuclear power.
Trump supports the military, supports expanding nuclear power, but is skeptical about CAGW. Even though the CAGW people hate him for being a "denier" he's also dong all the right things to actually fix the problem. If the CAGW people would actually stop protesting and shitting on police cars just long enough to think through what Trump has offered they might actually, though no doubt grudgingly, find him not all that bad on policy.
Unfortunately, nuclear power is the most expensive electricity. High cost, long lead times, unresolved problems with design and waste. Not a good option. Nuclear only gets built with massive subsidies and public liability for cleanup and accidents.
Wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner.
Again, if you fear this more than global warming then I have to conclude that global warming is not a threat.
I thought that global warming was supposed to make the entire earth unfit for human life. Even if we can conclude that building up more nuclear power results in more accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, then I assume that is a better alternative than the extinction of our species.
You seem to assume that we've learned nothing from past nuclear accidents, that these unresolved issues with nuclear power cannot ever be resolved, and that number of dead people from wind and solar do not count.
Nuclear power is safer per TWh produced than wind and solar. (That number of dead includes the deaths from mining the uranium, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, not just on site industrial and radiation hazards.) I thought the goal was to save lives. If the goal is saving lives then nuclear power is the best option we have available right now. If the goal is not saving lives then what is it?
-20 deg C from October to May.
Wind-turbine lubricants freeze at -1 deg C.
That's why all the new wind mills have lubricant heaters. Once the wind is blowing at sufficient speed the heaters are turned off and the friction of the bearings is more than enough to keep them warm. I'm surprised you don't know this. Of course the heaters add to material and operating costs but that is more than compensated by the increased output from year around operation.
Getting nuclear plants online can take 30 years.
Actually it's more like 40 years, at least in the USA. Trump supports nuclear power though, expect that to get down to 2 years real quick.
Likely Finland will buy electricity form the EU and Russia as long as EU exists which may be for another 12 to 24 months.
Finland buys a lot of coal and natural gas from Russia. Expect them to build up more hydro, wind, and nuclear power to replace the coal and natural gas they are abandoning. At some point I'd expect them to sell electricity to Russia.
Yet another nation announces abandoning coal, a nation with ample hydro resources, dropping prices for oil and natural gas, wind getting cheaper, and likely a shrinking electricity demand. Moving from coal now effectively costs nothing and would likely have happened anyway because of economic forces. They announce this anyway to look good to the CAGW crowd even though it seems few people even fear CAGW any more.
It also creates the illusion of a victory for the CAGW crowd where there was none. I'm sure lobbying from the CAGW people had an effect on the choice to make this announcement, but very little on the choice to abandon coal.
I'm skeptical of CAGW because the few predictions made from global warming models proved true. I must ask those in the CAGW crowd, what kind of evidence would disprove AGW in your mind? CAGW is a theory, if we keep releasing CO2 into the atmosphere then really bad things will happen. It's possible that bad things happen because of something else. It is possible that continued CO2 release will do nothing to the climate.
If the answer is that nothing could disprove CAGW then it's not a scientific theory any more, it's a religion.
I'll go along with abandoning fossil fuels so long as nuclear power is part of what replaces it. Wind and solar are too expensive and unreliable to replace coal. Technological or infrastructure development might make it cheaper but does nothing to address the intermittent power production problems. Adding storage to the grid to address the intermittent power problem adds cost. Nuclear power is reliable, inexpensive, safe, and exists now.
I find these announcements to abandon coal so far to be meaningless and unimpressive. What would impress me as a real advancement in the lobbying effort from CAGW people is an announcement to build up nuclear power. This seems unimaginable to many since nuclear power is for some reason a greater threat to humanity than CAGW. I must conclude CAGW is nothing to fear if nuclear power is to remain off the table as a possible solution.
I'll play nice with the CAGW people because I believe much like they do that coal is a poor source of energy. Where I have a problem is if this demand to abandon coal coincides with a demand that nuclear power cannot replace it. Without coal or nuclear power we'll all be in the dark, cold and hungry.
If any of you CAGW types want to convince me that CAGW is real then demanding nuclear power would go a long way in convincing me of the threat it poses. At a minimum it would show me that your belief in CAGW is more than just virtue signalling and/or jumping on the bandwagon.
Just because you *can* charge the plates in seconds doesn't mean you have to.
That's true but since we already have batteries that can do that I fail to see any advantage to this technology. That's not saying there isn't a useful place for this technology, it's just not something that can allow anyone to charge their cell phone in seconds and run all week.
