On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, wrote:
On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:

Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm

GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH

...and how will that help me find my car?

I had NO idea that this would trigger such an avalanche of responses.
But, as with every thread which explodes, a nugget pops out which wins
the thread.

This is the winner:

I see little
difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
fuel burned ten feet away.

On the left, our sun, source of all life on earth, on the right a
Kawaswaki weed-whacker.
Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker

Little difference.... other than the fact that I can turn off the weed-
whacker.


*bangs head on desk*

r

Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, wrote:
|| On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:
||
||| Up to my groin in snow.
||| Just a few drifts.
||| *poke, poke, poke*
||| "There's a car in here somewhere..."
||
|| http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
||
|| GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
|| TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH
||
| ..and how will that help me find my car?
|
| I had NO idea that this would trigger such an avalanche of
| responses. But, as with every thread which explodes, a nugget pops
| out which wins the thread.
|
| This is the winner:
|
|| I see little
|| difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and
|| using fuel burned ten feet away.
|
| On the left, our sun, source of all life on earth, on the right a
| Kawaswaki weed-whacker.
| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
|
| Little difference.... other than the fact that I can turn off the
| weed- whacker.
|
|
| *bangs head on desk*

Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)

Hope you find your car.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Feb 17, 12:30 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:


Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)

The Canuckistani Space Exploration program suggested we send some of
our astronauts to the sun. So we wouldn't burn up, we'd go at night.

Hope you find your car.

Thanks
The remote starter helped me find it.


r

In article , J. Clarke wrote:
Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.

Never mind the hydrogen available in the rest of the solar system -- there's
more than enough available right here.

The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people who
are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem to
think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see little
difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
fuel burned ten feet away.

I've seen estimates of the sun's remaining lifespan ranging from a few hundred
million years, to a few billion years. Either end of this range constitutes an
effectively infinite resource.

With respect to the *mass* available for fuel (whether chemical or nuclear),
this planet is for all practical purposes a closed system, and therefore the
fuel available ten feet (or ten miles, or ten thousand miles) away must be
considered a finite resource.

Until we develop a practical means of generating power by nuclear fusion, that
is.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to.

How? But first you need to define 'scientific orthodoxy' (one
of your favorite terms) and explain how it is established.

The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

Would not a vigorous debate in serious scientific circles
HELP to raise more funding? Who is going to fund
a program to study something that is already well-
established?


And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Who has the money to fund the politicians who budget the
government research?


Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.

No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.

In the absence of publication, how did you establish
the existence of significant debate among serious
scientists?


And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.


Gore has''t run for office since 2000 and plainly has
no plans to ever run again. If he has ulterior motives for
what he is promoting, what are they?

--

FF

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:23:43 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:

|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|| altogether.
|
| Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
| hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
| we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.

Umm - ok. I was fairly sure that /someone/ was bound to muddy the
water if I didn't provide anti-nitpick definitions. Let's limit the
discussion to the planet on which we (well, most of us) find
ourselves; and just stipulate that the planet is the recipient of a
bounty of energy produced by a remote fusion reaction for which we
need not provide the fuel.

Why stipulate that? Sounds like you're saying to put all our research
eggs into the solar basket and ignore every other possibility.

|| The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
|| uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing
|| our offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en
|| route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
|
| The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people
| who are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem
| to think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see
| little difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away
| and using fuel burned ten feet away.

I've never actually encountered even a single person who demanded that
we abandon fueled technologies in the sense I used the phrase. I can
understand that you are concerned about our hydrogen budget; but I try
to restrict my attention to those things that'll have greatest impact
in the more immediate (say, within the next million years or so) time
frame.

Huh?

With the time frame so restricted, the difference between fuel supply
10' away from you and that being consumed by our sun should be clear
even to the most obtuse among us...

Perhaps you can explain it.

||| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to
||| get there, would it make sense to use this one up?
||
|| Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
|| question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
|| condition as we found it.
|
| Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
| eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.

Yes - I can see that I really should have been more specific about the
time frame.

But what is the time frame? What if right now we are seeing the
transition from cyclic glaciation to steady-state without glaciers?

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:30:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, wrote:
|| On Feb 14, 1:02 pm, "Robatoy" wrote:
||
||| Up to my groin in snow.
||| Just a few drifts.
||| *poke, poke, poke*
||| "There's a car in here somewhere..."
||
|| http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
||
|| GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S.
|| TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH
||
| ..and how will that help me find my car?
|
| I had NO idea that this would trigger such an avalanche of
| responses. But, as with every thread which explodes, a nugget pops
| out which wins the thread.
|
| This is the winner:
|
|| I see little
|| difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and
|| using fuel burned ten feet away.
|
| On the left, our sun, source of all life on earth, on the right a
| Kawaswaki weed-whacker.
| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
| Sun, Kawaswaki weed-whacker
|
| Little difference.... other than the fact that I can turn off the
| weed- whacker.
|
|
| *bangs head on desk*

Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)

Hope you find your car.

And now we see the fundamental problem with the solar or nothing
loons. They don't grasp that regardless of where the energy comes
from some resource is being used up to provide it. The energy that
that Kawasaki uses came from "our sun, source of all life on earth"
(actually that's hardly true), it's just stored in a convenient form.

On Feb 17, 12:09 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:48 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Leon" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...
Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere,
the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are
dynamic in nature.

If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere
that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast,

doesn't
it?

Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.

And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra,
exactly how?

Let's not lose site of the fact that the earth is not an open-cycle
system. CO2 is added and subtracted due to photosynthesis and other
mechanisms. Those processes themselves are complex, closed-loop systems,
thus making a purely "addition-driven" computation show only part of the
equation.


The biggest uncertainty seems to be in the ocean's capacity to remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphe

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=5285590

Here's an interesting discussion of why that matters:

http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/TW1993/TW1993.html

And here is something else to worry about:

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/g...tes/title.html

--

FF

In article om, wrote:

The biggest uncertainty seems to be in the ocean's capacity to remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphe

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=5285590

There's also considerable uncertainty regarding the ability of the biosphere
to remove CO2 as well. It's been suggested that increased CO2 levels will spur
an increase in plant growth as well, and this may be a good thing.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Feb 17, 2:39 pm, J. Clarke wrote:


And now we see the fundamental problem with the solar or nothing
loons.

Where did I say 'solar or nothing'?

They don't grasp that regardless of where the energy comes
from some resource is being used up to provide it.

Used up...as in.. when I heat my pool with a solar heater, the sun
will glow dimmer?

The energy that
that Kawasaki uses came from "our sun, source of all life on earth"
(actually that's hardly true), it's just stored in a convenient form.

