I like hydrogen boron fusion power plants because maybe someday, likely when we are all extinct from climate change, cockroaches may be able to build them. Just kidding. But fusion is like a snail. Anyway these reactors have tremendous advantages over normal hydrogen fusion because they do not produce neutron radiation that will tear a reactor's radiation shielding apart. They only produce three helium nuclei. YAY! You only need to contain a 3 billion degree plasma to get it to work as opposed to the mere 100 million degrees for regular fusion. Anyway, I might be able to support that kind of reactor. Normal fusion produces way to much dangerous toxic waste.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why Climate Skeptics are Wrong (Scientific American article)
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I like hydrogen boron fusion power plants because maybe someday, likely when we are all extinct from climate change, cockroaches may be able to build them. Just kidding. But fusion is like a snail. Anyway these reactors have tremendous advantages over normal hydrogen fusion because they do not produce neutron radiation that will tear a reactor's radiation shielding apart. They only produce three helium nuclei. YAY! You only need to contain a 3 billion degree plasma to get it to work as opposed to the mere 100 million degrees for regular fusion. Anyway, I might be able to support that kind of reactor. Normal fusion produces way to much dangerous toxic waste.
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
Just dropping in as I lose my post-debate frustration-hangover.
There are generally-accepted approaches to "real science." In the case of many types of problems, empirical measurement and verification prefers a statistical basis, with sampling that excludes or attenuates any bias, and sample sizes calculated to determine the maximum range of error (+/- numeric values from the mean, or a +/- deviation from percentages measured in the sample.)
Further, if you have a "theory" deduced from some initial observation given the behavior(s) of certain known causative factors, then the statement of the theory must contain elements which would allow for some experiment to disprove the theory. In Economics, this is called "refutable implications;" there are other labels, such as "verifiable" in physical sciences which pretty much correspond to "refutable implications."
If statistical testing is initially used to confirm that the theory "works," then a single observation to the contrary is meaningless, since it is part of a larger distribution, could be an outlier, a wide variation or anomaly. If the anomaly has an "assignable cause," it is something other than the theoretical process of imputing a known set of causes.
So a few years ago, if someone told me is was unseasonably cool during several weeks in July at some particular location, and that location was all they observed, the map of global temperatures and their distribution on a map might show that it was warmer than average everywhere else.
A lot of the denier argument is based on this or that naïve understanding of other things. For example, most major natural determinants of climate change are predictable. So a data-set could simply be normalized for these determinants. This would be an adjustment similar to the exercise of converting "nominal" dollars to "real" dollars in Economics. This diminishes the argument that natural processes are simply being misread, or that they outweigh any human causes.
Basically I advocate the use of dice, pennies, and playing cards in math classes taught in a Christian Day school. That sort of goes against the evangelical grain. But I'd advocate a slightly stronger addition of basic statistics and probability to any high-school curriculum.
And you'd also wonder what percentage of climate deniers go to the Indian casino with any regularity to play Blackjack, how much they win, and how much they lose. Even so, I think it's possible somebody could be good in understanding certain games of chance, but naïve about unrelated exercises in scientific inquiry.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151021135628.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030111105.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151124112138.htm
The needs and the economic rewards for solar storage are propelling a revolution in technology. Nuclear is all about dodging liability and trying to find fools to fund it.
A refrigerator sized tank can power your house all night with turbines driven by compressed air. The same can be done for coastal cities by air bags anchored on the sea bed.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
No, I didn't miss it. This is a thread about lowering our carbon emissions which he agrees that we should do. He also thinks that we should abandon all nuclear which would make necessary hundreds if not thousands of new nat gas plants which vastly increases our CO2 emissions.
There is no inbetween or none of the above and honestly nat gas is the best/cleanest thing we could move to and we are lucky to have very low nat gas prices right now. When those prices increase and a significant part of the nations power supply comes from it, it's going to hurt pretty bad. The only other real option for us is to open more coal fired plants and I must believe that Moonbeam would take nat gas over coal any day.
Remember, we are talking about right now. We can't design and build anything that hasn't been developed or proven yet so relying on further advancements isn't an option. It's great to think about for the future but again we are talking about right now.
Ironically by not building new and much more modern nuclear plants it has the direct effect of causing older, far less modern, plants being kept online for longer than intended. But if you really want to get rid of them stopping new ones from being built is definitely the starting point.
I own a business that is in the solar industry and I agree. It's not that I really agree I guess but "I know" is probably a better answer. We are a long way away from being able to store energy on a large scale and until we can do that it's simply impossible to replace the baseline load generation with renewables. Even when we do figure it out we still have to test it, prove it's reliability and then start the long process of funding, designing and finally building them. If you had a pile of money just sitting around and the technology was already proven it would probably take 3-5 years to get it designed, built and operational. We are nowhere close to having the technology as of today so at the end of the day our best choices are:
Nuclear - good: because it doesn't cause emissions that lead to climate change and stable prices. bad: nuclear waste must be stored basically forever.