To keep the risks of arcing and electrocution low the voltages of a device would have to be in the tens of volts. I suspect that USB-C is limited to 20 volts for this reason. The same likely goes for the Firewire limit of 30 volts, automotive systems at a nominal 12 volts (which is more like 13.8 or 14.2 volts), most household thermostats at 30 volts, and so on.
When it comes to keeping the wires light, flexible, and cheap that means using copper or aluminum at small gauges. I keep some wire around for such things where it's about 16AWG on the big side, and something like 24 AWG on the small side. Those are good for max current in the range of 5 amps to 0.5 amps. Any bigger than than and they start to get heavy and stiff, even when using finely stranded wire.
So if practical considerations on conductors leaves one with the limits of 20 volts and 5 amps, like USB-C does, then going to a new technology for energy storage that can exceed this is unnecessary.
There are people in other posts that point out it is possible to use a cradle of some sort instead of a cable to allow for higher voltages and higher currents while keeping it safe. This then gets into regulatory territory where laws specify things like if a device uses voltages above a specified level then it must adhere to certain safety standards, such as double insulation, shielding, grounding, circuit breakers, arc fault detection, and perhaps more. There is also the problem that if a cradle is used then the size and shape of the phone is constrained by the cradle. I cannot imagine such a cradle being very successful even if it did in fact allow for charge times in seconds. Most people will sleep for several hours every day and simply plug in their phone to recharge every night, moving away from a perfectly suitable connector for this (like Lightning, USB-C or micro-B, or barrel connector) to a proprietary cradle adds no convenience and potentially considerable monetary cost.
The applications given for this technology, phones, electric vehicles, and wearable electronics, are actually poor uses for it. Or rather, existing technologies work just as well. I would expect this technology to be adopted only if it offers some sort of cost savings, but that was not one of the claims offered.
NASA doesn't develop the satellites. They might draw up some specifications, perhaps even do some of the design work, but the real work is done by private contractors.
When it comes to launching satellites NASA isn't the only game in town any more. Many nations have launch capability, NOAA can contract them. This contracting to other nations is something that even NASA has had to do so it's not unprecedented. We also see private space launch capability now. These facilities might be on NASA owned land right now but that doesn't have to remain either.
Also, if weather satellites are so important to NOAA then maybe the federal government should allow NOAA to operate their own space program. Transfer some of the people and assets from NASA and let NASA focus on space exploration while NOAA does the Earth facing stuff. That's not saying NASA can't still have some Earth orbit capability, or even look at the weather, but it may be a good idea to have NOAA be able to operate independently of NASA so NASA can focus on going beyond orbit.
Do you realize that a 330 amp cable would have to be larger than a garden hose? While you are out this Black Friday at Best Buy shopping for Christmas gifts go wander over to the kitchen appliance section of the store. Next to the ovens there should be a section where they sell the plugs for these ovens. Look at the size of the plug and the wire. These wires are made to handle only 50 or 60 amps. A 300 amp cable would have to be much larger, with a plug also big enough to handle that current and not melt down.
Now imagine having to carry this 300 amp charging cable with you so you can charge up your phone while traveling. That won't fit in your pocket any more.
Forget that even, just imagine having to plug your phone into a standard 120V 15A wall outlet. Those cables you use to plug your computer into the wall is now your cell phone charger cable. How big would your phone have to be to accommodate the connector that is so common on desktop computers?
I'm afraid we'll just have to put up with chargers operating in the 100 watt range, like USB-C with 20V @ 5A, and the charging times that gives us.
That's an interesting claim, that we'd simply charge our cars with 10kV supplies. Protecting the end user is only one of the worries. At those voltages, especially with direct current, arcing is a real hazard. At 10kV the conductors in air would have to be at least 4 inches apart to keep from arcing, and that's with little to no extra safety factor. I simply cannot imagine a connector carrying that kind of voltage being something that any regulatory agency would allow to be handled like we handle gasoline pumps now. We're talking "wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole" kind of stuff here.
Even if we assume the connector to the car, with 10kV @ 100A, is something that could be considered practical there is still the matter of what happens inside the car. To maintain this size of conductor and still be made of cheap aluminum or copper the voltages would have to remain in the kV range inside the car, that's not going to happen. If stepped down to something in the hundreds of volts the conductors get very large or very hot. If some exotic material is used that has a lower resistance and/or can safely handle temperatures that would melt aluminum then the car gets real expensive.
So, take your pick. Is this car going to run at arc inducing voltages? Will it run at molten aluminum temperatures? Will it cost a fortune? I guess that there is another option, make it large enough to carry the weight of the conductors, to dissipate the heat safely, be made of cheap and common materials, and operate at reasonably safe voltages.
