My mailbox was flooded with vile comments, F-bombs, obscene GIFs, responders would have physically attacked me if they could. Not one responder gave me any support. These models were run forward in and by now we are seeing a significant drift, with the actual temperature running lower than the forecast. Fernando L: It is the data where all the problems lie!!!
Cooling the past and homogenization. Deletion of cooler stations and including warmer ones. Climate Science is the antithesis of Open Science. Yes, spot on. Hansen revealed two other scenarios, a modest cutback and a zero emission scenario. What has occurred since from the UAH data precisely follows the zero emission scenario in spite of the fact that is not the scenario that has been followed. The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years, according to the World Meteorological Organization WMO.
It turns out that people are much less vile and hostile in person. Online environment brings up the worse.
Unless you happen to be on a college campus. He has 2 essential points. Needless to say, the atmosphere is not contained in a glass box. His second point is that the physics mathematics of the radiative greenhouse effect is simply wrong. To start with it assumes, for so-called simplification reasons, that the earth is flat.
Consequently, the energy of the sun is spread over the total area of the globe, both day and night, with the result that the solar energy has a heating capability to only C. This is the heating capacity of the sun if the earth were situated much farther out in the solar system. But physics based on a distorted reality is only the beginning of the problem. When the sun heats the surface of the earth, the earth emits heat in infrared waves which interact with the atmosphere warming it.
Answer A violates the laws of thermodynamics, cool objects cannot warm warmer objects. The Warmers concept of back radiation or back inductions confuses heat and energy. Proposition B violates the Stefan-Boltzman law which derives the energy flux at the boundary of an object given its temperature. There is a bit in his reasoning that I found quite humorous; besides water vapour, oxygen and nitrogen make up the bulk of the atmosphere.
They are relatively poor emitters of heat. On the other hand, carbon dioxide and methane are high heat emitters so they would have a cooling effect. Too funny. Where have you been for the last 15 years of brainless banter about solar and wind saving the planet? The nuclear solution is so obvious!!!
I loved the Coke can metaphor, but until we can get nuclear power into a thimble, i. Someone needs to kick our quantum physicists in the butt and tell them to stop worrying about the Higgs Boson and start inventing personal nuclear energy. A is true, and does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. The science states that cooler objects can impede the loss of heat from a warmer object, a fact of life one witnesses at every moment, i. B The LWIR is absorbed primarily by water vapor and significantly less by CO2, emitted back toward the earth, slowing the outbound heat, and thus causing a rise in temperature.
No where does anyone claim greenhouse gases block the emission of heat from the earth.
- Federal Employee Benefits Handbook;
- 50 Ways To Change The Way You Think About Healthy Eating - 50 Easy, Healthy, And Delicious Recipes?
- irivimafov.tk: James Stein eBooks.
Why is it that the only peer-reviewed research papers by Mr. Postma have to deal with telescope calibration and not climate science? Robert Reynolds: I will see your interesting points and raise you one, the idea that CO2 leads warming has yet to be proven. If CO2 is the cause of global warming how could this be? I have presented this video to the rabid Chicken Little crowd and have politely ask them to refute the ideas put forth in this video to help me understand some fake naivety on my part.
I have yet to receive a response. If any of the points in this video ring wrong, please write about it so I can be informed really. Dan Appleton. I agree that we will always need liquid petroleum in the future. I agree though that we will always need lubricating oil, airplanes will need jet-A, ocean freighters will need diesel and land shippers will also need diesel.
Thank you for your post. The climate will change…with or without humans. How will we protect the environment and minimize impact on climate? Multiple volcanoes? A subsequent giant meteor that impacts the planet? Could we have prevented the last ice age as human beings? Where did our world view come from? Mad Max and Thunderdome? The apocalypse movies that entered our subconscious in the last fifty years that influenced our thinking? The book of Revelation in the Holy Bible? Perhaps Byron Katie is correct and life is just a projection.
What if environmentalism is political control over the masses.. What if it is a form of control based on FEAR? What if It is propaganda? Brilliant propaganda? Impassioned anger and resentment for those who dare question the popular consensus makes it so. A way to fund the program in secret? Is environmentalism a way to enforce Agenda 21 world view and subsequent One World Order?