If that isn't true, where _did_ it come from, directly or indirectly?
And drilling thousands of feet in some cases, to fetch this energy is
hardly 'convenient', especially when you include the transportation,
refining, and further distribution. Speaking of loons, I didn't even
touch on the geopolitical/military consequences to the fetching of
this convenient source. Nor did I touch on the noise and the stink of
this convenient form.

r

Larry Blanchard wrote:
wrote:

On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, wrote:



On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

C'mon folks, we've beaten this topic to death. Nobody is changing anyone
else's mind any more, if ever. Let's drop it.

Gee, just when I thought I was winning.

You're right about the multi-screen thread, Larry, and about people's
minds not being changed, but the discussion was generally mature and
thoughtful, and at the least it may lead to some serious rethinking.

Now back to the astronomy newsgroup where the resident troll wants us to
boycott the Bank of America.

Bob

wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to.

How?

Because its easier to get funding that way.

But first you need to define 'scientific orthodoxy' (one
of your favorite terms) and explain how it is established.

We've been down this road before, you and I. You like to believe in
the pure priesthood of science wherein the only debate is that about
dispassionate acquisition of knowledge. But the history of science
is unfortunately rather clear that more emotional human issues frequently
cloud the environment. Yes, the scientific method itself - when followed -
minimizes bias. But it cannot operate when funding is denied to those
who oppose the currently regnant beliefs of the scientific establishment,
such that no research can even take place. The cause, severity, and
consequences of GW are hardly established indisputably, yet funding
remains primarily available to those expressing the anthropogenic argument.


The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

Would not a vigorous debate in serious scientific circles
HELP to raise more funding? Who is going to fund

It might, but it's far from certain. Again, you assume
a certain purity within the priesthood that I do not think
is supported by the history of science. The methods of
science are dispassionate (more or less), the people using
and funding them are not.

a program to study something that is already well-
established?

Oh, I don't know. You would argue that evolutionary theory
is "well established" but it manages to continue to get
lots and lots of funding.



And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.
The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Who has the money to fund the politicians who budget the
government research?

Let's see ... hmm, the biggest lobbying group in Washington is the AARP
so at least in the US, the biggest funding for politicians comes from
old people who want to burden the rest of society with the expenses they
themselves did not save for. Is that what you mean? How about the endless
parade of other special interests who want "exceptions" made into law for
their special "needs". About the only large lobbying group in the US that
does NOT want any exception is the NRA - the #2 lobbying organization. They
want the bill of rights of the US *left intact*. I suppose you were trying to
lead me to the big eeeeeeevil corps. as the source of political funding, but
they are just one of many voices.

More importantly, for the most part, funding is determined by professional bureaucrats
who survive political change like roaches survive nuclear fallout. Notwithstanding
the recent Bush administration pressure on the climate researchers, for the most part
politicians have actual little day-to-day say in what does or does not get funded.
For that we have DARPA, NASA, EPA, and all the rest of the government alphabet soup.
And *that's* where the scientific status quo gets preserved more than any other place.


Unless you can provide hard evidence of your position, like maybe 10.000
scientific papers to offset those that have been published, your
argument is completely invalid.
No - *your* position is bogus. Science is NOT about consensus or who
has the most papers published. It is about *data*. The fact that there
remains a vibrant discussion among serious scientists about these issues
but that this debate is NOT being published ought to give you a hint as to
how corrupted the GW debate has become by politics.

In the absence of publication, how did you establish
the existence of significant debate among serious
scientists?



By listening to dissenting scientific voices elsewhere. These are well documented.
Serious climatologists have spoken vigorously in opposition to today's overstated
certainty about causes, severity, and results of GW and have been shunned from
overtly political tomes like the IPCC through more serious peer-reviewed
journals. The absence of journal presence does not imply the absence of
dissent, merely the inability to get the dissent aired in an open way.
DAGS if you really don't believe there are serious opposing voices.

And you can send it to Gore and his crowd who by every measure have been
far worse in their prostitution of science of political gain. The Bush
administration are pikers by comparison. Gore's global whining campaign
bears no resemblance to science, data, or logic, but gets lots of traction
among he earth worshipers.


Gore has''t run for office since 2000 and plainly has
no plans to ever run again. If he has ulterior motives for

You are seriously kidding yourself. He is drooling the shadows waiting for
Mrs. Bill and Barak Obama to eviscerate each other in the primaries and then
wants to ride in as a "healing candidate" to "save" the libs.

what he is promoting, what are they?

Like all lifelong politicians, he is self-important a full of his own
myths. Deep down inside he certainly thinks he knows what's good for the
rest of us. So much so that he permits himself latitude that he would
never grant others. He's so very important that it's OK for him to
fly in private jets - a clearly inefficient method of carrying one or
two people - while hectoring the rest of us for buying SUVs. He and his
ilk are prostitutes, parasites, hypocrites, and scoundrels.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

............................I FOUND MY CAR, DAMMIT!!!!!


Now everybody TO YOUR ROOM!!!

....and think about what ya'll just did here.

When the post count hits 300, it will be like an episode of LOST in
here...KABOOM!

So no more posting... I'm telling ya,,, she'll blow!!!

On Feb 17, 11:55 am, Larry Blanchard wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:05 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 19:01:56 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 17, 12:36 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

C'mon folks, we've beaten this topic to death. Nobody is changing anyone
else's mind any more, if ever. Let's drop it.


But the Earth is poised to kill us all with a giant fart bubble:

http://www.mnforsustain.org/energy%2...tes%20Collapse

(Who says I don't have a sense of humor?)

--

FF

On Feb 17, 7:21 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to.

How?

Because its easier to get funding that way.

But first you need to define 'scientific orthodoxy' (one

of your favorite terms) and explain how it is established.

We've been down this road before, you and I.

As I recall, you didn't define it then either.

...

In the absence of publication, how did you establish
the existence of significant debate among serious
scientists?

By listening to dissenting scientific voices elsewhere.

Such as?

These are well documented.

Please point us to that documentation.

Serious climatologists have spoken vigorously in opposition to today's overstated
certainty about causes, severity, and results of GW and have been shunned from
overtly political tomes like the IPCC through more serious peer-reviewed
journals. The absence of journal presence does not imply the absence of
dissent, merely the inability to get the dissent aired in an open way.
DAGS if you really don't believe there are serious opposing voices.

DAGS on variation of the solar constant. You'll find an awful lot
of work is being funded and published, contrary to your assertions
of repression.


Gore has''t run for office since 2000 and plainly has
no plans to ever run again. If he has ulterior motives for

You are seriously kidding yourself. He is drooling the shadows waiting for
Mrs. Bill and Barak Obama to eviscerate each other in the primaries and then
wants to ride in as a "healing candidate" to "save" the libs.


More conspiracy nonsense.

--

FF

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Up to my groin in snow.
Just a few drifts.
*poke, poke, poke*
"There's a car in here somewhere..."

If I built a shop SWMBO could get the garage back.

http://www.markjerde.com/Photos/2007...s/040-Car.html

-- Mark

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Think how much we'd save by turning off the sun at night. 8-)

WHOA! YEAH! We'll call it DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME!