There is a reason electric drive trains are really popular for things like trains, forklifts, and such, heavy and slow is something of an advantage there. Not so great for passenger vehicles.
I'm afraid we will be stuck with electric cars that need many hours to charge.
That's enough power to get you 400A at the 4V required to charge a standard phone battery even after accounting for conversion loss.
How large of a conductor would the wire have to be to safely carry 400 amps? According to the National Electrical Code it would be something like an inch in diameter.
There's some serious practical limits on the sizes of conductors for handheld devices. Something that can carry 400 amps of current, with feed and return lines, insulation, safety ground, etc. to make a cable would be the size of a fire hose. The connector would have to be even larger.
Even if we assume we are using this technology for something like electric cars, where such large connectors might be much more practical, there are limits to the voltage. The prongs on an electrical plug are insulated by air. To keep the prongs from arcing continuously from excessive voltage the breakdown voltage of air cannot be exceeded along with a considerable safety factor.
A battery that charges in seconds and last for days is simply impractical unless one is talking about very low voltages and power consumption.
He has NO clue what abilities of the President are, the powers that come with job or even what the job entails.
Remember that as POTUS he is the de facto head of his party. Republicans control the House, Senate, and many state governments. If he wants to make it good business to build factories in the USA then he's in a good position to do so. As a now former CEO he should understand that there are a lot of things outside of his control but he had a lot of influence on people in his company, on his past customers, current and past suppliers, upon which he can rely to make a lot of things go his way. He can use his influence as the head of the Republican party to get laws passed, his power as POTUS to enact and execute laws, and his experience in business to make the sale to other business people.
When Trump talks business I tend to believe him. When he talks about things he is much less experienced with then I'm much less likely to believe any of his promises. That's when he should rely on his VP, military advisors, cabinet members, etc., and have them speak for the executive branch and/or GOP.
When Trump started his campaign he was out of control. He was often disrespectful, loud, and long winded. I noticed a big change in his demeanor about the time of his second debate. He calmed down, became more pensive and reserved, and generally became "presidential". I realize he's slipped up a few times since then but I expect him to grow into the role.
At least I hope that he'll grow into his new role as POTUS because if he doesn't then the next four years will be "interesting".
Oh, and about this comment:
He's never even read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, nor does he have a clue about the history of this country or the world.
I believe that he's grabbing up GOP governors to positions in his administration because he realizes he needs people with experience in government administration to help him out here. He will do his homework, including reading the Constitution, because that is what successful business people do. He's been running international corporations for a very long time, I think he's got an idea on how the world works. What he doesn't know he'll have to learn on the job like every other POTUS before him did.
Call me a GOP shill if you like, I don't care. I'm trying to be realistic here.
Speaking of being realistic...
I guess I'll get to see what it was like living in the 40's and 50's for 4 years. Fortunately I'm a white man. I feel bad for all the women and other races living in America though.
For someone that just pointed out the constitutional limits on POTUS just how do you expect Trump to make the USA worse for women and minorities? Is he going to single-handedly reinstate segregated schools? Revoke women's right to vote? I think you need to read the Constitution.
It doesn't follow that they offer a superior product to their competitors. What it tells you is they are deliberately over-priced and under-delivered. And what you've bought into is snake-oil.
I believe you've misunderstood what the products are in the examples you gave.
You're seriously expecting me to believe that fossil fuel companies are bad at making money ?
No, I expect you to believe that they are very good at making money. If they honestly believe that there are alternatives that can conceivably compete with their existing business then they are going to invest in it, not try to kill it off.
Politicians cost money. A viable alternative to fossil fuels makes money. If an oil and coal baron sees that something else that can make more money, especially with the customers they already have, then they are going to invest in that business. If a utility is in the business of making electricity and wind is cheaper than coal then they will build windmills, because demand tends to increase and things wear out. Rather than sink money in maintaining the coal plant a smart business would invest in the cheaper alternative.
Since utilities invest in wind power only so much as governments subsidize it then I must conclude that wind is not competitive with coal. If it was then the utilities would take the government subsidy, build the windmills, and let the coal plant rust away. Something is keeping them from abandoning the coal plants and you seem to know why but fail to understand the magnitude of the problem. Wind is not reliable but coal is. The utilities cannot abandon the coal plants because doing so puts their ability to keep customers at risk. People don't like it when the power goes out and if that happens often enough they will switch to a utility that offers reliable power. Energy storage and smart grids cost money, and those are required technologies to make wind a viable alternative to coal. Therefore wind is more expensive than coal despite what your charts tell you.
