I plan to protect our reserve agricultural land--land on which we pay farmers to not farm--by placing non-permanent (no paving, no poured foundation) solar installations.
Have you seen what happens to farmland that gets no sun? I have, it turns to sand.
I remember growing up on the farm and Dad went to build a new machine shed. I knew nothing of how one was built as the sheds we had up until then were built before I was born. I remember that in the existing sheds there was a fine sand that made the floor, I thought that was put there so there was a clear surface for the machines. I saw the shed go up but no trucks to bring in the sand. I was confused. It didn't take long for the grass inside to die and whither away, and the black fertile soil turn to sand. I learned then where the sand came from.
That CRP land is still maintained, just no crop is taken from it. For land to "rest" means it's got a coverage of some kind of plant life but the nutrients are not removed in the form of crop and chaff.
That's another thing that comes to mind, this nonsense of "agricultural waste" for cellulosic ethanol. What do people think farmers do with the corn stalks now? Do they think it gets hauled away on big trucks to landfills? No, it does not. It's used as cattle bedding, it's spread on the ground in cattle sheds to give them a soft, warm, dry, place to stay. After they've shit on it enough it's hauled out to the fields as fertilizer and erosion control.
If you cover fertile land with solar panels the plants that hold the soil in place will die. Without those plants to block the wind, and the roots to hold the soil down, it blows away in the wind and washes away in the rain. After you take those solar panels away you'll have nothing but a rutted sandlot.
This is why central planning of an economy will never work, we'll have government know-it-alls telling farmers that have lived on the same land for 100 years on how to best manage their crop. Do you want to see another 1930s style dust bowl and economic collapse? Go let the government decide how to run things.
If the government was in charge of the Sahara Desert we'd have a shortage of sand in less than a decade.
I know you're a nuke monomaniac, but mandating one form of power plant is not a good idea.
Where did I say anything about mandating anything? I want people to have a choice. That's the whole point, choice. Unless I've missed something we will see ships propelled by one of three things right now, wind, fuel oil, and nuclear. I'm sure someone will show an experimental solar powered ship but if someone is going to cross the ocean with cargo there's really only three choices. We've mandated that people cannot choose nuclear. Fuel oil dominates, not because we want to pollute the environment but because it makes economic sense. If we tax ourselves into using windjammers then we've really hit a new low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Use taxes to represent externalities, and let the market figure out how it wants to handle CO2 reduction.
Okay, so we tax fuel oil and the market figures out that nuclear power is the best way to reduce CO2 and still offer inexpensive and speedy (for a boat anyway) shipping. But we just removed that option by mandate? What happens then? It's no longer a tax to let the market decide, it's just a tax. Maybe that's the point, the government gets to raise taxes while making the people feel righteous about it.
Carbon taxes can be combined with cuts in other taxes to remain revenue-neutral, and to make sure the poorer people in general don't suffer.
Not only have you now just imposed a tax on goods shipped by sea you've now created a form of government dependence on the poor. We've now removed some of their choices too. Now they have the "choice" of going to the government to buy the products they need, or... there is no choice, they are dependent on the government. The government now "owns" the poor and can dictate their "choices" through these subsidies.
Do you think people honestly "choose" to pollute the environment? We're in this mess precisely because the government has mandated, taxed, and spent us here.
We could discuss the proper regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, but that's another discussion.
I'd like to discuss regulation. What we have is not regulation, we have a ban. I'd like to see some regulation, because that means that there is a civilian nuclear marine propulsion industry to regulate.
Are you contending that, left to its own devices, industry will to become cleaner and cheaper out of the goodness of their hearts?
No, I believe that industry will become cheaper and cleaner because people don't like doing business with businesses that offer expensive and polluting products when they have the freedom to choose cheaper and cleaner ones.
The government is the "commons" in this tragedy. Did you even read the web page you linked to?
The company is developing a reusable megarocket-- called the Big Falcon Rocket, or BFR -- that would fly astronauts to Mars, the moon and other deep-space destinations.
Right. Sure. That "F" stands for "Falcon". If you say so.
I say let them compete for this totally arbitrary goal. I'd rather see two private US companies compete for bragging rights like this. No matter which company loses it's the American people, and the whole world, that win. I wish them both well, but I can't wish them both success as that is impossible. There can be only one winner in a competition like this.
I have a Remington 870 loaded with bird shot for those. Microwaves don't work on those saucers at all unless they've got that old style gold paint trim on the edge to get them hot enough to crack while still flying through the air. Most saucers these days are microwave safe, they changed the chemistry in that paint now or something, best you'll get is a saucer that's a bit blackened and a chip from hitting the dirt. If you want to bust up some old saucers you've sent flying just use the shotgun. Trying to microwave them is fun and all but it gets expensive after a while from having to paint them with a metallic paint yourself. Especially if you are trying to save time with the kind in a spray can.
And people make fun of me for building my anti-ballistic missile system. You'll thank me for it after I save the west coast from the North Korean nuclear fallout.
If you want a sponge bath next then just ask nicely and wait. Maybe he'll be nice enough to sponge you off too when he's finished. His parents may be bed ridden so no need to be rude to the man.
No, it wouldn't. Just like how a mirror doesn't defeat a powerful enough laser, because some of the energy still gets through.
I'm assuming the people designing the weapon thought of this. The skin of the rocket will presumably act as a Faraday cage on it's own. It will attenuate the RF but not block it all. Assuming the microwave generator is powerful enough then no Faraday cage could be made thick enough to defeat it and still be able to launch.
If for some reason the North Koreans are able to defeat this system the US Navy has something like 50 ships floating about with anti-ballistic missile systems. If this microwave weapon fails we'll just launch some SM-3 missiles at it. These ships exist to defend the USA and its allies against a Russian attack of thousands of ICBMs, I'm pretty sure we have a few to spare to shoot down a North Korean missile if they are stupid enough to actually launch an attack.