If you agree with the concept of One World Order — why do you agree? To accept without question? Would we ever recognize indoctrination in ourselves? Dan Appleton, there is a young American kid who built a nuclear fusion engine in his garage at 14, about 20 now I guess. He wants to build micro nuclear devices to power homes, cars etc. I think this is the way forward. Dan — With plenty of clean energy from nuclear power, it is very easy to produce liquid fuels. Thank you for the link! It sounds like a good read.
Then they spout off as if they know everything there is to know from the headlines. I worry about our future,…. The US is the top contributor to these problems, and needs act responsibly. These predictions were made by Hansen as far back at , obviously in an attempt to gain funding and help push his green socialist cause. Today, all of the outcomes have completely failed to eventuate. Sea level rose by a few mm and temperatures in the mid-west have fallen, due to increasing rainfall, instead of the predicted drought. There is one error in this link.
Hansen said the west side would be under water, but in 40 years, not 20 years. Of couse in 8 years and 9 months the wather will only have risen slightly. If you are and you graduated high school you should return your diploma — if you have a college degree you should demand a refund.
If your measure is CO2 emissions you are incorrect as China already emits more than the US by a rather large margin. Heck, which island nations have been shrinking? Please tell us what island is depopulating due to climate change. And, by the way, there are substantial credible reasons to doubt the significance and reliability of the data and especially the claims of the climate consensus.
Though no island nations are depopulating. I am a sceptic. Many alarmists react that way. They are fully committed to their biases, and do not like being disturbed. I do not see any need for CO2 reduction in society. The warming will be proven as a natural event in another 10 years when global temps do not continue to rise, imo. It is interesting to see somelike like this author state the above. If they backed out despite the big money in their pockets, then that should be a clue. Maybe it makes you question, then, the legitimacy of your AGW beliefs…?
When we were growing up, we satat dinner listening to my dad. A most interesting man. Dad attended all the U of Chicago physics lectures. At any rate, back in the s and s when it was all about global cooling, all Dad could do was chuckle. The environmentalists wanted all the CFCs removed from hairsprays and other propelled chemicals. That was accomplished, yet the hole in the ozone continued to wax and wane. After all, we were still in a period of glaciation we still had glaciers , so we were already in a cooled period. But when it got nasty and became AGW, Dad went ballistic.
Science is not settled until there is definitive proof it is—but there is no settled science in AGW, just the ravings of a lunatic fringe. He led the chase. Not a peep from the environmentalists! They believe on faith alone. And, of course, those researchers who were supportedbybthe government believed…or said they did. Those that openly admitted they did not list their research funding.
I am ashamed at Americans who fell so hard and ignored all the scientists who said the AGW folks were wrong. When they will not discuss it and call you a denier of their god , that is not science. It makes me very sad for America and how the true intellectuals could long ago debate think our Founding Fathers , while today debate on a difference of opinion is considered heresy. Sad, sad days indeed… Intellectualism has died, and in its place is groupthink. My experience with the very religious, evangelists, has been favorable and I have had no bad experiences.
Every time this has happened, I have never had a religious person assail me like the AGW crowd would do. So, to me the CCC movement is not a religion, it is a political movement hell bent on changing the world into whatever it is they want and their pseudo scientific climate change claim is a tool for making that change. Certainly, in the U. What kind of scientists will our schools turn out given that students are not exposed to the scientific rigor that you mentioned in your comment. The greatest tool governments and institutions have is fear, look at history, I believe it will prove out my statement.
Thank you for your insightful and enlightened observations. I was impressed by your succinct observations. There is data to back this up coming from field biologists. The hard part is getting all the facts, though. The news media is really bad at doing science journalism.
Yeah, yeah, I know. But it and the UAH blog were about the only ones to actually run the story. Imagine the reaction had those shots been fired at Al Gore instead. I sincerely doubt that any of those flooding your mailbox were brave enough to actually confront you face-to-face. The anonymity of the internet makes fierce sounding warriors out of scared, piddle-in-their pants, little children. I am so proud ofyou for the courage of your convictions.
We are all being herded into groupthink and must relearn how to think for ourselves. Happy to see others doing the same—that is, thinking for themselves after doing their own research. Solar and wind were not used much due to intermittancy issues. I have no interest in going backwards in powering our life and nuclear is the only way forward at this time. The new Nuclear generators 4th generation? The problem is the approval processes, battles in the courts and population concern, stops many of them being built.