So the whole time we were talking about power production - and when you lose the argument you suddenly switch the topic vehicle fuel - which is ironic because there the alternative is already on the market, new companies are investing in it and the current companies ARE already investing in it as well - and have vehicles using it. The alternative for vehicles is electricity.
I thought the argument was to eliminate all carbon based fuels and so I used fuel oil and other liquid fuel as an example and/or how to address one aspect of the problem.
There is no such thing as a renewable fuel for an internal combustion engine - the very concept would violate the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass. What you can do is use an electric car and charge it from renewable sources.
That is either a vary narrow definition of a renewable fuel or you have just told the entire fuel ethanol and bio-diesel industries that they do not exist.
But we were never talking about vehicles - which are unique among fossil fuels, we were discussing electricity production.
So just shift my example from vehicles to power generation. Sell this alternative as a means to run small campsite generators, there's a market. Sell it to small physical plants where they burn whatever it is you want to sell to heat and light buildings and small campuses. As infrastructure and technology develops move up to municipal power. The US federal government can't say a whole lot about the fuels a city burns, they have a certain level of autonomy over federal laws. Or, again, do it in any of a number of countries that would love to get in the energy business. You say that big oil buys these government people off, well I doubt that they can buy them all off and if you can show your fuel is cleaner and cheaper than the coal and oil people then you can use each installation as not only a customer but as sales people for the next sale.
That's why it hasn't - oil companies couldn't prevent electric cars from appearing. Right now the upfront costs is still counting against them. Though they cost less than comparable cars over their lifetime (and that's WITHOUT counting externalities) - people still balk at the upfront cost. But then, cars are not energy sources - they are energy CONSUMERS. We were discussing power plants.
Here's a news flash for you, power plants are energy consumers AND energy producers. They need fuel to produce that electricity. This may not be in the strictest sense of say cutting down trees for burning. This might be an analogy of how we use thorium as "fuel" in a fission reactor and "burn" it for heat, and then we have to dispose of the fission product "ash", which hopefully involved extracting medical isotopes so I can get my bone scan next month.
All I know is that you are not making much sense, dismissing my argument because you fail to see the analogy, and seem to have a rather messed up idea on how "renewable" is defined. I think you may be drunk. But then maybe I'm drunk. I don't care, I'm going to bed now.
When I think of an OS that makes it easy to switch from one I have used before the UI is just one of many things I consider. The article mentions some scripting languages that are supported out of the box, a few applications that are included, and how it's got a great kernel and package manager but those are really important only to software developers and the like.
What I'd think people that are switching operating systems would be concerned about are things like being able to read their existing media and files, has drivers/utilities for their peripherals (like a printer/scanner/fax MFD), can connect to their network (wired, wireless, whatever DSL/cable/satellite/dial-up modem they might have), and probably most importantly can run the programs they are used to and/or invested a lot of money into. There was a brief mention of supporting graphical hardware, and being able to play MP3 files but not much else.
For long time users of computers they will have a stockpile of older files and potentially software they'd like to access even on a new system. This computing inertia has been a big reason why Microsoft has been so successful, people can move from one version to the next and not worry too much about losing the ability to do things as they did before. This is especially true for technologies like VirtualPC and Boot Camp that allow people to run their old OS on their new computer alongside the new OS. (I realize the two technologies I mention don't do exactly the same thing but it does allow one to run an older Windows OS relatively painlessly and run some other OS with little difficulty for people that wish to do so.)
Fedora is much like any other Linux based OS I assume, so I assume it can run VirtualBox. WINE is probably available too. I assume it can at least read NTFS and HFS volumes, even if writing is not available the ability to read is huge. I assume it runs a few nice web browsers, office productivity suites, and e-mail programs too. I'd like to hear about those. I'm sure access to games is important to a lot of people so adding that would be a good idea but it won't be much of a selling point to people like me or for corporations.
I know some of this stuff because I'm a regular user of Linux, Mac, and Windows but honestly I don't know a whole lot about what a recent version of Linux might do to help me ditch one of my non-Linux OSes. I use my Mac for e-mail and web browsing, Linux for writing code, and Windows to run Office. I don't really try to do away with any one OS because I literally have a dozen computers in my basement, I have options.
If someone wants to sell me an OS as an alternative to MacOS or Windows then they will have to try harder. I believe I am not alone in this.
Your argument for anything other than nuclear power still breaks down to finding some new technology. Until this technology for smart grids and grid level storage exists we are left with nuclear power, expensive energy, or coal.
Carbon taxes only hurt the effort. First it increases the costs to build the coal alternatives, they still need energy to do stuff until this new thing comes online. Carbon taxes create an incentive for the government to keep coal burning. Governments don't like to see tax revenue decrease, so they'll do what they can to keep the coal burning. Carbon taxes ultimately don't fix anything, the cost to society as a whole is increased because now energy just cost more. All the taxes do is move things around a bit to disguise the fact that everyone is poorer from the taxes, including the people with the solar panels on their roof.