Get it?

--
NuWave Dave in Houston

J. Clarke wrote:

No? Then how do you propose to move large numbers of people to
another planet?

Bill
I don't.

That's Hawkings idea.

I propose that we take really, really good care of the one we have until
we are CERTAIN we have found another and KNOW how to get there.

I don't call that 'earth worship' ... but simple prudent stewardship.

--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881)
http://nmwoodworks.com

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message

[Snip of Swingman's opinions]


I do not understand the thought processes of people who believe that we can
dump 20+ billion tons (Gt) of CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year, year
after year, and not believe that it is going to have a major effect on the
earth's climate, considering that there is a definite direct positive
correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You know, there may very well be global warming- I'm not a climate
scientist, and I can't make the assertion that there is not.

*But* there is absolutely nothing at all that we are going to be able
to do about it. If every man, woman and child in the US, Canada and
Europe do everything that is being suggested to remedy the situation,
China will continue to have it's industrial revolution. And we are
not going to war to stop them- we depend on them too heavily, and they
hold far too much of our outstanding debt. Even if that were not the
case, there is no moral grounds for holding them back from doing what
our own country has already done and largely passed through.

I've got a fuel-efficient car. It was to save money at the gas pump,
and not to placate eco-nuts. But that's about the extent of what I'm
willing to do before the Orient decides they're going to stop burning
coal like it's going out of style and erecting cities the size of
Detroit every week. I'm not willing to freeze to death in the dark so
that I can wear a green t-shirt and hang out with hippies.

Whether the whole deal is true or not, the US is not the major culprit
in this- if you're talking about emmissions from the early 1900's,
then yes, mea culpa. But we've already cleaned up our acts, despite
the attempts to make everyone feel guilty about using lights at night
and having the audacity to drive a car to work every day.

So cross your fingers and hope for the best. That's what you can do
about it, just like most of the things in the world.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:32:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry) wrote:

Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for
affirming or denying global warming?

I don't know many scientists, so it's a wild-assed guess.

But could it have something to do with a scientist studying something
like global warming depends on government funds for grants to pursue
their research, and somebody has a politically motivated say on who
gets that money and who does not? Even without overt pressure, I
could imagine some unconcious skewing in the data to help ensure next
year's grants.

They're not making or developing a product, so that money has to come
from somewhere. I can't imagine that many industries are footing the
bill for people who stand up and yell that they are the root of all
that is evil in the world.

Prometheus wrote in
:

*snip*


You know, there may very well be global warming- I'm not a climate
scientist, and I can't make the assertion that there is not.

Like most things, it's something we can't prove for sure until someone
comes up with a reliable way to test it. Perhaps the solution is to
teach two (a master and apprentice) people how to take proper weather
measurements and go back in time so we've got all the proper data we need
for several thousand years, not just the 100 or so we've got now. (Then,
this would upset the timeline and we'd skew from this 1985 into an
alternate 1985.)

*snip: Paragraph I'm not interested in commenting on besides to comment
that I'm not interested in commenting on the paragraph that I refused to
comment on except for this comment and lengthy sentence.)

I've got a fuel-efficient car. It was to save money at the gas pump,
and not to placate eco-nuts. But that's about the extent of what I'm
willing to do before the Orient decides they're going to stop burning
coal like it's going out of style and erecting cities the size of
Detroit every week. I'm not willing to freeze to death in the dark so
that I can wear a green t-shirt and hang out with hippies.

I'm all for "Goin' green" (no "greenage" here... sorry Dusty,) but I
don't want to give up anything for it. My primary light sources at home
happen to be flourescent. I'm getting more light at less wattage, it's a
winning situation.

I'm looking into buying a Prius now, the main selling points being gas
mileage and design (it looks like a very well designed car). The
environmental aspects just a minor selling point. It's kinda a "eh,
that's nice" rather than a "got to get into the Nexus ribbon" feeling.

*snip*

So cross your fingers and hope for the best. That's what you can do
about it, just like most of the things in the world.

Oh, and movie references. Be sure to reference movies.

Can you tell I haven't been to bed yet? It's 20 minutes to 7:00 where I
live...

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charles Koester wrote:
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Don't forget that there are plenty of ways in which corporate entities
can benefit from global warming legislation if they play their cards
right. If they put money in the right pockets, and a "carbon
surcharge" is added to every gallon of gasoline, an oil company would
stand to make a lot of money- maybe not as a direct 1-1 payment for
every gallon of gasoline sold, but certainly in the form of grants
intended to help them research ways to "clean up" their acts.

Dividing the government and global corporate structures into two
distinct and opposing groups is a fool's task. Who do you think
ponyied up the cash to get the politicians elected in the first place?

Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware of the contridiction
between this and a previous post. I had a moment of foolishness when
thinking about business, and considered that some of those companies
may be being attacked by this- no doubt some are, but I don't imagine
you have to scratch very deep to find a whole lot of connections to
corporate lobbies.

Rest assured, it is and will continue to be "business as usual". The
big boys beat their drums to confuse things, they make out, and the
rest of us get screwed while we continue to pay their bills.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:53:19 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote:

Uh, what's wrong with being an "earth worshiper"? We do _live_ here
after all.

Nothing, unless you begin to believe that unaltered nature is more
important and valuable than human life or society- which is what that
particular slander stems from.

I believe in keeping my area clean as I can, and trying to be kind to
the other living things around me- but I'll be damned if I would
consider knocking down my own house to plant trees for the birds to
live in, or any other such nonsense. I support the parks and forest
and water conservation- but I also support new power plants and
parking lots. Everything has it's place- and that includes us. The
damn frogs just are not more important to me than my own family and
neighbors, and that's the way it should be.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:22:16 GMT, "George" wrote:


"Bill in Detroit" wrote in message
...
And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough to
have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will be
unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and India
look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through its
coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even
move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to
secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums
in obsoleting those fuels.


Hey Bill, care to speculate on the fate of any politician who said he was
going to take your car away?

Neat thing is that manufacturers and power generating companies will gladly
use or provide power generated from whatever source we want. Ought to be
easy for an intelligent individual like yourself to chose one. Care to do
so?

I'd be happy to- put a nuclear power plant in my town. No NIMBY here-
that would provide plenty of jobs and cheap electricity.

Even so, we don't really need it in the context of this debate- the
power here is mainly hydroelectric, and has been for some time. Just
wanted to make the point that I have absolutely no problem with one in
my backyard- I'd get a nice fuzzy feeling about it every time I saw
the cooling towers.