I seem to recall a failed launch some time ago where the missile failed not long after leaving the launch pad. No real damage was done but speculation is that this was shot down by US forces, it was a "planned failure" so as to not get the US upset too much, or an attack on the missile by Japan that even the US was not (and perhaps is still not) aware of. If Japan or the US is in possession of fully functional ship borne laser systems it's not like a count of missiles still in their tubes will reveal such an attack.
But the ballistic missile is not ballistic until the engines finish propelling the warhead. During that time it needs it's electronics functional or it will not reach the target. That's why the weapon must be deployed within 700 miles of the launch site, to catch it while it's still under power. Beyond that range means the missile has gone ballistic, with a "B", and is no longer vulnerable to this weapon. That is unless the cruise missile doesn't just keep going towards it until they collide, which if the missile had enough fuel to do that kind of makes the whole microwave thing redundant.
The environmental impact of shipping a tonne of batteries from east Asia is the same as the impact of shipping a tonne of steel from east Asia.
If we tax carbon output in the USA, and China does not, then we'll see more steel being shipped from east Asia. We get to see more carbon emissions, both from production and transportation, and higher steel prices on top.
YAY!
Maybe, instead of taxing carbon and mandating the use of expensive and unreliable wind and solar, we allow industry the freedom to find their own ways to reduce carbon and the cost of energy. That means less CO2 output, cleaner air, higher wages, more jobs, and perhaps those ships start hauling steel from places that take clean air seriously (like the USA) to places that don't (like China). I know that there's one clean energy technology that's had it's nutsack nailed to the floor for 40 years. How about we stop taxing the poor and giving to the rich so they can buy new electric cars and let industry loose to make some clean energy? Can we at least try? Just for, I don't know, another 3 years or so? What's that you say?
The stupid "it takes carbon to make it" argument is a cookie-cutter way of trashing any manufactured product.
Well, it does take carbon to make stuff. So long as we power factories with coal and trucks with diesel fuel it takes carbon to make and move stuff. One argument I hear is that once we move to solar power and electric vehicles then the "it takes carbon" argument goes away. Well, we don't have widespread solar power and electric vehicles yet.
To get solar power takes carbon to make it. So, let's make that solar investment so the next generation is lower in carbon. That's fine, but what if we have an energy source that is even lower in carbon, costs less, and is available right now? Impossible? It's not. In fact this energy source is used right now to propel ships at sea. It's got a spotless safety record in the USA. The range and longevity of this ship propulsion system is incredible, 25 to 30 years on one filling is commonplace. We can expect 50 to 60 years on one fill in the next generation. So then why aren't we using it everywhere?
I guess it's because then the "greenies" wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Seems to me these people don't want to actually solve the problem. They just want to complain about the problem, complain about how no one in interested in fixing the problem, and if someone actually proposes a solution they complain about how this medicine is worse than the disease. Really? What could be worse than the end of human civilization? My guess is having nothing to complain about.
What I don't get is what you get out of your denialism.
What I don't get is the need for people to spread alarmism. I will gladly discuss the problem, and even more gladly discuss solutions. When I propose something I don't get something like, "I believe you are mistaken", or "That's interesting, can I hear more?" When I offer evidence I get accusations of lies, falsified data, and a bias source. As if such things are impossible on the side of alarmism.
Are you intellectually or emotionally not able to handle a future where climate change causes a lot of stress to our social, political, or economic systems?
I see. It's my inability to fathom a stressful future that's the problem. Why is it that if there is a claim of the possibility that the future will be just fine the alarmists don't express a feeling of relief. Wouldn't there at least be some expression of satisfaction of a job well done for averting the worst? Even if there is still more to do?
It's as if some people cannot fathom possibility that we've fixed the problem already, or perhaps we've been mistaken all along. It wouldn't be the first time science was wrong. I mean science is not done by consensus, it's done by trial and error. It shouldn't take 1000 scientists to prove something right or wrong, only one.
What is the draw of your denialism? It's really baffling to me.
What's the draw of your alarmism? I'm baffled as well.
I'll go along with the claims of CAGW as it does no real harm in itself to reduce CO2. I'd just like to see solutions that don't mean reversing the technological, societal, and economic progress we've made. If CAGW is the problem then let's make nuclear power part of the solution. Those that cannot fathom nuclear power as part of the solution are especially baffling. We have an energy source that is inexpensive, safe, reliable, and very low CO2. For some reason nuclear is a word that shall not be spoken. As if nuclear power is a greater threat than even CAGW.
If nuclear power is to be feared more than CAGW then we have nothing to discuss. If we can discuss things logically enough that nuclear power is on the table then we can discuss how to make the world better rather than just plugging our ears and scream at the other side.
Nope! The most expensive nuclear power costs lives, lots of them, by far more than residential solar, though of course, some roofers will die, this is an unfortunate reality, but they'll die installing roofs anyway. Can't have houses without roofing, not unless you want to make us all live in caves.
Prove it. Show me that nuclear is not safer than rooftop PV. Here's something that tells me nuclear is the safest energy source we have, safer than even rooftop solar. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
I've had people tell me in the past that this is not fair comparing deaths from rooftop solar to utility scale PV. That's true, it's just as unfair as comparing the costs in dollars between utility scale PV and rooftop PV. If you want to make the case that utility scale PV would be both cheaper AND safer than nuclear then I'll listen. Just don't tell me that rooftop PV is safer than nuclear because I know that's a lie.
Well, obviously we know you're wrong. In reality, there are a variety of means besides solar thermal that can store power.