The profits you can protect by keeping renewables out exceed what you can make from investing in them if you're a fossil fuel company - because keeping them out means that billions of dollars you have invested in existing infrastructure and mining rights and equipment do not have to be abandoned. Any fossil fuel company switching to renewables would first have to suffer a loss equal to practically their entire nett worth - then the cost of investing, before they make any profit. Only new companies can reasonably be expected to invest in renewables because they don't have all those existing assets they would need to liquidate for no return.
That would only be true if the fossil fuel alternative could be produced at a quantity comparable with current fossil fuel output and build the infrastructure to do so nearly overnight.
This shift in fuels also requires people to accept this new fuel. I'm not putting a "gasoline alternative" in my truck even if it costs half as much because I don't know if it will ruin my engine. I want to hear from Ford that my engine will burn this stuff without damage because I can buy a lot of $50 tanks of gas if it means I don't have to worry about replacing the engine.
Even if we ignore the over the road vehicles there are a lot of airplanes and ships that burn fossil fuels. No airline is going to switch until its been tested because that is millions of dollars and a lot of lives at stake. This is assuming the FAA and whatever other government agency that regulates such things allow it.
The oil companies have nothing to worry about and they know it. The typical lifespan of a large vehicle like an airplane or ship is about 30 years. Even the typical passenger car lasts 10 years. If some magical oil alternative showed up tomorrow then we'd still be burning a lot of oil for decades. This is with or without the interference of the oil companies.
I just don't understand how any oil company lobbying can prevent an alternative from appearing. The alternative fuel people can start small and create a market in non-critical uses. Create a fuel that can run things like R/C cars, garden tools, camping lanterns, or off road vehicles. What kind of government intervention would prevent this? The oil companies can lobby all they like, it's not keeping things like olive oil lamps off the market. Once the fuel is proven for those things then move to bigger markets, like motor boats and construction vehicles. After that then get an automotive manufacturer on board. It doesn't have to be in the USA even, none of this does. Do it in India or something. You can't imagine some foreign government salivating over the potential tax income if a fossil fuel alternative was made in their borders? Oil companies can buy a lot of influence, but they'd have to by off every nation world wide for the plan you propose to work.
If the technology existed to replace fossil fuels then we'd know about it real quick, as would the oil companies. At that point the oil companies can make an orderly transition to the new fuel because it would be in their interests to do so. The alternative is to buy the silence of everyone that knows of this technology, and do so indefinitely, and not even the oil companies can spend enough money to do that.
Yeah, you've never looked at any economic studies on the subject.
I have looked at some economic studies and I concluded that any reduction in carbon output that does not include nuclear power is a drop in the ocean or economically unfeasible.
Energy consumption is pretty inflexible, raising the price by taxation will not reduce demand by much. All a carbon tax will do is make people poorer and government bigger. Decades of ever increasing efficiency demands means that there is not much room left to improve efficiency. Cutting energy use will mean reduced standard of living. This means replacing carbon based energy with something else if we want to reduce carbon output. Bio-fuels are a dead end because we simply cannot grow enough bio-mass, at least not with current technology and infrastructure. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. are expensive, unreliable, and/or geography dependent. That leaves us only with nuclear or some unforeseen leap in technology.
I took a look at your links and saw no mention of nuclear power. That's not saying they didn't consider it but by not mentioning it makes me wonder if they did. All too often I see the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmists backing us into an impossible corner by denying the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power. That leaves us with the very expensive unreliable energy sources or wishful thinking of some fantasy technology that will save us in the next five years. That is assuming we even have five years to fix this.
I find the CAGW arguments lacking and leaving me wondering if this can be nearly as bad as they claim. This is especially true if they say nuclear power is not to be part of the solution. If nuclear power is to be feared more than CAGW then I must conclude that CAGW is nothing to be feared. If CAGW is to be feared then nuclear power must be considered, and in a big way. Due to the operational lifespans of the typical coal and nuclear power plant we'd need to be building something like a new gigawatt scale power plant every week in the world if we are going to have carbon free energy. Maybe it's two per week, maybe its two per month, but something about that scale of nuclear build out is going to be needed to make any difference in carbon output.
If the idea of another nuclear power plant going on line every week makes you uncomfortable then you are going to be uncomfortable one way or another. Our choices are carbon based fuel, energy scarcity, or nuclear power. Anyone offering a fourth option did not do an economic study on the subject.