I'd be even better if that plant provided low-cost power for a decent
train system that connected cities that had usable bus lines. None of
those things are for environmental reasons- I would just really enjoy
being able to read a book when travelling instead of having to watch
the road- especially with the cost savings that would entail if I did
not need to fill up my gas tank every week and my car insurance was
lower. And I would certainly have no problems at all with a lower
electric bill- especially if that translated into a cheap enough
source of electricity that would make shutting off the gas a good
option and going with baseboards as a cost-saving measure.

Considering the safety record of nuclear power, they could put the
sucker across the street, and I'd have no objections (unless they had
too many really, really, bright lights shining through my windows)

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:46:16 -0600, Prometheus
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:45 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Bob Schmall wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charles Koester wrote:
On 2007-02-15, J Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:46:18 -0700, "DouginUtah"
wrote:

I'm not saying that scientist are, as a group, dishonest. They are
merely practical
when it comes to funding. You have to keep your patron happy. When
the subject
is so complex and dense that what is "right" is not yet known, you can
cook up
the model that makes your patron happy.

Are you actually suggesting that EVERY ONE of the scientists who believe
in the facts of global warming is doing so to make money? Please provide
some evidence.
And are further suggesting that EVERY ONE of the very few scientists who
disbelieve in global warming is incorruptible?

No - I am suggesting that the reason that the full debate about GW is not
being held in the refereed journals is because it currently serves more
people to preserve the claimed scientific orthodoxy than not to. The models
are so complex and multi-variate that there is no "fact of GW" there is simply
a variety of positions to explain currently observed phenomena - none of which
is indisputable or clearly refutes the other. My objection is not to the study
of GW and its causes/effects. My objection is the vast overstatement about
just how much we really *know* about it. To listen to you and others, one would
thing there is little left to debate. It's simply not so.

And who, exactly are the "patrons" who stand to gain from all this
cooking of the books by advocates of GW? Exxon? GM? Utilities? Truckers?
Big Oil? Oh, sorry--they're the Other Guys.

The government has a lot more money to spend on research than the big eeeeeevil
oil companies. Government with lots of money is a recipe for corruption.

Don't forget that there are plenty of ways in which corporate entities
can benefit from global warming legislation if they play their cards
right. If they put money in the right pockets, and a "carbon
surcharge" is added to every gallon of gasoline, an oil company would
stand to make a lot of money- maybe not as a direct 1-1 payment for
every gallon of gasoline sold, but certainly in the form of grants
intended to help them research ways to "clean up" their acts.

Dividing the government and global corporate structures into two
distinct and opposing groups is a fool's task. Who do you think
ponyied up the cash to get the politicians elected in the first place?

Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware of the contridiction
between this and a previous post. I had a moment of foolishness when
thinking about business, and considered that some of those companies
may be being attacked by this- no doubt some are, but I don't imagine
you have to scratch very deep to find a whole lot of connections to
corporate lobbies.

Rest assured, it is and will continue to be "business as usual". The
big boys beat their drums to confuse things, they make out, and the
rest of us get screwed while we continue to pay their bills.

The big issue with "global warming" is the Kyoto Accord, in which
everyone but the US is saying in effect "the US must clean up its act
but the rest of us don't have to". If the US signed it then they
wouldn't have anything to whine about, at least not until they started
freezing to death in the dark. But who in his right mind would agree
to such a thing?

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Bill in Detroit wrote:

| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
| opportunity to alter those conclusions.

An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
(as well as the special case of "do nothing").

In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.

Knowing your particular line of work makes me inclined to agree with
you here- I'm not so interested in having the government or activist
groups beat me on the head about what bad people we are, but finding
new and better ways to do things is usually a good strategy,
especially if the old way depends on finite resources.

| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
| obsoleting those fuels.

Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
consideration.

Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.
The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.

I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the sun
is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some things
are free, while others are not.

When I say I'm not going to do anything to change my habits, I mean
just that. I don't think we're going to change what is happening at
this point, and it may not be in our best interests to do so in any
case. It's time to look at the possible results of climate change,
whatever the causes may be, and plan accordingly. Who knows, global
warming might be the best thing that has happened in ages- what if it
translates into longer growing seasons to feed us all, and opens up
the Antartic for settlement while making the winters less bitter and
solar power a more viable option? Or, it may be a really rough road
for us all. In either case, we need some ideas about just what the
hell we're all going to do about it when it comes rolling along,
instead of moping and pointing fingers.

Not every change is bad. I have serious trouble swallowing some sort
of "waterworld" senario where we all have to live on boats and the sun
will fry us all without spf5000 sunblock. Some things just change no
matter what you do, and we've got to roll with those changes or lay
down and die.

Prometheus wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
|| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that
|| of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce sound
|| decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting
|| that challenge.
|
| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the sun
| is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some things
| are free, while others are not.

Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so before
humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be doing so long
after we're gone.

The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation is
nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes) inexhaustable.
The energy delivered is limited to roughly a kilowatt per square meter
over half of the planet's surface at a time.

We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the planetary
supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium. Long before
they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where ordinary
folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity or the
energy produced from it.

I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the simple
reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all applications.
All energy sources have their own unique set of advantages and
disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to search for
applications and problems that match up with the particular advantages
and disadvantages of low-to-moderate temperature (100F-1000F) solar
heating.

What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective ways of
doing things already being done with other technologies. I see
economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating costs,
in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple (few or no
moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.

| When I say I'm not going to do anything to change my habits, I mean
| just that. I don't think we're going to change what is happening at
| this point, and it may not be in our best interests to do so in any
| case. It's time to look at the possible results of climate change,
| whatever the causes may be, and plan accordingly. Who knows, global
| warming might be the best thing that has happened in ages- what if
| it translates into longer growing seasons to feed us all, and opens
| up the Antartic for settlement while making the winters less bitter
| and solar power a more viable option? Or, it may be a really rough
| road for us all. In either case, we need some ideas about just
| what the hell we're all going to do about it when it comes rolling
| along, instead of moping and pointing fingers.

FWIW, global warming won't make solar power a more viable option -
except, possibly, for wind applications.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Feb 18, 6:04 am, Prometheus wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:32:14 +0000 (UTC),

(Larry) wrote:
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone
care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming?

I don't know many scientists, so it's a wild-assed guess.

But could it have something to do with a scientist studying something
like global warming depends on government funds for grants to pursue
their research, and somebody has a politically motivated say on who
gets that money and who does not? Even without overt pressure, I
could imagine some unconcious skewing in the data to help ensure next
year's grants.

You would have a strong argument if climatologists
studied global warming. They do not. They study climate
and climate change. Global warming is a conclusion
culled from that study.

Climate would still be studied even if the conclusions
were more mundane.

Surely there is a tendency for a scientist to hype the
importance of his work, he/she HAS to 'hype' it as a
routine part of the grant proposal process. So you do
have an argument in that respect.

For a scientist to bias his results in order to obtain
more funding is a different matter. That would be
like a doctor faking test results in order to treat
a patient for the wrong illness.