The costs become prohibitive and the time wasted to get them started and then fighting to get them built is too much for most. The UK just had one cancelled due to huge cost blowouts. Unfortunately, the lunatics scuttled the project because they rarely understand the realities of efficiency, safety and lower emissions brought by modern engineering and equipment vs. They convinced a judge that we were scary. The article author commits many sins of omission and distortion. He makes tortoise deaths seem inevitable after describing the very mistakes that made it so.
Almost all species that ever lived on earth are extinct. Nuke waste? Look at a satellite view of the deserts—solar farms are a trivial speck on the landscape. Battery tech is advancing rapidly. See Australia and Tesla PowerPacks, inertial storage, hot sulfur flow batteries, etc. Read some of the industry journals, hydropower, cleantech, etc. This guy is just virtue signaling, mostly. No numbers, bad comparisons.
If so good for you. The big miss by the author purposefully is: the energy renewable? What is the real carbon and environmental cost of the manufacturing of the turbine? Is it better to take those tens of billions of dollars, and put them into research for hydrocarbon pollution remittance? Yes, the answer to our future power needs are a network of city sized nuclear powered electric generating plants. The technology is here now. The electrical transfer infrastructure is already in place.
Feed into the existing power grid. In the mean time, invest in technology to capture and rationally dispose of the omissions from hydrocarbon fueled electricity generation. This is old by now. And you can use a molten salt reactor where if the temperature gets too high the particles separate from each other and the reaction stops. Good to hear somebody speaking about Thorium, when my son was an apprentice electrician about 20 yrs ago, they had to do a project on alternative energy and he chose Thorium.
Boy was I wrong, you hardly ever hear about it. Show me a Thorium reactor making commercial power. Show me the liability insurance policy. Show me the bond assuring storage, recycle, or remediation of spent fuels. In a huge world of nuclear advocates and industry, they have not built one that a banker can finance.
If you find it I will invest my money too. I may well be wrong as it was a long time ago when my son did his project on this, but here is an article about the process. The reactor power plant technologies that work with uranium work just as well with thorium. Thorium is actually much more abundant on earth than uranium. Gen four reactors are already a reality — they are already in development and will be producing power commercially within just a few years.
Several technologies are involved with the Gen Four reactors — including fast reactors, and molten salt reactors, and small modular light water reactors.
MSR solve all of the safety problems associated with the common light water reactor, including the fact that they are fail safe and cannot melt down and they do not create long lived nuclear waste.. They also are impossible to convert the fuel into highly enriched nuclear weapons grade material, so do not pose a proliferation threat. In any case, the licensing is already underway, Congress just enacted two laws last fall and in January of this year that streamline and simplify and reduce the cost of licensing new reactor plans. Within a decade there will be a much larger base of nuclear power reactors in the United States.
J Brooke, a test system is running in the Netherlands and the Indians are building one and also have a Mw fast breeder system that is expected to be able to burn Thorium as well. Your questions are axiomatic, but would kill any innovation the human race has ever produced. There is a lot very devious about your post. They have won various government grants and got through the first phase of licensing. It is a real technology, people are working on it. The fluid can then be used to drive a turbine and produce electricity. The Price-Anderson Act is designed to ensure the availability of adequate funds to satisfy liability claims of members of the public for personal injury and property damage in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident.
Through this program, the U. Note, the Price-Anderson Act has never been invoked. J Brook, if you want to see where venture capitalists make their cash, look no further than wind farms. The obvious issue with molten salts is separating out the daughter radio-active products at the end. No-one has yet come to terms with the complex chemistry of separating these molten components other than building the reactors as small modules in rock holes in the ground and simply concreting over them afterwards. At the end you have separate fuel rods of depleted Thorium and your seeding fuels which can be cooled and dissolved in acids so it can be centrifuged out to reclaim all those potentially useful elements.
The fission products left from MSRs are short lived, requiring only a few hundred years of isolation to decay away to negligible activity … as compared to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand for LWR fission products to decay away. And if we go with a standardized plant design like the French instead of the one off boutique designs by GE et al the cost of construction would be greatly reduced.
Steve, quite right. I read about the French designs back in the s and their approach seemed eminently sensible. A replicable design as you note, also smaller size, and a failsafe by gravity I think cooling system. How did we ever end up with a quilt work in the U. Whatever the causes I doubt the nuclear supporters had the present outcome in mind.
We have to care and think over things that matter because funders and investors absolutely do not care if the return comes from rods or panels in the desert. The other issue seems to be that most carbon released comes from developing economies in China and India, not western countries.