Yes, there are ways to store solar energy than solar thermal. The problem I see is that this is the only storage means I've seen that has given real and actual costs of both collecting and storing the energy in a way that is even close to being something I can compare to nuclear. If we start talking about electrical storage, like pumped hydro or utility scale batteries, then we can use that same technology for things like load following on nuclear. Once we get past solar thermal storage then any other storage applies just as equally to address problems with coal and nuclear not load following, wind power being intermittent, or whatever else might come up for competitors to solar. Electrical storage is good for solar but it can also be good for nuclear.
If you want to go to utility battery storage then be prepared for it to be used against solar as much as for it.
Meanwhile, solar installations and wind farms are going up EVERY DAY.
Yes they are, and according to the experts they are doing so at a price higher than that of new nuclear and natural gas. The only reason these make business sense is because the government is forcing them by law to do so, not because it makes them money. We're seeing new nuclear getting built now too. You think that's because people are beating down doors to get them built? It think these anti-nuclear idiots are getting held back with the piles of money the utilities are saving on going nuclear instead of solar.
Nuclear installs? Nope! They aren't happening.
The NRC lists at least 20 license applications right now. We saw Watts Bar unit 2 go first critical last year. We are seeing two new reactors being built right now. I see hints of three, four, or five new plants breaking ground next year. It's happening.
Across the world, nuclear plants are over-budget, past schedule, and their companies are giving up on feeding the white elephant since the rest of us are finally realizing what failures they are.
I'm pretty sure that China is planning on 19 GW of new nuclear capacity in the next year or so, India plans 7 GW, and new plants are planned in Poland, Japan, South Korea, UAE, Indonesia, Egypt, and more.
Sadly, you're obviously too much of a jackdaw to do it.
I don't know what that means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. A jackdaw is a bird noted for being curious, so I'm too curious to look things up? That doesn't make sense.
Then that brings me back to the beginning of what you wrote.
Why? What will it tell us that we didn't already know?
So, you tell me to look things up because I'm ignorant but if I suggest the same to you then you merely claim you know it all already. Maybe you should actually read the report and learn something.
For a cleaner environment and zero carbon, we could take the opportunity to move from fossil to nuclear while Republicans are still in office. I seeno sign of such an initiative from Trump, though.
Give him time. It's not even been a year yet, he's got at least 36 more months to get things done. They'll be some elections that can move things along too. I'm not sure what's going on in Alabama and how that might help or hurt. Pretty sure that getting rid of Franken is a help, but an election there might hurt too. It's been 40 years of a near standstill on nuclear power, another 40 months wouldn't be all that bad if it means we get a nice foothold on future nuclear power from it. We're going to see primaries for 2018 within 40 weeks, can we wait that long to see some "initiative"?
Then the economics say no to rooftop solar and concentrated solar. The only solar cheaper than nuclear now is utility scale PV.
The only way it can compete in the current energy market is if the government wants to subsidize it with a lot of money.
You mean like how we've been subsidizing solar power with a lot of money? If the goal is low CO2 output and solar gets subsidized to reach that goal then why not include nuclear as well? Especially when nuclear is cheaper than rooftop solar in many cases.
Now it may be that we should be doing that in order to combat global warming but the politics aren't there yet.
We'll get there. The only way that I see nuclear power continuing to be problematic politically is for CAGW to be proven as false. If global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and caused by human activity, then we will get to nuclear power eventually. Wind and solar may be cheaper than nuclear now but we still have a lot of room to make nuclear cheaper, and not much left in making wind and solar cheaper.
Solar power isn't without it's political problems. People will point out that domestic cats kill far more birds than wind and solar but not all birds are threatened by cats, windmills, and solar collectors equally. Cats will hunt little songbirds but not eagles. Windmills and concentrated solar kill hundreds or thousands of already threatened eagles every year, cats do not. At some point something has to give here, politically speaking. I think nuclear power's future is looking pretty bright.
Lithium battery fires cannot be put out with ABC extinguisher.
That is a lie that a simple Google search could have shown. Lithium-ION batteries can be extinguished with common sodium carbonate (most kitchen or boat/auto class BC extinguishers) or dry chemical ABC extinguishers (mine have monoammonium phosphate, I assume this is common). Lithium-METAL battery fires might need class D fire extinguisher but not all class D fire extinguishers are for lithium fires. What many specialized lithium fire extinguishers will contain is sodium chloride (yep, common table salt), others will have some mix of materials that can stick to walls and such for more effective fire suppression.
I'm no fire expert but it looks like saying one should have a class D extinguisher for lithium battery fires is either bad advice or merely insufficient. For a small fire one would have from a portable electronic device I'd think a common boat/auto BC extinguisher would do just as well as any specialized extinguisher. Sodium bicarbonate might not be ideal for a lithium metal fire but the 3 or 5 pounds of material in a common extinguisher against a couple button cells would seem more than sufficient to me. Again, I'm no expert so it's possible I'm mistaken.
If fires from lithium-ion batteries concern you then a common class BC extinguisher is fine. If lithium metal batteries are a fire concern then think about how big that fire might be. Maybe just keep a box of table salt handy that you could get at any grocer for a buck or two just in case. If there is a concern of larger fires then get a proper extinguisher rated for specifically for lithium fires. Getting an extinguisher for other kinds of metals can mean doing no better than any other dry chemical extinguisher or possibly making the problem worse.
* Solar Thermal with Storage is a perfectly good alternative to Nuclear.
Yes it is. Although that even comes with caveats.
What bothers me about the continuous claims of how solar is cheaper therefore everyone should have solar panels on their rooftops. Not all solar is the same just like not all nuclear is Chernobyl and Fukushima.
But nuclear is dangerous! That's just like saying solar is cheap. When people say "solar" what do they mean? When people say nuclear what do they mean? If someone wants to say that nuclear is dangerous because of Fukushima and Chernobyl then I say we shouldn't build a nuclear power plant like we did 40 years ago. Problem solved, right? But nuclear is dangerous! What kind of nuclear? Plutonium? Uranium? Thorium? Are we talking about heavy water or light water? Solid, molten metal, molten salt, or gaseous fuels? This is all as important as distinguishing between rooftop solar, utility PV, and concentrated solar.