Unconscious bias is always a concern, indeed,
in science the word bias is defined broadly, to
include all systematic effects, known and unknown,
that confound a conclusion. We certainly have
seen 'epidemics' of caesarian sections and
multiple personality disorder sweep through
the medical industry. But historically we
have also seen scientists criticized for hyping
the dangers of smoking, silicosis, nonsterile
surgical conditions, hiv/aids, and for promoting
fluoridation, immunization, and pollution
abatement.

What separates the grain from the chaff? Left to
to its work, science does.

One of the most 'popular' alternatives to anthropogenic
causes that is suggested for global climate change
is variation in the solar constant. Even a casual
web search shows that research in that area is
funded and published. No fewer than five (5)
satellites have contributed to the data base.

I agree that one should regard with skepticism
a scientist who hypes global warming, but the
same skepticism should be applied to equally
vocal people who hype the opposite. Fund the
vast quiet (not silent, but quiet) majority and they
will do the hard work to sort things out.

--

FF

On Feb 18, 9:24 am, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:46:16 -0600, Prometheus

...


The big issue with "global warming" is the Kyoto Accord, in which
everyone but the US is saying in effect "the US must clean up its act
but the rest of us don't have to". If the US signed it then they
wouldn't have anything to whine about, at least not until they started
freezing to death in the dark. But who in his right mind would agree
to such a thing?

People who have more confidence in American Industry.

--

FF

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"



FWIW, global warming won't make solar power a more viable option -
except, possibly, for wind applications.


You know, if the sun was an energy source that was more under the
direct control of man, like coal or oil, we would probably seek to
legislate it out of existence due to its harmful side effects such as
skin cancer, drought, extreme storms, etc.

This could be a convenient argumentum ad absurdum for the coal, oil
and nuke flacks.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
|| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that
|| of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce sound
|| decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting
|| that challenge.
|
| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the sun
| is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some things
| are free, while others are not.

Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so before
humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be doing so long
after we're gone.

The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation is
nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes) inexhaustable.
The energy delivered is limited to roughly a kilowatt per square meter
over half of the planet's surface at a time.

The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
continuing to work on fusion?

We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the planetary
supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium.

And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.

Long before
they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where ordinary
folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity or the
energy produced from it.

And when that point is reached, then it will become economically
viable to use some other source. But until that happens a crash
program to go to some alternate energy source will _increase_ the cost
to those consumers, not _decrease_ it.

I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the simple
reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all applications.
All energy sources have their own unique set of advantages and
disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to search for
applications and problems that match up with the particular advantages
and disadvantages of low-to-moderate temperature (100F-1000F) solar
heating.

What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective ways of
doing things already being done with other technologies. I see
economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating costs,
in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple (few or no
moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.

Well, all of this is nice if you can make reliable equipment to do
those things with operating and maintenance costs and initial purchase
price low enough that the average person can afford them. But even if
the lifecycle cost of a solar house is less than a conventional one,
if the up front purchase price is twice as high then many people just
plain can't dig up that much money at one go. The fuel cost is not
the only cost.

| When I say I'm not going to do anything to change my habits, I mean
| just that. I don't think we're going to change what is happening at
| this point, and it may not be in our best interests to do so in any
| case. It's time to look at the possible results of climate change,
| whatever the causes may be, and plan accordingly. Who knows, global
| warming might be the best thing that has happened in ages- what if
| it translates into longer growing seasons to feed us all, and opens
| up the Antartic for settlement while making the winters less bitter
| and solar power a more viable option? Or, it may be a really rough
| road for us all. In either case, we need some ideas about just
| what the hell we're all going to do about it when it comes rolling
| along, instead of moping and pointing fingers.

FWIW, global warming won't make solar power a more viable option -
except, possibly, for wind applications.

J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Prometheus wrote:
||| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
||| wrote:
|||
|||| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|||| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
|||| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be
|||| that of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce
|||| sound decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not
|||| meeting that challenge.
|||
||| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the
||| sun is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some
||| things are free, while others are not.
||
|| Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
|| fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so
|| before humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be
|| doing so long after we're gone.
||
|| The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation
|| is nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes)
|| inexhaustable. The energy delivered is limited to roughly a
|| kilowatt per square meter over half of the planet's surface at a
|| time.
|
| The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
| nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
| continuing to work on fusion?

You're being a bit free with your assumptions. Get in contact with
Greenough at PPPL and ask him who the person was with no project
connection who pushed him hardest for progress _NOW_ (starting in '76)
on Princeton's tokamak. If he hadn't a really good sense of humor (and
been a very gentle kind of person) I'd probably be missing teeth.

I asked what it'd take to expidite commercialization and was told that
it'd take on the order of a billion and a half (1976) dollars; and
that PU couldn't find it. /I/ certainly didn't have it; so all I could
do was beg the guys to work faster and smarter with what they did
have. When the first toroid was built, they invited me to stop by and
have a look see. (To imagine the magnetic pinch bottle and the
annhilation of atoms produced in an object that size inspired real
awe.)

I never saw the finished reactor. I understand it was assembled and
run at Tom's River for ten years or so before being dismantled. When I
saw that announcement I called one of the engineers and asked him to
say "Hi" to the guys I'd known and tell them that they'd dazzled the
hell out of me. BTW, there's a guy who worked on the project after I
left the east coast who lurks here on the wreck and can certainly
provide better info than I.

Fuel for the tokamak (if I understand it's operation properly) is
tritium (as in heavy heavy water) - not something one can order up in
bulk from any existing source. If you can supply the tritium and the
construction money, I think the guys with the real-world experience
(not to mention myself!) would probably be pretty happy to help make
it happen...

|| We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the
|| planetary supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium.
|
| And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.

Eh? They should be online _now_! We just have more "important" things
to spend the money on.

|| Long before
|| they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where
|| ordinary folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity
|| or the energy produced from it.
|
| And when that point is reached, then it will become economically
| viable to use some other source. But until that happens a crash
| program to go to some alternate energy source will _increase_ the
| cost to those consumers, not _decrease_ it.

Hmm. Other than the wild (but usually silent) enthusiasm for fusion to
which I just confessed, who's advocating a crash program to go to some
alternate energy source? Not I - nor has anyone else I've read here.

|| I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the
|| simple reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all
|| applications. All energy sources have their own unique set of
|| advantages and disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to
|| search for applications and problems that match up with the
|| particular advantages and disadvantages of low-to-moderate
|| temperature (100F-1000F) solar heating.
||
|| What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
|| warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective
|| ways of doing things already being done with other technologies. I
|| see economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating
|| costs, in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple
|| (few or no moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.
|
| Well, all of this is nice if you can make reliable equipment to do
| those things with operating and maintenance costs and initial
| purchase price low enough that the average person can afford them.
| But even if the lifecycle cost of a solar house is less than a
| conventional one, if the up front purchase price is twice as high
| then many people just plain can't dig up that much money at one go.
| The fuel cost is not the only cost.