And neither China nor India are anywhere close to US by emissions per capita only oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf emit more per capita then US, but with tiny population their total emissions are negligible. And EU is the third largest emitter in the world. Travel distance and cold weather trump sentiment.
Why would you babble such nonsense? I am asking because you are factually wrong and you obviously need more knowledge. Total co2 emissions or anything else are a total. A per capita calculation is based on factors. China produces almost twice the volume as the USA. My country CDN is high on percapita, but very low on the total volume.
How is who, what and why for. It makes me sick when you blame the Chinese for emissions at the same time that you take advantage of them for cheap labor. How hypocritical…. In fact, the West doing business with China is what has raised the atypical communist serf there out of poverty. Such is required within the trade agreements between the countries.
China imports. If the government of the supplier country lafs at the contractual regulations and refuses to legally enforce them, how is that resulting the fault of the receiving company? Just thinking about the filthy authoritarian autocratic repressive regime that the CCP has in China maked my head swell. It is the poster child. Partially valid point. It is due mainly to having a massive population whose energy demands have grown with its economy over the past 40 years. A majority of that energy comes from coal, and their coal is dirtier than what we burn in the US. In a similar vein to your comment about manufacturing, China is heavily involved in manufacturing solar panels for export t the West and in mining the earth for rare earth minerals used in wind turbines.
Both processes due considerable environmental damage. How hypocritical is it to transfer blame from China to the US if any of our companies operate there? This is the old lefty rhetoric that blames America first for any problem, anywhere. I agree that buyers of products are part responsible, in some indirect way, for the production and its externalities.
Note that imports reduce U. China is building a large number of nuclear power plants i. We are not. The U. Our lakes, rivers and air are cleaner now than they were 25 years ago. China, not so much. China has reaped massive rewards from dealing with Western countries, if they shit in their own backyard the blame is not on the West. We could lower your per capita volume by just bringing all of the Big Three automotive work back here to the USA Problem solved So even if we eliminated our emissions altogether an impossibility , the world would still have an issue.
As developing countries develop, they are going to emit more CO2. The difficulty with places like India and Brazil is that their growth rate will eventually lead them to outpace the US and China in emissions. Plus, it would be immoral to stop them from advancing themselves out of poverty. PaulRoundyt, India yes, Brazil no. Brazil does not have enough people to eventually pass the U. India does. India also has substantial coal resources whereas Brazil has essentially none. India will pass the U. Might be a bit sooner. Might be a bit later.
This was unexpected in the US at least at the time. Could a CO2 growth spurt occur in India? Unclear at least to me. Could the reverse happen? An Amerikan baby promises future pollution far greater than that of a Brazilian or even Indian baby. What we need to do is put a stop to all the Amerikan breeding, especially since it is the progeny of the breeders who stand to gain most from any sacrifices made by current populations, and especially by us non-breeders.
China or India. According to Wikipedia, the U. GHG debates in the U. S and Europe amount to conflicts about the number of angels on the head of a pin. Peter Schaeffer You either do not know how to read a table or you deliberately lie and hope we will not notice. You start talking about per capita emissions and when you are about to compare USA and China you switch to total emissions. Alas, can you find any actual errors in my statistics? Probably not, because my numbers are correct.
Wikipedia data. Of course, we could include non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions mostly from concrete production. Peter Schaeffer I see.. So the atmosphere does not care about the per capita emissions, but it cares about how big in size and population each country is which is the most important factor for the total emissions or what is the GDP of each country, right? Oh please.. My ignorance was total. I am so ashamed. The US could ruin its economy adopting socialism as suggested by Democrats and that would indeed reduce its emissions.
It would also create a worldwide economic crisis, and reduce emissions even more. But the world economy would not be able to afford the investment in new energy sources, so it would continue to burn coal, and of course the poverty caused by the economic ruin would lead to starvation in poor countries and huge refugee flows…caused by the adoption of socialism.
How Math Can Save Your Life : James D. Stein :
Actually, if history is a guide, socialism correlates very highly to degraded environment and health. We consume less energy per unit of productivity than these countries — so a rational analysis would say that all energy should be consumed by the US, for the good of the planet. The difference is that our emissions are decreasing faster than anywhere else in the world, whereas the two countries you cited are leading the world in emissions increases. Nothing the US can do would stop an increase in world CO2 emissions; nothing.