If someone tells me "solar is cheaper than nuclear" then I call them a liar because I can show that in fact most every form of solar cost just as much, or many times more, as most every form of nuclear power we have. Not only that but concentrated solar might work in parts of the USA but not others. You want that in Texas, Arizona, Hawaii, or whatever else is close to the 30th parallel then that will probably work just fine. You put that solar power close to the 45th parallel the math changes. If you want to tell me that solar is cheaper than nuclear at the 60th parallel then I'll suspect you've been off your meds.
I'm tired of hearing that the future of energy can only include wind and solar when the economics right now say otherwise. Can solar get cheaper? Sure. Nuclear can get cheaper too. Look at the numbers. An honest assessment shows we cannot rely on only wind and solar to get cheap, reliable, safe, and low CO2 energy. We need nuclear in there too, and for the short term at least a lot of natural gas too.
If we build an electrical grid with only "cheap" utility scale PV and windmills we are going to find out real quick that we'll need some very expensive storage and/or backup power from natural gas and oil. How much does that cost? Can concentrated solar with storage be a backup? Sure, but that costs more and then we're back to solar not being cheaper than nuclear any more. The article cites the Lazard report to make the case that wind and solar is cheaper than oil and coal but neglect to point out that this same report says that wind and solar cannot provide all of our energy needs, that wind and solar must be part of a mix of energy sources. What would those energy sources be?
Seems to me that this mix must include nuclear.
It sure would be nice if people that talk up wind and solar all the time would actually read the reports they cite and point out this very important detail. Leaving out this detail of needing some nuclear and natural gas is a lie by omission. Tell the whole story or expect to be called a liar.
How strong does the evidence have to be before Republicans believe there's a real problem?
Republicans? What of the Democrats? They keep screaming about the need to dispose of the nuclear waste from current nuclear power plants, and how we can't build new ones until we have a place to put it all. At the same time they've held up a perfectly viable storage site at Yucca Mountain.
I'll believe the Democrats are serious about a real global warming problem when they get serious about letting the USA build more nuclear power reactors. Forget that even. How about getting serious about shutting down the aging nuclear power we got? That's a lot of electricity capacity in nuclear power right now. They want a place to put that waste from decommissioning them? Then open up Yucca Mountain. If they want to replace that electricity generation capacity then we need to clear some serious land for those solar collectors and windmills. That means putting panels where the turtles crawl and windmill blades where the eagles fry... I mean fly.
We need energy. Fuck the eagles. I mean, not like literally or anything, but let them die. If these Democrats won't allow new nuclear then we are going to be killing a lot of eagles with windmills and solar collectors. That's fine by me but I'm sure a lot of people will be upset by that.
Which is it Democrats? Can we build some nuclear, wind, and solar? Or are we just all going to sit in the dark when the lights go out? Are the eagles so precious that we can't be around to appreciate them in the future? Eagles only have beauty and value because humans gave it to them. Beauty and value means nothing if there is no one to hold such concepts in their minds.
Blame the Republicans if you like but they are the ones keeping the coal and oil flowing, and the lights on, while the Democrats make up their mind on how to replace that coal and oil.
Go read the Lazard report. Sure we can make solar cheaper than nuclear, it just can't be on our rooftops. Again, go read the report.
The most expensive nuclear power is still cheaper than the cheapest residential solar installation. Rooftop solar on commercial and industrial rooftops is the same price as nuclear. The only kind of solar energy source we know of that can provide power through even a portion of the night is solar thermal with storage. The only kind of solar that is cheaper than nuclear is utility scale PV, and even then it's on par of costs with natural gas. Rooftop solar isn't even all that cheap compared to natural gas peak power generation, and you'll need a lot of that for when the sun goes down.
So, sure, let's use solar. It will only triple the cost of electricity, if we're lucky. Since natural gas peak power turbines burn three times the amount of gas for the same energy as gas combined cycle generation it's also quite possible using solar will do nothing to reduce carbon output. No reduction in CO2 output and triple the cost. Great idea... idiots.
If people want to talk about using wind, that's fine by me. It's costs is on par with natural gas and coal, just be prepared to burn natural gas in inefficient gas turbines for the times the wind isn't blowing. Combined the natural gas turbines and the windmills might be cheaper than nuclear but then your CO2 output is still going to be pretty high. Not near as high as coal, that's quite likely, but still much higher than nuclear.
Another thing I often hear is that solar will get cheaper. But when? Ten years? But I thought we had to do something NOW or we are all DOOOOOOMED!!!
If the goal is reducing CO2 output as low as we can, as quickly as we can, at the lowest costs, then nuclear will have to be part of the plan. It says so right in that Lazard report. Maybe its not spelled out that way, at least not in those exact words, but it's in the report.
Or we can just decide that if solar is going to be cheaper than nuclear in 2, 10, or 50 years and we have 100 years until certain doom unless we change our ways then fine, we can wait. If we must act now though then it's wind, nuclear, and natural gas. Sure, fine, go build your solar collectors out in the desert. I don't care so long as you aren't keeping people from building nuclear power at the same time.
Go look at the Lazard report. If you find something that contradicts my assessment then let me know, it's possible I missed something important.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't all those idling diesel engines just out of sight kind of spoil the experience?
I plan to protect our reserve agricultural land--land on which we pay farmers to not farm--by placing non-permanent (no paving, no poured foundation) solar installations.
Have you seen what happens to farmland that gets no sun? I have, it turns to sand.