Well then - by your criteria all this is pretty nice indeed. You may
surprised to learn that the up-front construction cost /can/ be
considerably lower. Whether or not that translates into a lower
_purchase_ price is a different matter entirely.

The up-front purchase price for solar equipment is all over the place.
If you want to hammer /me/ on this one, you'd better look up panel
prices at my web site and do some comparisons with similar products
from elsewhere. This isn't a subject I feel I should be discussing in
a newsgroup (but I'm tempted.)

I'm not sure how too say this as gently as I'd like; but your comments
indicate that you have considerable catch-up reading to do.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Feb 18, 1:15 pm, J. Clarke wrote:

The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
continuing to work on fusion?

The capital cost is astronomical and considering that there are so
many unanswered questions in regards to operating costs (assuming we
can keep one lit) a ROI is so far into the future, that in comparison,
current proven fission technology will reign for a very long time.
For fusion to be a net producer, the scale of the undertaking is so
enormous that it boggles the mind. The energy required to produce the
parts, to contain the plasma, and the uncertainty of its service-
ability and maintainability make this nothing more than an experiment.
The fusion proponents are trying to lift a 500,000 pound sledgehammer
to kill a gnat.

And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.

Keep dangling the carrots of 'free' energy and keep those research
grants coming folks.
We need to develop what we know. The billions allotted for
experimental research in fusion is terribly misplaced, IMHO. Fusion is
pie-in-the-sky. That does not mean that I don't believe we can make it
work... I do believe that the 'free' fuel won't enter into the
spreadsheet as a cost-savings for a long, long time... if ever. The
costs involved to re-face the interior of an abraded tokamak is
estimated to be a billion... and we don't know how long it takes for a
thermonuclear plasma to take the skin off the inside of the
toroid...could be a matter of a few minutes....we have no idea. The
sun-in-a-can...ya right.
Keep taxing the peasants so that the guys in the white coats can
promise the king ultimate control. (There may have been a little extra
cynicism in my cereal this morning.)

The real sun is here...free...now. Hanging outside my window. Every
day. The comparative pittance we need to make it usable for all of us,
is within reach. Let's spend a few bucks thinking about ways to store
energy as well.

....and how about those small nuclear powerpacks we use to run some
satellites? Can't we build one to power a subdivision? The size of a
trailer? How about smaller ones for each home? Or would that mean that
the 'power' is going to get away from the controlling robber-baron's
interests?

Stay tuned. Film at 11.

I hope you're enjoying the show, I'l be here all week, try the veal.

On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

[biggie snip]

I see from your post ( 7 minutes ahead of mine G) that you do see a
future in fusion. I do want to clarify, that I see a future there as
well. My stance is that we shouldn't stop developing alternative
energy sources with the thought in mind that the fusion reactor will
save us all in the end. I'm a proponent of developing what works, What
gives us known data, so we can predict costs and ROI. That, in today's
world, is already quite difficult. A 5 billion dollar fission reactor
ended up costing 14 billion. Still, at a steady 2500 MW with known
maintenance costs, there's a pay-back horizon somewhere before the
life-span of the unit.
Fusion looks like a black hole to me, financially speaking.

r

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:36:33 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:58:06 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Prometheus wrote:
||| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
||| wrote:
|||
|||| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
|||| altogether. The path from where we are to there appears to me to
|||| be bumpy and uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be
|||| that of preparing our offspring to make that journey and produce
|||| sound decisions en route. My biggest worry is that we're not
|||| meeting that challenge.
|||
||| I don't know that that is accurate- even with your projects, the
||| sun is used as fuel. Can't get something from nothing, but some
||| things are free, while others are not.
||
|| Yes, the sun consumes fuel - let's get past that. It consumes it's
|| fuel and will continue to do so no matter what. It was doing so
|| before humans appeared on the scene and will probably still be
|| doing so long after we're gone.
||
|| The practical difference is that the fuel cost of solar radiation
|| is nil; and that the supply is (for practical purposes)
|| inexhaustable. The energy delivered is limited to roughly a
|| kilowatt per square meter over half of the planet's surface at a
|| time.
|
| The fuel cost of fusion in a terrestrial power plant should also be
| nil or close to it. So why do you want to push solar instead of
| continuing to work on fusion?

You're being a bit free with your assumptions. Get in contact with
Greenough at PPPL and ask him who the person was with no project
connection who pushed him hardest for progress _NOW_ (starting in '76)
on Princeton's tokamak. If he hadn't a really good sense of humor (and
been a very gentle kind of person) I'd probably be missing teeth.

I asked what it'd take to expidite commercialization and was told that
it'd take on the order of a billion and a half (1976) dollars; and
that PU couldn't find it. /I/ certainly didn't have it; so all I could
do was beg the guys to work faster and smarter with what they did
have. When the first toroid was built, they invited me to stop by and
have a look see. (To imagine the magnetic pinch bottle and the
annhilation of atoms produced in an object that size inspired real
awe.)

I never saw the finished reactor. I understand it was assembled and
run at Tom's River for ten years or so before being dismantled. When I
saw that announcement I called one of the engineers and asked him to
say "Hi" to the guys I'd known and tell them that they'd dazzled the
hell out of me. BTW, there's a guy who worked on the project after I
left the east coast who lurks here on the wreck and can certainly
provide better info than I.

Fuel for the tokamak (if I understand it's operation properly) is
tritium (as in heavy heavy water) - not something one can order up in
bulk from any existing source. If you can supply the tritium and the
construction money, I think the guys with the real-world experience
(not to mention myself!) would probably be pretty happy to help make
it happen...

Uh, the Princeton Large Torus was an experiment. "Expediting
commercialization" was not feasible 30 years ago and if someone
knowledgeable gave you a number for it he was very likely trying to
get you to go away--there was not enough known then to produce a
commercial reactor and most of the scientists and engineers working on
the project _knew_ that not enough was known.

Currently the largest working fusion device other than weapons is JET
I believe, which has achieved theoretical breakeven. The next step,
for which something like 2.5 billion dollars has been committed, is
ITER, which should produce fusion energy at the level of 10 times
breakeven in the 2010-2015 time frame. Once it is running and if it
works as designed, then the next step would be to use that fusion
energy to generate electric power resulting in a self-sustaining
system--that would be in the 2030 time frame. After that a commercial
prototype would be developed in maybe the 2045 timeframe.

Attempting commercialization in 1976 could have swallowed the entire
US GDP with no result.

As for burning tritium, the D-T cycle is the easiest, so that's what
the development designs are working on. Once there are reactors
actually running in commercial service development to the point of
burning ordinary hydrogen should be possible.