Not sure why per capita emissions matter, it is total emissions that matter. A two person country could theoretically lead the world in per capita emissions but rank last in total emissions. Misinformation about Fukishima is widespread, based largely on ignorance, fear mongering and the overreaction of politicians. An earthquake and a tsunami killed around 16, people.
The nuclear reactor was not the cause of death. Imagine what would happen if a similar scenario played out at say the Three Gorges Dam in China. I heard the ex prime minister of japan 3 days ago in a long interview, he was ultra pro nuclear before Fukushima accident. He has changed his mind when he understood what could have happen with a little less luck.
Scholarly estimates are in the million range. AGW has been tested more than pretty much any other theory. Christopher Apart from scandalously flawed computer models, please inform us how AGW has been actually tested? As I noted regarding your other comment below, so what? The question is not so much does a thing happen, but what is its magnitude, is it detrimental or beneficial, what would it cost to militate, etc? The evidence more CO2 causes higher temperatures is relatively strong.
After that the science and our understanding of the climate system, its feedbacks and mechanisms are incomplete and rudimentary, often politically driven, often of appalling quality, often very difficult to even measure [hence the reliance on models rather than repeatable experiment and direct observation] and subject inevitably to margins of error so great that often no reasonable conclusion can even be drawn from what numbers they do churn out. There is a great deal of evidence AGW is real. There is almost none that we are facing a catastrophe. But there is an entire planet full of arm waving, conjectures, politically and economically driven hysteria and propaganda and rent seeking.
Until that changes the theory of AGW is interesting but of little to no concern to rational people. Global warming is real in that the planet has clearly warmed some in the last years. However, how much of that is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age, and how much is due to a thirty-percent increase in the concentration of a rather minor greenhouse gas?
- New Releases;
- Popular E-books?
- Cell Tales - Volume 10.
- La rizière des barbares (essai, témoignage t. 111) (French Edition);
- Marvelous Light.
- Murder in the Round (A Pamela Barnes Acoustic Mystery).
- See a Problem?.
IMO the former, not the latter is likely the dominant factor. That is because their agenda was largely written by the disinformation section of the KGB, way back in the Cold War. Granting your assertions for the sake of argument, so what? So as an inevitable part of a renewable energy system we get the cost of non renewables and on top of that the cost of renewables. If solar and wind are actually that much cheaper they would be decommissioning all their old plants and putting up renewables.
But in fact, everywhere on the planet renewables increase as a share of energy production energy prices skyrocket. Brian B: In Australia the energy companies make more money out of renewables due to government subsidies. This has resulted in many coal fired generators being closed down or blown up as in one stupid South Australian piece of political madness. Because the way we do nuclear in the U. See the French idea, above comments.
Because weather is the result of a vast complex of interlocking feedback loops, it is not easy to correlate weather with climate. But to me the most convincing evidence for the greenhouse hypothesis is the melting of long-term ice. I have seen this happening in the far north, at Svinajokull, and in the deep south at Franz Josef Glacier.
The US could lead in getting to zero net carbon emission by And the only way to do so in a country with large cities and heavy industries is to go nuclear. Alan Gore: Have a read of some papers from the s talking about the loss of sea ice in the arctic. They are talking about a post modern world. I cannot keep them all straight. Snell: noted that article was written 30 years ago! The Greens are still banging the same drum today. Eventually they will be right but we may have to wait until our sun goes nova or a large meteor strikes and sends it out of orbit.
Through the law of unintended consequences that results from the emotion inherent in years of unrestrained hyperbole. One reason for that is that wood heating went from a commonplace to a niche over that period of time. Not just birds and bats as in the article but unprecedented destruction of rainforests has occured on the altar of global warming. Why are rainforests dwindling? In the Amazon, mainly because cattle owners are expanding and even get subsidies to plant grass instead of maintaining those rich forests, in SE Asia, it is the expansion of the oilpalm plantations.
These processes simply are going on and on, I wonder whether there is any influence of climate change programs or manifests, though, investments in oilpalm for biofuel could be a factor and this would be a big shame, unbelievable, unpardonable. Doctor Locketopus, Wow is that ever true. Without fossil fuels the environmental devastation from the cutting of trees would have been overwhelming. As early as AD, the UK was mining coal on a large scale to save its forests that was the practical effect of coal production, not the intent. In Switzerland, the cutting of trees was moving to progressively steeper slopes in the 19th century.