I remember growing up on the farm and Dad went to build a new machine shed. I knew nothing of how one was built as the sheds we had up until then were built before I was born. I remember that in the existing sheds there was a fine sand that made the floor, I thought that was put there so there was a clear surface for the machines. I saw the shed go up but no trucks to bring in the sand. I was confused. It didn't take long for the grass inside to die and whither away, and the black fertile soil turn to sand. I learned then where the sand came from.
That CRP land is still maintained, just no crop is taken from it. For land to "rest" means it's got a coverage of some kind of plant life but the nutrients are not removed in the form of crop and chaff.
That's another thing that comes to mind, this nonsense of "agricultural waste" for cellulosic ethanol. What do people think farmers do with the corn stalks now? Do they think it gets hauled away on big trucks to landfills? No, it does not. It's used as cattle bedding, it's spread on the ground in cattle sheds to give them a soft, warm, dry, place to stay. After they've shit on it enough it's hauled out to the fields as fertilizer and erosion control.
If you cover fertile land with solar panels the plants that hold the soil in place will die. Without those plants to block the wind, and the roots to hold the soil down, it blows away in the wind and washes away in the rain. After you take those solar panels away you'll have nothing but a rutted sandlot.
This is why central planning of an economy will never work, we'll have government know-it-alls telling farmers that have lived on the same land for 100 years on how to best manage their crop. Do you want to see another 1930s style dust bowl and economic collapse? Go let the government decide how to run things.
If the government was in charge of the Sahara Desert we'd have a shortage of sand in less than a decade.
I know you're a nuke monomaniac, but mandating one form of power plant is not a good idea.
Where did I say anything about mandating anything? I want people to have a choice. That's the whole point, choice. Unless I've missed something we will see ships propelled by one of three things right now, wind, fuel oil, and nuclear. I'm sure someone will show an experimental solar powered ship but if someone is going to cross the ocean with cargo there's really only three choices. We've mandated that people cannot choose nuclear. Fuel oil dominates, not because we want to pollute the environment but because it makes economic sense. If we tax ourselves into using windjammers then we've really hit a new low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Use taxes to represent externalities, and let the market figure out how it wants to handle CO2 reduction.
Okay, so we tax fuel oil and the market figures out that nuclear power is the best way to reduce CO2 and still offer inexpensive and speedy (for a boat anyway) shipping. But we just removed that option by mandate? What happens then? It's no longer a tax to let the market decide, it's just a tax. Maybe that's the point, the government gets to raise taxes while making the people feel righteous about it.
Carbon taxes can be combined with cuts in other taxes to remain revenue-neutral, and to make sure the poorer people in general don't suffer.
Not only have you now just imposed a tax on goods shipped by sea you've now created a form of government dependence on the poor. We've now removed some of their choices too. Now they have the "choice" of going to the government to buy the products they need, or... there is no choice, they are dependent on the government. The government now "owns" the poor and can dictate their "choices" through these subsidies.
Do you think people honestly "choose" to pollute the environment? We're in this mess precisely because the government has mandated, taxed, and spent us here.
We could discuss the proper regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, but that's another discussion.
I'd like to discuss regulation. What we have is not regulation, we have a ban. I'd like to see some regulation, because that means that there is a civilian nuclear marine propulsion industry to regulate.
Are you contending that, left to its own devices, industry will to become cleaner and cheaper out of the goodness of their hearts?
No, I believe that industry will become cheaper and cleaner because people don't like doing business with businesses that offer expensive and polluting products when they have the freedom to choose cheaper and cleaner ones.
The government is the "commons" in this tragedy. Did you even read the web page you linked to?
The company is developing a reusable megarocket-- called the Big Falcon Rocket, or BFR -- that would fly astronauts to Mars, the moon and other deep-space destinations.
Right. Sure. That "F" stands for "Falcon". If you say so.
I say let them compete for this totally arbitrary goal. I'd rather see two private US companies compete for bragging rights like this. No matter which company loses it's the American people, and the whole world, that win. I wish them both well, but I can't wish them both success as that is impossible. There can be only one winner in a competition like this.
That's cute but I don't see how that describes a weapon system.
I get the impression that the military just grabs words out of a hat for the next weapon system and makes up an acronym to fit. I can do that too.
High
Energy
Radio
Output
Emitter
System
or
Weapon
Intercept for
Nuclear and
Non-nuclear
Enemy
Rockets
Who else wants to try? Here's a tough one: VICTORY
Maybe would actually work with flying saucers!
I have a Remington 870 loaded with bird shot for those. Microwaves don't work on those saucers at all unless they've got that old style gold paint trim on the edge to get them hot enough to crack while still flying through the air. Most saucers these days are microwave safe, they changed the chemistry in that paint now or something, best you'll get is a saucer that's a bit blackened and a chip from hitting the dirt. If you want to bust up some old saucers you've sent flying just use the shotgun. Trying to microwave them is fun and all but it gets expensive after a while from having to paint them with a metallic paint yourself. Especially if you are trying to save time with the kind in a spray can.
I mean, so I've heard.
And people make fun of me for building my anti-ballistic missile system. You'll thank me for it after I save the west coast from the North Korean nuclear fallout.
If you want a sponge bath next then just ask nicely and wait. Maybe he'll be nice enough to sponge you off too when he's finished. His parents may be bed ridden so no need to be rude to the man.
No, it wouldn't. Just like how a mirror doesn't defeat a powerful enough laser, because some of the energy still gets through.
I'm assuming the people designing the weapon thought of this. The skin of the rocket will presumably act as a Faraday cage on it's own. It will attenuate the RF but not block it all. Assuming the microwave generator is powerful enough then no Faraday cage could be made thick enough to defeat it and still be able to launch.