The thing is, we don't need a new energy source now, today. Fission
will carry us for several hundred years, at which point commercial
fusion should be commonplace if the econuts don't find some way to
kill them.

|| We can expect that at some point, we'll have exhausted the
|| planetary supplies of petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium.
|
| And by that time we should have fusion reactors online.

Eh? They should be online _now_! We just have more "important" things
to spend the money on.

All the money in the world would not have them online now. Too much
research that depends on the results of other research that needs to
be done yet.

|| Long before
|| they're gone, their prices will increase to the level where
|| ordinary folks won't be able to afford to buy either the commodity
|| or the energy produced from it.
|
| And when that point is reached, then it will become economically
| viable to use some other source. But until that happens a crash
| program to go to some alternate energy source will _increase_ the
| cost to those consumers, not _decrease_ it.

Hmm. Other than the wild (but usually silent) enthusiasm for fusion to
which I just confessed, who's advocating a crash program to go to some
alternate energy source? Not I - nor has anyone else I've read here.

Then what, exactly, _are_ you on about?

|| I'm _not_ an advocate of converting everything to solar for the
|| simple reason that it isn't the best source of energy for all
|| applications. All energy sources have their own unique set of
|| advantages and disadvantages; and I've found it interesting to
|| search for applications and problems that match up with the
|| particular advantages and disadvantages of low-to-moderate
|| temperature (100F-1000F) solar heating.
||
|| What I'm doing has nothing intentional to do with global
|| warming/cooling. It has to do with finding more cost-effective
|| ways of doing things already being done with other technologies. I
|| see economic and social benefit in significantly reducing heating
|| costs, in pumping liquids, and providing refrigeration with simple
|| (few or no moving parts) devices and using freely available energy.
|
| Well, all of this is nice if you can make reliable equipment to do
| those things with operating and maintenance costs and initial
| purchase price low enough that the average person can afford them.
| But even if the lifecycle cost of a solar house is less than a
| conventional one, if the up front purchase price is twice as high
| then many people just plain can't dig up that much money at one go.
| The fuel cost is not the only cost.

Well then - by your criteria all this is pretty nice indeed. You may
surprised to learn that the up-front construction cost /can/ be
considerably lower. Whether or not that translates into a lower
_purchase_ price is a different matter entirely.

Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
conventional house?

The up-front purchase price for solar equipment is all over the place.
If you want to hammer /me/ on this one, you'd better look up panel
prices at my web site and do some comparisons with similar products
from elsewhere. This isn't a subject I feel I should be discussing in
a newsgroup (but I'm tempted.)

"Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
equipment", it uses design.

I'm not sure how too say this as gently as I'd like; but your comments
indicate that you have considerable catch-up reading to do.

Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
actually humorous.

Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
|
| [biggie snip]
|
| I see from your post ( 7 minutes ahead of mine G) that you do see
| a future in fusion. I do want to clarify, that I see a future there
| as well. My stance is that we shouldn't stop developing alternative
| energy sources with the thought in mind that the fusion reactor will
| save us all in the end. I'm a proponent of developing what works,
| What gives us known data, so we can predict costs and ROI. That, in
| today's world, is already quite difficult. A 5 billion dollar
| fission reactor ended up costing 14 billion. Still, at a steady
| 2500 MW with known maintenance costs, there's a pay-back horizon
| somewhere before the life-span of the unit.
| Fusion looks like a black hole to me, financially speaking.

Like you, I like things that /work/. By a fluke, I happened to be in
the Princeton area (working on Tiros-N at RCA's Astro Engineering Lab
in Hightstown) and gabbing on VHF during off-hours. One of the hams I
met on-air turned out to be a neighbor and he introduced me to a bunch
of other hams he worked with - all at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
and all likeable people with similar interests. I think they were
pleased that a systems geek could be so enthusiastic about what they
were doing. I'm not sure that some measure of my enthusiasm about
their project didn't stem from my resonance with the people (since I'm
nowhere near being a physicist); but the enthusiasm was - and is -
very real.

The end game, as I understood it, is to build a ring of tokamaks
capable of being fueled on ordinary water (not heavy heavy water or
even heavy water); and using power from reactor[n] to power the firing
of reactor[n+1]. From their comments, it seems do-able; but that,
because of the energy levels involved and the newness of the
technology, work needed to proceed in "baby steps". There was never
any question that it'd be enormously expensive; but they were certain
of both technology and payback.

[ For anyone not in the know, tokamaks were a Russian development and
produce energy by zapping a droplet of tritium oxide (water where the
hydrogen nucleus contains two neutrons in addition to the usual
proton) so hard that the atom shatters, liberating gazooba energy -
that c-squared multiplier kicks pretty hard. ]

I do have one reservation: it makes me nervous to convert planetary
mass to energy. Sol-3 isn't particularly short on water; but water
mass converted to energy is gone _forever_ - and I suspect that
humanity's hunger for free (or really cheap) energy might result in an
incredibly accellerated reduction in one of our most important
planetary resources. I wonder how many thousands (or tens of
thousands) of years it might take before Earth bore more than a
passing resemblance to Sol-4.

Fission is ok, but fuel looks like a long-term problem. I particularly
liked a German design I saw a while back - in which fuel pellets were
wrapped in a ceramic jacket which controlled spacing between pellets
and, as the reactor heated up, the jackets expanded to increase pellet
spacing to reduce reaction rate. From a nuclear physics standpoint, I
don't know enough to pronounce the design "good" or "bad"; but I liked
the simple elegance of the approach. :-)

The solar stuff I work on seems pretty tame by comparison; but it _is_
something that can be managed at an individual level without major
funding. Best of all, it works.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke wrote:

| Uh, the Princeton Large Torus was an experiment. "Expediting
| commercialization" was not feasible 30 years ago and if someone
| knowledgeable gave you a number for it he was very likely trying to
| get you to go away--there was not enough known then to produce a
| commercial reactor and most of the scientists and engineers working
| on the project _knew_ that not enough was known.

There were even a few (intellectually conceited) folk who knew it
couldn't be done at all.

| Currently the largest working fusion device other than weapons is
| JET I believe, which has achieved theoretical breakeven. The next
| step, for which something like 2.5 billion dollars has been
| committed, is ITER, which should produce fusion energy at the level
| of 10 times breakeven in the 2010-2015 time frame. Once it is
| running and if it works as designed, then the next step would be to
| use that fusion energy to generate electric power resulting in a
| self-sustaining system--that would be in the 2030 time frame.
| After that a commercial prototype would be developed in maybe the
| 2045 timeframe.

Interesting.

| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a
| conventional house?

By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of course. I
have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've been
asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a contractor who
wanted a test case for some non-conventional methods and materials.
The house shown has no heating plant and is in an area where winter
night time temperatures drop to 20F. The lowest indoor temperature
this winter has been 65F. The contractor would like to add solar
panels to raise that somewhat.

