Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

December 18, 2012, 6:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by phatboy

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

Joshua, “Boondoggle are us.”

Welcome to reality. We will F_ck up. The bigger the F_ck up the greater the consequences.

The “smart” grid, which would be involved with the majority of electrical systems, provides one convenient F_uck up central.

Government intervention that limits creative solutions with over regulation ensures consolidation which creates a new F_uck up central.

An unregulated free market can create monopolies that would create a F_uck up central.

How big would you like you F_uck up?

I like smaller F_uck ups and the make up sex that follows.

---

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by phatboy

December 18, 2012, 6:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

Joshua, you’re saying the reason for wars is largely political – therefore the trillions being spent is largely to achieve political ends and so would still be spent, more or less, regardless of where our energy came from.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

December 18, 2012, 6:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by phatboy

$

0

0

There will also be those disruptive/transformational political ideologies that could equally be quite negative– potentially terminal to the human race.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

December 18, 2012, 6:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by harrywr2

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

$

0

0

Mosh – do you calculations include efficiency improvements that you can’t predict? I put predictions like these in the same bucket used for peak oil speculations.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by harrywr2

December 18, 2012, 6:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

$

0

0

We already have a CERN/APOOLO program for energy.

It’s called the GEN IV nuclear initiative. The problem is that all materials proposed to be used in a nuclear reactor have to be put into a neutron bombardment chamber and “aged’ long enough to determine the long term characteristics. I.E. Does the material get brittle and crack after 20 years etc etc etc.

That all takes time.

One could argue that the space shuttle program was an exercise in finding materials that could withstand the high temperatures of re-entry without degrading. Unfortunately it wasn’t as successful as many had hoped.

If we look at current generation commercial nuclear reactors,premature heat exchanger degradation has been an issue and continues to be an issue. (IMHO A manageable issue, but an issue).

If we look at past failed attempts to commercialize other then light water reactors heat exchanger problems were high on the list of problems.

The Chinese have a 200MW High Temperature Gas Reactor under construction.

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2012/2012-10-22-10-26-WS-NPTD/Day-1/5.Dong.pdf

If it ends up working as hoped fossil fuel fired power plants could go the way of horse drawn carriages. It’s too soon to know.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

December 18, 2012, 6:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by harrywr2

$

0

0

One positive externality enjoyed by much of the population is that we no longer live as we did in the 16th century. Even most of the world’s poor are better off that that. Whether they want to live like those in the 16th century does not matter. They benefit from our advanced technology and cheap energy. Some of you can’t see the woods for the trees.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

December 18, 2012, 7:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by jim2

$

0

0

Harry said, “It’s called the GEN IV nuclear initiative. The problem is that all materials proposed to be used in a nuclear reactor have to be put into a neutron bombardment chamber and “aged’ long enough to determine the long term characteristics. I.E. Does the material get brittle and crack after 20 years etc etc etc.”

Yep, it is a long complex process and it does need to be a long complex process. That is a large advantage for the small modular reactors, less decay energy, smaller investment, proven LWR experience in military applications, up-gradable to more complex fuel configurations, even Thorium/breeder mixes. GEN III + is available while the future is uncertain.

The problem is linear no threshold thinking that paralyzes progress.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by manacker

December 18, 2012, 7:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by lsvalgaard

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

David

You make sense.

But let’s look at another area where central planners could step in to solve a problem.

We (in the western world) eat a lot of beef.

Cattle generate methane.

Methane is a powerful GHG.

Not only is it initially ten times as powerful as CO2, but it converts to CO2 long-term so never goes away.

So let’s “price” beef so it carries the full environmental cost of the GH warming from the methane, by adding a “methane tax”.

We could also implement a similar “full cost price” for pork, lamb, etc. based on the relative methane emissions figured back per pound of meat.

Of course, we would need a new department of bureaucrats to manage this whole tax scheme.

Dairy products, such as milk, yoghurt and cheese, could also be included.

By penalizing those who consume these less environmentally friendly foods,
we could steer the public into eating the more environmentally friendly foods, which they should be eating.

And thereby save the planet for future generations.

The mind boggles.