They knew that cutting trees on steep slopes would result in devastating erosion. As it turns out, the Swiss eco-catastrophe never happened. Switzerland found that it could import coal from Germany and the USA instead. The forests of Switzerland were saved. However, they were saved by fossil fuels later Switzerland dammed its rivers for power. The State of Vermont retired its only nuclear reactor several years ago.
Bernie and the usual suspect cheered. The plan was to replace nuclear with wind. It would take 59 wind farms to generate the same electricity as the retired nuclear plant once generated. And retiring the nuclear plant has resulted in higher CO2 emissions and higher electricity prices. So in the name of saving the planet, the citizens of Vermont are killing bears, emitting more CO2 and paying higher energy bills. Fly over the vast areas littered with windmills or solar cells and ask how that is possibly good for the environment. Australia could smarten up immediately by repealing the ban on nuclear energy and properly assess its low emissions options.
Most of the construction cost is due to government regulations over the fears they instilled in the citizenry. Maybe, but the fact that each U. The industry needs to focus on their small modular reactor technology, that will allow faster return on investment and more grid compatibility through flexible capacity and supply. The reason nuclear energy is so expensive is because of all the opposition from anti-nuclear environmentalists. As a nuclear-trained engineer no longer working in the industry, I can attest that the majority of nuclear plant construction costs and operating costs are regulatory-driven.
None of these regulations improve safety, but have been imposed through the years as a sacrifice to the anti-nuclear activists. Smarter regulation i. As a side note, nuclear waste is a problem in the US but not France or Switzerland because Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of spent fuel. This increases the volume of waste by orders of magnitude. Good article. There are downsides for sure. But it is unclear how limited the author wants renewables to be. Clearly, there is no one solution and even with Nuclear energy. Saying no PV is as nonsensical as saying no nukes. I heard an interview with Mike.
He noted that the best grid would be nuclear and hydro only. That would be a daft point of view for anyone who realizes that electricity consumption during daytime is much higher than at night. The shale revolution is the best thing to happen to the US in decades. Cheap energy, economic growth and lower CO2 emissions. New York state sits on top of vast reserves that could be tapped. But the politicians say no. No to fracking, no to pipelines. Instead these green geniuses are encouraging freezing residents to stay warm by burning wood. He brings up good points.
But the article is low in actual evidence. We have built massive amounts of infrastructure — so why is putting down solar farms all of a sudden such a massive no-no? Imagine if you are in country near the equator where sun shows its face regularly… how is sticking solar panels to produce electricity is all that harmful to animals. US might not have such large-scale energy problems but many countries do. Sure, in some places like UK, wind farms can only go so far. Desserts are not good locations for solar farms. Too much dust, which has to be cleaned from the panels on a regular basis, which requires lots of water and energy.
All energy technology has downsides. We need to do cost benefit analysis and chose the best options. Nuclear is the best option. Solar and wind are wasteful distractions. I would not count batteries out. There has been great progress in reducing their cost, and there is no reason that this progress will not continue in the future. Every nuclear project runs into horrendous cost overruns. There are two half built nuclear plants abandoned when their contractor, Westinghouse, went bankrupt over the overruns.
This is not just an American problem, projects in Great Britain and Finland have run into the same issue. Further, look at how lithium is gathered for lithium-ion batteries. Argentina and Chile are the two other major producers of salt-flat produced lithium. Australia is a top producer using conventional strip mining. The process requires the salt plain to be flooded, but this is an arid area with little water — mm 5. It takes approximately , gallons of water per tonne of lithium. Extraction vehicles cut horizontally through the salt crust to expose the lithium and other minerals found mixed in a salty mud sitting.
To extract it, mining equipment pump the brine into massive ponds, where it is left to evaporate for months. Then a series of chemical processes, for example using lime and hydrochloric acid, are performed to separate the minerals and refine the lithium. For export it needs to be transported miles to the nearest port. This is the next gotcha; Bolivia wants to be the centre of battery production too. Most batteries are presently manufactured in East Asia and the US. Two other key battery ingredients, cobalt and nickel, also pose a significant risk of creating a bottleneck in the move towards electrifying everything.
Cobalt is found almost exclusively in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is very toxic. Ironically, the environmentalists now complain about the destruction of the salt plain and the pollution created as well as how cobalt miners are poisoning themselves and their land.