If for some reason the North Koreans are able to defeat this system the US Navy has something like 50 ships floating about with anti-ballistic missile systems. If this microwave weapon fails we'll just launch some SM-3 missiles at it. These ships exist to defend the USA and its allies against a Russian attack of thousands of ICBMs, I'm pretty sure we have a few to spare to shoot down a North Korean missile if they are stupid enough to actually launch an attack.
I seem to recall a failed launch some time ago where the missile failed not long after leaving the launch pad. No real damage was done but speculation is that this was shot down by US forces, it was a "planned failure" so as to not get the US upset too much, or an attack on the missile by Japan that even the US was not (and perhaps is still not) aware of. If Japan or the US is in possession of fully functional ship borne laser systems it's not like a count of missiles still in their tubes will reveal such an attack.
But the ballistic missile is not ballistic until the engines finish propelling the warhead. During that time it needs it's electronics functional or it will not reach the target. That's why the weapon must be deployed within 700 miles of the launch site, to catch it while it's still under power. Beyond that range means the missile has gone ballistic, with a "B", and is no longer vulnerable to this weapon. That is unless the cruise missile doesn't just keep going towards it until they collide, which if the missile had enough fuel to do that kind of makes the whole microwave thing redundant.
The environmental impact of shipping a tonne of batteries from east Asia is the same as the impact of shipping a tonne of steel from east Asia.
If we tax carbon output in the USA, and China does not, then we'll see more steel being shipped from east Asia. We get to see more carbon emissions, both from production and transportation, and higher steel prices on top.
YAY!
Maybe, instead of taxing carbon and mandating the use of expensive and unreliable wind and solar, we allow industry the freedom to find their own ways to reduce carbon and the cost of energy. That means less CO2 output, cleaner air, higher wages, more jobs, and perhaps those ships start hauling steel from places that take clean air seriously (like the USA) to places that don't (like China). I know that there's one clean energy technology that's had it's nutsack nailed to the floor for 40 years. How about we stop taxing the poor and giving to the rich so they can buy new electric cars and let industry loose to make some clean energy? Can we at least try? Just for, I don't know, another 3 years or so? What's that you say?
YES WE CAN!
I thought so.
Wait, what? I thought electric vehicles didn't have a transmission.
The stupid "it takes carbon to make it" argument is a cookie-cutter way of trashing any manufactured product.
Well, it does take carbon to make stuff. So long as we power factories with coal and trucks with diesel fuel it takes carbon to make and move stuff. One argument I hear is that once we move to solar power and electric vehicles then the "it takes carbon" argument goes away. Well, we don't have widespread solar power and electric vehicles yet.
To get solar power takes carbon to make it. So, let's make that solar investment so the next generation is lower in carbon. That's fine, but what if we have an energy source that is even lower in carbon, costs less, and is available right now? Impossible? It's not. In fact this energy source is used right now to propel ships at sea. It's got a spotless safety record in the USA. The range and longevity of this ship propulsion system is incredible, 25 to 30 years on one filling is commonplace. We can expect 50 to 60 years on one fill in the next generation. So then why aren't we using it everywhere?
I guess it's because then the "greenies" wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Seems to me these people don't want to actually solve the problem. They just want to complain about the problem, complain about how no one in interested in fixing the problem, and if someone actually proposes a solution they complain about how this medicine is worse than the disease. Really? What could be worse than the end of human civilization? My guess is having nothing to complain about.
What I don't get is what you get out of your denialism.
What I don't get is the need for people to spread alarmism. I will gladly discuss the problem, and even more gladly discuss solutions. When I propose something I don't get something like, "I believe you are mistaken", or "That's interesting, can I hear more?" When I offer evidence I get accusations of lies, falsified data, and a bias source. As if such things are impossible on the side of alarmism.
Are you intellectually or emotionally not able to handle a future where climate change causes a lot of stress to our social, political, or economic systems?
I see. It's my inability to fathom a stressful future that's the problem. Why is it that if there is a claim of the possibility that the future will be just fine the alarmists don't express a feeling of relief. Wouldn't there at least be some expression of satisfaction of a job well done for averting the worst? Even if there is still more to do?
It's as if some people cannot fathom possibility that we've fixed the problem already, or perhaps we've been mistaken all along. It wouldn't be the first time science was wrong. I mean science is not done by consensus, it's done by trial and error. It shouldn't take 1000 scientists to prove something right or wrong, only one.
What is the draw of your denialism? It's really baffling to me.
What's the draw of your alarmism? I'm baffled as well.
I'll go along with the claims of CAGW as it does no real harm in itself to reduce CO2. I'd just like to see solutions that don't mean reversing the technological, societal, and economic progress we've made. If CAGW is the problem then let's make nuclear power part of the solution. Those that cannot fathom nuclear power as part of the solution are especially baffling. We have an energy source that is inexpensive, safe, reliable, and very low CO2. For some reason nuclear is a word that shall not be spoken. As if nuclear power is a greater threat than even CAGW.
If nuclear power is to be feared more than CAGW then we have nothing to discuss. If we can discuss things logically enough that nuclear power is on the table then we can discuss how to make the world better rather than just plugging our ears and scream at the other side.
Fire them.
From a cannon.
Citation needed.
Nope! The most expensive nuclear power costs lives, lots of them, by far more than residential solar, though of course, some roofers will die, this is an unfortunate reality, but they'll die installing roofs anyway. Can't have houses without roofing, not unless you want to make us all live in caves.
Prove it. Show me that nuclear is not safer than rooftop PV. Here's something that tells me nuclear is the safest energy source we have, safer than even rooftop solar.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
I've had people tell me in the past that this is not fair comparing deaths from rooftop solar to utility scale PV. That's true, it's just as unfair as comparing the costs in dollars between utility scale PV and rooftop PV. If you want to make the case that utility scale PV would be both cheaper AND safer than nuclear then I'll listen. Just don't tell me that rooftop PV is safer than nuclear because I know that's a lie.