Max

---

Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by lsvalgaard

December 18, 2012, 7:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by manacker

$

0

0

stefanthedenier | December 18, 2012 at 6:04 am |
Sunspots cannot be seen, for two different reason; without that special filter – AND ONLY FROM THE SATELLITE, + computer manipulation
Here are Sergio Cortesi [from Locarno Solar Obs.] and I seeing and counting sunspots without any special filter and from the ground and with no computer involved: http://www.leif.org/research/Sergio-and-Me.jpg

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

December 18, 2012, 7:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by lsvalgaard

$

0

0

I also question Dolan’s rather facile claim that all of the positive benefits of fossil fuel use are somehow already factored into the price while some of the big negative externalities are not. People know they like a comfortable temperature, cooked food and computers but they no more know all the beneficial results of these things then they know about the negative results.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Wagathon

December 18, 2012, 7:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

$

0

0

How about a hypocrisy tax? All that is needed to eliminate the Leftist and liberal hypocrisy in America is to allow the productive to charge overtime for having to respond to all of the made-up, monkey-fingered BS, fears, delusions and insanity of the gurus of anti-capitalism on the Left who push the idea that ‘CO2 is a poison.’ They do that to fleece the public. The Left does not really believe in capitalism so why deliver electricity to a house full of Leftists for the same price as anyone else who voluntarily buys into the capitalistic system that makes providing needed goods and services more affordable? When all of the people in the house say the coal you burn to create electricity is killing the planet, let them eat cake to stay warm on cold winter days.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

December 18, 2012, 7:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Wagathon

$

0

0

The electric power industry not the coal industry generates most of these waste streams and both pay heavily for them, in some cases far more than their hazard cost. The health hazards have been wildly exaggerated and thus over regulated for decades, with more exaggerations coming now via the war on coal.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Wagathon

December 18, 2012, 7:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by mkantor

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

$

0

0

There’s always all of these pesky unintended consequences that Leftists are too stupid to take into consideration when planning their liberal Utopia. For example, stop showering–go stinky Euro and save water and the energy it takes to heat it. Great idea but, how much energy will it take to mop up the whale puke it will take to make all of the perfume you’ll need to get a date?

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by mkantor

December 18, 2012, 7:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Wagathon

$

0

0

To All,

Competing visions of reliance on alternative energy and reliance on increased shale gas production will play out over the next few weeks and months in Britain as part of the U.K. Government’s proposed Energy Bill. The Conservative chair of the House of Commons Energy Committee has just placed himself in open opposition to the Conservative-led U.K. Government in that regard – see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9752371/Government-is-seduced-by-shale-gas-says-Energy-Committee-chair.html .

Separately, with respect to Lab Meat, I am surprised to see nothing in these 150+ comments about the 1973 movie Soylent Green starring Charlton Heston (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/soylent-green/# and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green). Perhaps that says something about how old I have become.

Best wishes to all for the holiday season and the New Year.

MK

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Beth Cooper

December 19, 2012, 5:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by mkantor

$

0

0

Meleagris turris eburneae, lol.

---

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Joshua

December 19, 2012, 5:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Beth Cooper

$

0

0

Faustino -

You make a number of statements of fact in that letter for which you have no validated data in support.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by JCH

December 19, 2012, 5:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by johanna

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by Joshua

$

0

0

Correcting Max’s nonsense? Yeah.

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by johanna

December 19, 2012, 5:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by JCH

$

0

0

Webby, a ‘need’ is not insatiable. Like many of your ilk, your grasp of the language is tenuous. Or perhaps more accurately, you shape the language to fit your agenda.

Your real purpose is obvious – to curb energy use, which directly correlates with economic status. How about fessing up to who you think should be making the sacrifices?

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

December 19, 2012, 6:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by geek49203

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by johanna

$

0

0

Max, is not the issue rapid growth in per capita resource consumption due to reducing poverty?

Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by geek49203

December 19, 2012, 6:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by harrywr2

≪ Previous: Comment on Limits(?) of green energy: is the Earth f_ked? by David Wojick

$

0

0

a ‘need’ is not insatiable Actually, one day one of an econ major’s life, they define economics in terms of infinite needs and finite goods.

HOWEVER, yes, many of us deeply suspect that the environmentalists movement is one which glorifies the life of a peasant farmer (“The Gleeners” by Jean-François Millet seems to be their icon) — this is what they tried to establish back when they had “hippie communes”. And yes, any way to shut down energy sources (oil, nukes, etc) are a way to force people into that lifestyle.

Still, I have to be fair to “Webby” — yes, there is a finite amount of oil energy. Now, granted, the sun is also finite, but in both cases, we need to know if we’re likely to run out anytime “soon.” And yes, it is always good to minimize the impact on the world — I just don’t want to do good things for erroneous / fraudulent reasons.