All these problems may be overcome, but will it happen in the 12 years before the climate irrecoverably changes and we, together with the planet, all die? Batteries also wear out. They have a limited life span, so after paying up hugely for them it needs to be spent again. And again, And again…forever. And what to do with those batteries? Few have stopped to consider the scale that a battery reserve of grid-scale power would have to be.
All of the batteries made in the world last year would not store enough to power a single state for a day. Cost is still not competitive for general purpose, but quite viable in many applications already. There are many downsides for sure. It is unclear how limited the author wishes renewables to be. Clearly, there is no one solution to the world energy needs, even with Nuclear. I hope someone has by now corrected the disinformation that atomic powered is so many times more expensive that alternatives.
It is not more expensive. This price more than adequate to repay construction and investment costs and amortize the capital investment according to relevant acceptable accounting standards. My understanding is that molten-salt reactors may possibly hold the key to dissipating the arguments regarding cost, size, meltdown risk and storage of nuclear waste. Or false hopes, like solar and wind. Funny that none of these folk mention the FACT that even if the US switched to using renewables ONLY for the next 60 years, even their over-egged climate models predict it would make an unnoticeable 0.
S, Please show us the conspiracy ideation. I hear you saying that the current climate change discussion has an element of hysteria that is designed, not to solve the coming problems, but to push a specific political agenda. Alternative solutions are pushed out of the discussion. Even if nuclear power is a faster, cheaper, better, and safer source of carbon-neutral electricity than solar and wind, fission fails to solve all our problems. For one thing the supply of uranium is limited—it may last till the end of the century at the present rate of consumption—less as we use more. And true, there are fixes for that too — breeder reactors, thorium reactors etc.
But whether we use sun, wind, nuclear, coal, gas, bullshit, or nothing, there is LESS in our future than we will like. There is no magic energy supply. We will produce waste which will refuse to disappear, and no matter what, we can not supply any amount of goods to an ever-growing population. Less people, less energy, less production, less consumption, less waste. Less is not more, and it will be all we will get. Stepping off the whizzy carousel of consumption will be a terribly jolting experience, but if we stay on it, the merry-go-round will eventually fly apart, and that will be worse than merely terrible.
More resources are just awaiting to be found. Nobody knows what is all out there. Waste can be minimized and controlled. Safely and environmentally soundly. It turned out as expected. We passed peak oil maybe… 2 or 3 decades ago. The curve of the trailing edge of oil extraction resembles the leading edge. We probably have a century of oil supply that is obtainable at less energy than the oil itself contains.
After we have drawn that out of the earth, oil will remain in the ground but it will not be worth the energy expenditure to pull it up, because the extraction energy will exceed the energy of the oil obtained, never mind cost in dollars. The more difficult shale oil is extracted by fracking when the price of oil is high enough to justify the added cost. As for uranium, it has never been an abundant element, and it takes about 27 tons of refined uranium a year for a megawatt power plant.
The science is settled. I now kowtow. New hydrocarbon reserves are being found continually,all over the world. Screw, No, peak oil did not turn out as expected at all. Just like the gresg fraudster, Ehrlich, it was a false prediction. Your defending it by repearing the deceitful platitudes and claptrap of eventually blah blah does not make you look brighter. Uh huh, sure. So how did that declaration turn out? It is working out the way they said it would when it was predicted about 30 or 40 years ago.
The profile of oil production is more or less a normal distribution. The leading and trailing profile are similar. It took years to go from zero to peak production a couple decades ago , and it will take another years to go from peak production to zero. We will reach zero production when the oil left in the ground is too difficult to extract — that is, it will take more energy to get it out than the oil itself contains.
In the post-peak meantime, oil production will decline over the coming century, everything else being equal.
How Math Can Save Your Life: (And Make You Rich, Help You Find The One, and Avert Catastrophes)
Again, everything else being equal, the price of oil will tend to rise. You will not need a leader because the cliff will come to you. Material deprivation will not be optional…. Not sure that leads to the Malthusian scenario so many since him have long anticipated. Bill Gates reactor design uses urainium for start up, but can burn existing waste, weapons etc.