Well, obviously we know you're wrong. In reality, there are a variety of means besides solar thermal that can store power.
Yes, there are ways to store solar energy than solar thermal. The problem I see is that this is the only storage means I've seen that has given real and actual costs of both collecting and storing the energy in a way that is even close to being something I can compare to nuclear. If we start talking about electrical storage, like pumped hydro or utility scale batteries, then we can use that same technology for things like load following on nuclear. Once we get past solar thermal storage then any other storage applies just as equally to address problems with coal and nuclear not load following, wind power being intermittent, or whatever else might come up for competitors to solar. Electrical storage is good for solar but it can also be good for nuclear.
If you want to go to utility battery storage then be prepared for it to be used against solar as much as for it.
Meanwhile, solar installations and wind farms are going up EVERY DAY.
Yes they are, and according to the experts they are doing so at a price higher than that of new nuclear and natural gas. The only reason these make business sense is because the government is forcing them by law to do so, not because it makes them money. We're seeing new nuclear getting built now too. You think that's because people are beating down doors to get them built? It think these anti-nuclear idiots are getting held back with the piles of money the utilities are saving on going nuclear instead of solar.
Nuclear installs? Nope! They aren't happening.
The NRC lists at least 20 license applications right now. We saw Watts Bar unit 2 go first critical last year. We are seeing two new reactors being built right now. I see hints of three, four, or five new plants breaking ground next year. It's happening.
Across the world, nuclear plants are over-budget, past schedule, and their companies are giving up on feeding the white elephant since the rest of us are finally realizing what failures they are.
I'm pretty sure that China is planning on 19 GW of new nuclear capacity in the next year or so, India plans 7 GW, and new plants are planned in Poland, Japan, South Korea, UAE, Indonesia, Egypt, and more.
Sadly, you're obviously too much of a jackdaw to do it.
I don't know what that means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. A jackdaw is a bird noted for being curious, so I'm too curious to look things up? That doesn't make sense.
Then that brings me back to the beginning of what you wrote.
Why? What will it tell us that we didn't already know?
So, you tell me to look things up because I'm ignorant but if I suggest the same to you then you merely claim you know it all already. Maybe you should actually read the report and learn something.
Maybe you don't already know it all.
For a cleaner environment and zero carbon, we could take the opportunity to move from fossil to nuclear while Republicans are still in office. I seeno sign of such an initiative from Trump, though.
Give him time. It's not even been a year yet, he's got at least 36 more months to get things done. They'll be some elections that can move things along too. I'm not sure what's going on in Alabama and how that might help or hurt. Pretty sure that getting rid of Franken is a help, but an election there might hurt too. It's been 40 years of a near standstill on nuclear power, another 40 months wouldn't be all that bad if it means we get a nice foothold on future nuclear power from it. We're going to see primaries for 2018 within 40 weeks, can we wait that long to see some "initiative"?
Economics says no to nuclear power.
Then the economics say no to rooftop solar and concentrated solar. The only solar cheaper than nuclear now is utility scale PV.
The only way it can compete in the current energy market is if the government wants to subsidize it with a lot of money.
You mean like how we've been subsidizing solar power with a lot of money? If the goal is low CO2 output and solar gets subsidized to reach that goal then why not include nuclear as well? Especially when nuclear is cheaper than rooftop solar in many cases.
Now it may be that we should be doing that in order to combat global warming but the politics aren't there yet.
We'll get there. The only way that I see nuclear power continuing to be problematic politically is for CAGW to be proven as false. If global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and caused by human activity, then we will get to nuclear power eventually. Wind and solar may be cheaper than nuclear now but we still have a lot of room to make nuclear cheaper, and not much left in making wind and solar cheaper.
Solar power isn't without it's political problems. People will point out that domestic cats kill far more birds than wind and solar but not all birds are threatened by cats, windmills, and solar collectors equally. Cats will hunt little songbirds but not eagles. Windmills and concentrated solar kill hundreds or thousands of already threatened eagles every year, cats do not. At some point something has to give here, politically speaking. I think nuclear power's future is looking pretty bright.
Lithium battery fires cannot be put out with ABC extinguisher.
That is a lie that a simple Google search could have shown. Lithium-ION batteries can be extinguished with common sodium carbonate (most kitchen or boat/auto class BC extinguishers) or dry chemical ABC extinguishers (mine have monoammonium phosphate, I assume this is common). Lithium-METAL battery fires might need class D fire extinguisher but not all class D fire extinguishers are for lithium fires. What many specialized lithium fire extinguishers will contain is sodium chloride (yep, common table salt), others will have some mix of materials that can stick to walls and such for more effective fire suppression.
I'm no fire expert but it looks like saying one should have a class D extinguisher for lithium battery fires is either bad advice or merely insufficient. For a small fire one would have from a portable electronic device I'd think a common boat/auto BC extinguisher would do just as well as any specialized extinguisher. Sodium bicarbonate might not be ideal for a lithium metal fire but the 3 or 5 pounds of material in a common extinguisher against a couple button cells would seem more than sufficient to me. Again, I'm no expert so it's possible I'm mistaken.
If fires from lithium-ion batteries concern you then a common class BC extinguisher is fine. If lithium metal batteries are a fire concern then think about how big that fire might be. Maybe just keep a box of table salt handy that you could get at any grocer for a buck or two just in case. If there is a concern of larger fires then get a proper extinguisher rated for specifically for lithium fires. Getting an extinguisher for other kinds of metals can mean doing no better than any other dry chemical extinguisher or possibly making the problem worse.
* Wind is far cheaper than nuclear.
Absolutely.
* Solar Thermal with Storage is a perfectly good alternative to Nuclear.
Yes it is. Although that even comes with caveats.
What bothers me about the continuous claims of how solar is cheaper therefore everyone should have solar panels on their rooftops. Not all solar is the same just like not all nuclear is Chernobyl and Fukushima.