For more detailed how-to info, you should probably ask this question
in alt.solar.thermal - and if your interest extends to having such a
home built, I can foreward your contact info to the contractor.

| "Solar equipment"? A proper solar house doesn't use "solar
| equipment", it uses design.

It would seem, then, that many houses with retrofitted solar heat
aren't "proper". Fortunately for the folks living in "improper" homes,
there are off-the-shelf products that can reduce their heating costs
in a way they find satisfying.

| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been
| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's
| actually humorous.

Re-read for comprehension.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:26:46 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
| On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
|
| [biggie snip]
|
| I see from your post ( 7 minutes ahead of mine G) that you do see
| a future in fusion. I do want to clarify, that I see a future there
| as well. My stance is that we shouldn't stop developing alternative
| energy sources with the thought in mind that the fusion reactor will
| save us all in the end. I'm a proponent of developing what works,
| What gives us known data, so we can predict costs and ROI. That, in
| today's world, is already quite difficult. A 5 billion dollar
| fission reactor ended up costing 14 billion. Still, at a steady
| 2500 MW with known maintenance costs, there's a pay-back horizon
| somewhere before the life-span of the unit.
| Fusion looks like a black hole to me, financially speaking.

Like you, I like things that /work/. By a fluke, I happened to be in
the Princeton area (working on Tiros-N at RCA's Astro Engineering Lab
in Hightstown) and gabbing on VHF during off-hours. One of the hams I
met on-air turned out to be a neighbor and he introduced me to a bunch
of other hams he worked with - all at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
and all likeable people with similar interests. I think they were
pleased that a systems geek could be so enthusiastic about what they
were doing. I'm not sure that some measure of my enthusiasm about
their project didn't stem from my resonance with the people (since I'm
nowhere near being a physicist); but the enthusiasm was - and is -
very real.

The end game, as I understood it, is to build a ring of tokamaks
capable of being fueled on ordinary water (not heavy heavy water or
even heavy water); and using power from reactor[n] to power the firing
of reactor[n+1]. From their comments, it seems do-able; but that,
because of the energy levels involved and the newness of the
technology, work needed to proceed in "baby steps". There was never
any question that it'd be enormously expensive; but they were certain
of both technology and payback.

[ For anyone not in the know, tokamaks were a Russian development and
produce energy by zapping a droplet of tritium oxide (water where the
hydrogen nucleus contains two neutrons in addition to the usual
proton) so hard that the atom shatters, liberating gazooba energy -
that c-squared multiplier kicks pretty hard. ]

I think you're confusing the tokamak, which is a magnetic confinement
scheme, with inertial confinement devices such as Shiva, Nova, NIF,
and HiPER.

In fusion no atoms "shatter", two hydrogens combine to form helium (or
any other two ligher nuclei combine to form a heavier one) plus an
amount of energy equal to the mass deficit between the two elements.

I do have one reservation: it makes me nervous to convert planetary
mass to energy. Sol-3 isn't particularly short on water; but water
mass converted to energy is gone _forever_ - and I suspect that
humanity's hunger for free (or really cheap) energy might result in an
incredibly accellerated reduction in one of our most important
planetary resources. I wonder how many thousands (or tens of
thousands) of years it might take before Earth bore more than a
passing resemblance to Sol-4.

If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per
capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United
States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to
last for approximately 10 million years.

In 10 million years, with fusion energy available, one would hope that
the ability to travel easily to other planets would have been
developed. If Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune were accessible
that would provide a quantity of hydrogen equal to approximately 300
times the entire mass of the Earth (each of those planets is many
times the size of Earth and each is mostly hydrogen). At the same
level of consumption that quantity would be sufficient to last
approximately several million times the age of the universe. If
humanity manages to hang around that long then I suspect that running
out of hydrogen in Earth's solar system will be the least of their
worries.

Fission is ok, but fuel looks like a long-term problem. I particularly
liked a German design I saw a while back - in which fuel pellets were
wrapped in a ceramic jacket which controlled spacing between pellets
and, as the reactor heated up, the jackets expanded to increase pellet
spacing to reduce reaction rate. From a nuclear physics standpoint, I
don't know enough to pronounce the design "good" or "bad"; but I liked
the simple elegance of the approach. :-)

The solar stuff I work on seems pretty tame by comparison; but it _is_
something that can be managed at an individual level without major
funding. Best of all, it works.

On Feb 18, 4:26 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

[snipped for brevity, although very interesting indeed.]

[ For anyone not in the know, tokamaks were a Russian development and
produce energy by zapping a droplet of tritium oxide (water where the
hydrogen nucleus contains two neutrons in addition to the usual
proton) so hard that the atom shatters, liberating gazooba energy -
that c-squared multiplier kicks pretty hard. ]

I have always enjoyed the 'spoonful' vs 'coal train' analogies. It's
particularly interesting when the spoonful contains water. How many MW
per gazooba?

I do have one reservation: it makes me nervous to convert planetary
mass to energy. Sol-3 isn't particularly short on water; but water
mass converted to energy is gone _forever_ - and I suspect that
humanity's hunger for free (or really cheap) energy might result in an
incredibly accellerated reduction in one of our most important
planetary resources. I wonder how many thousands (or tens of
thousands) of years it might take before Earth bore more than a
passing resemblance to Sol-4.

I think if we convert all the oceans directly to energy, we could give
the sun a run for its money..well..not quite, but global warming would
take on a whole new meaning. Maybe more like Sol 5.
I get a kick out of some of the sizes that different suns come in.
Ours is but a pipsqueek.
Betelgeuse doesn't quite fit in between our earth and our sun. Blows
my little mind.

Fission is ok, but fuel looks like a long-term problem. I particularly
liked a German design I saw a while back - in which fuel pellets were
wrapped in a ceramic jacket which controlled spacing between pellets
and, as the reactor heated up, the jackets expanded to increase pellet
spacing to reduce reaction rate. From a nuclear physics standpoint, I
don't know enough to pronounce the design "good" or "bad"; but I liked
the simple elegance of the approach. :-)

That's pretty clever. I like the idea of fusion, not only because fuel
is plentyful, but the radiation products are very short-lived.

The solar stuff I work on seems pretty tame by comparison; but it _is_
something that can be managed at an individual level without major
funding. Best of all, it works.

I have been snooping around a bit, as I am having a new roof put on
the house where I live.
I would like some minimal PV power as a back-up. I'm not really
interested in making the meter spin backwards.

The more I read, the more I discover that there is so much to learn.
That is what makes it fun.

.....and now back to some cold fusion.

r

On Feb 18, 6:36 pm, J. Clarke wrote:


If the population of the earth was ten times what it is and the per
capita energy consumption was 100 times what is is in the United
States today, the amount of hydrogen in the oceans is sufficient to
last for approximately 10 million years.

Please post the worksheet which allowed you to arrive at those
numbers.

If quoted from another source, please cite.

r