How Math Can Save Your Life ( And Make You Rich, Help You Find The One, And Avert Catastrophes)
Thorium can also be used which is quite abundant. Get serious, if you want to have a reasonable discourse. Or geology. So your crystal ball has told you that all that can be found has been found. I conceed. You win. You should be able to become a millionaire in the market now. There are 4. No one bothers, because mined uranium is cheaper. But it will be there when we need it. Less energy. Billions of poor people live in energy poverty.
Perhaps we should just exterminate them less they try to escape poverty and consume more energy. Helps out with question no. Less consumption. Less consumption is a trojan horse for less freedom. Difficult to achieve other than by authoritarian means. Do you actually think reducing the population necessarily requires tyranny and mass murder, or do you just prefer silly strawmen arguments to reasonable debate? If the former, perhaps you should look into the trend towards reduced fertility in developed nations. Ellsd S Yawn. They keep having kids even when they have no idea how to feed them.
Let me guess. But, there is certainly no looming shortage in the next few centuries. And the supply is extractable at affordable prices. No, I agree with you that fertility rates reduce when poor people get wealthier.
A necessary condition for that to happen is cheap, abundant reliable energy. If you want to ban all the sources of energy that have been proven to work like the Green New Deal contemplates , you will get the opposite result — increased poverty and higher population growth. It is not going to be reduced in the lifetime of anyone reading this article. Moreover, some leading environmentalists are on record as saying the world should have no more than 2 billion people.
There is no way to get to that number without Pol Pot-like tactics. Less people. Who decides which of us gets to live. The enlightened ones like you I imagine. There are whole populations with no economic basis for their own survival, who live wholly off of foreign charity. Stop subsidizing them, and blam… a big chunk of the human population vanishes in a few years. Just stop giving them money. There are whole populations with no economic basis for their survival, who are wholly supported by foreign charity.
If you want fewer people, simply stop giving them money. Now they might not be the big polluters, but if you want fewer people just stop giving them money and a massive chunk of the human population will disappear in a few years. The poorest countries on earth have the highest birth rates.
- Each One Win One: A Complete Strategy for Effective Personal Evangelism.
- Browse torrents?
- The Colors In My Rainbow.
- Smells Like Passion.
- The zero-waste revolution: how a new wave of shops could end excess packaging;
Whether or not foreign aid does more harm than good is open to debate, but the idea that you can starve off billions of people is ludicrous. Increased poverty will lead to higher birth rates. Perhaps you missed that there have been successful demonstrations of extracting uranium from seawater. They have made yellowcake from seawater.
The supply is many times that from land mining. Where there is a will there is a way. In the four main sections of the book, Stein tells the stories of the mathematical thinkers who discerned some of the most fundamental aspects of James Baldwin was beginning to be recognized as the most brilliant black writer of his generation when his first book of essays, Notes of a Native Son , established his reputation in A rising New York editor, novelist, and playwright, Stein had James Baldwin was beginning to be recognized as the most brilliant black writer of his generation Move over, Sherlock and Watson—the detective duo to be reckoned with.
Math , freelance investigator Freddy Carmichael and his sidekick, Pete Lennox, show how math smarts can crack even the most perplexing cases. Freddy meets colorful personalities throughout Los Angeles and encounters mysterious In the entertaining Our fascination with numbers begins when we are children and continues throughout our lives. We start counting our fingers and toes and end up balancing checkbooks and calculating risk. So powerful is the appeal of numbers that many people ascribe to them a mystical significance.
Other numbers go beyond the supernatural, working to explain our How to make lots of money, keep yourself safe, and even save the world-all by using a little simple math Forget the dull, boring math you learned in school. This book shows you the powerful things math can do for you, with applications no teacher ever taught you in algebra class. How can you make money off credit card companies? Will driving a How to make lots of money, keep yourself safe, and even save the world-all by using a little simple Concise, wise, and sometimes terse or A compilation of satirical and philosophical aphorisms from modern writers on the cutting edge of Following up on the success of their first anthology of aphorisms, Short Flights , editors James Lough and Alex Stein have returned with a new volume that expands on the theme of aphorisms to include other short form writing and concrete poetry and prose from several of the world's leading, award-winning, and bestsellling writers in the genre, Following up on the success of their first anthology of aphorisms, Short Flights , editors James Disasters often strike without warning and leave a trail of destruction in their wake.
Yet armed with the right tools and information, survivors can fend for themselves and get through even the toughest circumstances. Matthew Stein's When Disaster Strikes provides a thorough, practical guide for how to prepare for and react in many of life's most Yet armed