But nuclear is dangerous! That's just like saying solar is cheap. When people say "solar" what do they mean? When people say nuclear what do they mean? If someone wants to say that nuclear is dangerous because of Fukushima and Chernobyl then I say we shouldn't build a nuclear power plant like we did 40 years ago. Problem solved, right? But nuclear is dangerous! What kind of nuclear? Plutonium? Uranium? Thorium? Are we talking about heavy water or light water? Solid, molten metal, molten salt, or gaseous fuels? This is all as important as distinguishing between rooftop solar, utility PV, and concentrated solar.
If someone tells me "solar is cheaper than nuclear" then I call them a liar because I can show that in fact most every form of solar cost just as much, or many times more, as most every form of nuclear power we have. Not only that but concentrated solar might work in parts of the USA but not others. You want that in Texas, Arizona, Hawaii, or whatever else is close to the 30th parallel then that will probably work just fine. You put that solar power close to the 45th parallel the math changes. If you want to tell me that solar is cheaper than nuclear at the 60th parallel then I'll suspect you've been off your meds.
I'm tired of hearing that the future of energy can only include wind and solar when the economics right now say otherwise. Can solar get cheaper? Sure. Nuclear can get cheaper too. Look at the numbers. An honest assessment shows we cannot rely on only wind and solar to get cheap, reliable, safe, and low CO2 energy. We need nuclear in there too, and for the short term at least a lot of natural gas too.
If we build an electrical grid with only "cheap" utility scale PV and windmills we are going to find out real quick that we'll need some very expensive storage and/or backup power from natural gas and oil. How much does that cost? Can concentrated solar with storage be a backup? Sure, but that costs more and then we're back to solar not being cheaper than nuclear any more. The article cites the Lazard report to make the case that wind and solar is cheaper than oil and coal but neglect to point out that this same report says that wind and solar cannot provide all of our energy needs, that wind and solar must be part of a mix of energy sources. What would those energy sources be?
Seems to me that this mix must include nuclear.
It sure would be nice if people that talk up wind and solar all the time would actually read the reports they cite and point out this very important detail. Leaving out this detail of needing some nuclear and natural gas is a lie by omission. Tell the whole story or expect to be called a liar.
How strong does the evidence have to be before Republicans believe there's a real problem?
Republicans? What of the Democrats? They keep screaming about the need to dispose of the nuclear waste from current nuclear power plants, and how we can't build new ones until we have a place to put it all. At the same time they've held up a perfectly viable storage site at Yucca Mountain.
I'll believe the Democrats are serious about a real global warming problem when they get serious about letting the USA build more nuclear power reactors. Forget that even. How about getting serious about shutting down the aging nuclear power we got? That's a lot of electricity capacity in nuclear power right now. They want a place to put that waste from decommissioning them? Then open up Yucca Mountain. If they want to replace that electricity generation capacity then we need to clear some serious land for those solar collectors and windmills. That means putting panels where the turtles crawl and windmill blades where the eagles fry... I mean fly.
We need energy. Fuck the eagles. I mean, not like literally or anything, but let them die. If these Democrats won't allow new nuclear then we are going to be killing a lot of eagles with windmills and solar collectors. That's fine by me but I'm sure a lot of people will be upset by that.
Which is it Democrats? Can we build some nuclear, wind, and solar? Or are we just all going to sit in the dark when the lights go out? Are the eagles so precious that we can't be around to appreciate them in the future? Eagles only have beauty and value because humans gave it to them. Beauty and value means nothing if there is no one to hold such concepts in their minds.
Blame the Republicans if you like but they are the ones keeping the coal and oil flowing, and the lights on, while the Democrats make up their mind on how to replace that coal and oil.
Go read the Lazard report. Sure we can make solar cheaper than nuclear, it just can't be on our rooftops. Again, go read the report.
The most expensive nuclear power is still cheaper than the cheapest residential solar installation. Rooftop solar on commercial and industrial rooftops is the same price as nuclear. The only kind of solar energy source we know of that can provide power through even a portion of the night is solar thermal with storage. The only kind of solar that is cheaper than nuclear is utility scale PV, and even then it's on par of costs with natural gas. Rooftop solar isn't even all that cheap compared to natural gas peak power generation, and you'll need a lot of that for when the sun goes down.
So, sure, let's use solar. It will only triple the cost of electricity, if we're lucky. Since natural gas peak power turbines burn three times the amount of gas for the same energy as gas combined cycle generation it's also quite possible using solar will do nothing to reduce carbon output. No reduction in CO2 output and triple the cost. Great idea... idiots.
If people want to talk about using wind, that's fine by me. It's costs is on par with natural gas and coal, just be prepared to burn natural gas in inefficient gas turbines for the times the wind isn't blowing. Combined the natural gas turbines and the windmills might be cheaper than nuclear but then your CO2 output is still going to be pretty high. Not near as high as coal, that's quite likely, but still much higher than nuclear.
Another thing I often hear is that solar will get cheaper. But when? Ten years? But I thought we had to do something NOW or we are all DOOOOOOMED!!!
If the goal is reducing CO2 output as low as we can, as quickly as we can, at the lowest costs, then nuclear will have to be part of the plan. It says so right in that Lazard report. Maybe its not spelled out that way, at least not in those exact words, but it's in the report.
Or we can just decide that if solar is going to be cheaper than nuclear in 2, 10, or 50 years and we have 100 years until certain doom unless we change our ways then fine, we can wait. If we must act now though then it's wind, nuclear, and natural gas. Sure, fine, go build your solar collectors out in the desert. I don't care so long as you aren't keeping people from building nuclear power at the same time.
Go look at the Lazard report. If you find something that contradicts my assessment then let me know, it's possible I missed something important.