Nat Gas - good: because it doesn't create nuclear waste bad: it does create greenhouse emissions and is vulnerable to massive price swings
Coal - just plain shitty all around, causes way more medical issues than nuclear ever has in the US including releasing more radiation.
Those are the options, you gotta pick one for the foreseeable future.
Really groovy stuff, thanks for the read. With that said they currently need a liter to hold HALF the energy of a D sized alkaline battery. I can't attest to what energy density is actually required but it's gotta be better than what we can currently get in the checkout line of a grocery store.
Good stuff! I look forward to seeing this developed further.
"Jacobson's new model foresees, and is dependent upon, an all-electric country, with virtually everything running 100 percent on electricity: cars, trains, buses, industry, heating and cooling"
As much as I like the idea that's just pie in the sky stuff right there.
I'd love to see that one too, got a link?
Don't take me the wrong way, I love the progress and think we should be throwing money at it like crazy to make more but I am also a realist. We live in today and we are trying to solve problems that we have today. We can't base our national electrical grid on stuff we haven't invented yet.
crashtech
Lifer
The French have reprocessing down to an art; the amount of hot waste they need to store is very small compared to the massive amount of carbon-free energy produced. They get over 75% of their electricity from nuclear and have done it pretty much in obscurity, which means no drama and few notable accidents.
Last edited:
Darwin:
"Jacobson's new model foresees, and is dependent upon, an all-electric country, with virtually everything running 100 percent on electricity: cars, trains, buses, industry, heating and cooling"
As much as I like the idea that's just pie in the sky stuff right there.
M: You didn't think that through. Most of our CO2 comes from cars and trucks. Nuclear is only as good as solar if our transportation is converted to electrical. And since solar is better, viola, Jacobson makes sense. We must and already are doing pie in the sky.
D: I'd love to see that one too, got a link?
Don't take me the wrong way, I love the progress and think we should be throwing money at it like crazy to make more but I am also a realist. We live in today and we are trying to solve problems that we have today. We can't base our national electrical grid on stuff we haven't invented yet.
M: New reactor types are not prime time either:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...sh-the-Costs-of-Compressed-Air-Energy-Storage
This one is lots of fun:
http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/grid-scale-energy-storage
Yay, Obama:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/23/sustainx-completes-new-compressed-air-energy-storage-system/
Under the sea in an accordion's garden:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...ompressed-air-storage-fantasy-or-reality.html
"Jacobson's new model foresees, and is dependent upon, an all-electric country, with virtually everything running 100 percent on electricity: cars, trains, buses, industry, heating and cooling"
As much as I like the idea that's just pie in the sky stuff right there.
M: You didn't think that through. Most of our CO2 comes from cars and trucks. Nuclear is only as good as solar if our transportation is converted to electrical. And since solar is better, viola, Jacobson makes sense. We must and already are doing pie in the sky.
D: I'd love to see that one too, got a link?
Don't take me the wrong way, I love the progress and think we should be throwing money at it like crazy to make more but I am also a realist. We live in today and we are trying to solve problems that we have today. We can't base our national electrical grid on stuff we haven't invented yet.
M: New reactor types are not prime time either:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...sh-the-Costs-of-Compressed-Air-Energy-Storage
This one is lots of fun:
http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/grid-scale-energy-storage
Yay, Obama:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/23/sustainx-completes-new-compressed-air-energy-storage-system/
Under the sea in an accordion's garden:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...ompressed-air-storage-fantasy-or-reality.html
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Get back to me when these sources are large enough to perform peaking service without power interruptions due to lower voltage events.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Let's see, which CAES project can meet real world peaking power needs? My bet is for the later. I was involved in the start up of the plant in Alabama in 1991.
http://www.sustainx.com/e9c13ca1-134c-49e9-9031-036592c1b37a/about-us-news-events-detail.htm
http://www.powersouth.com/mcintosh_power_plant/compressed_air_energy
Jaskalas
Lifer
Or maybe we're intended to ration electricity in the future.
If I am straight on what you are saying, the compressed air facility you describe used 1/3 the natural gas as a standard gas generator, better than normal, but the system I linked does not use any fossil fuels. That's what makes it better. Technological innovation.......
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Great, just let us know when it can can produce 70 times what it can now and actually be used as a peaking power supply for the grid.
Edited to add the following important information on the plant:
Even with CAES generator they have added 4 more gas turbine generator sets to meet the needs in the region.
http://www.powersouth.com/mcintosh_power_plant
A 688 MW plant sure does dwarf that 1.5MW ICAES plant.
Last edited:
dainthomas
Lifer
How did they get the half life of U-232 so wrong? It's seriously off by several orders of magnitude.
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
Is that a problem for you?
Barring the flap over the South China Sea, I see pols trying to spin the argument of "China-as-Enemy." Until I see how you answer my first line, I don't see a need to stir up trouble with other countries, just because their economic growth seems enviable. Call it propaganda, but I found it singular that Xi-Jinping visited DC to announce his own cap-and-trade plan, coinciding with the Pope's visit and remarks.
The latest news has Beijing's pollution so thick that you can't even stand on one side of the street to see buildings across the way.
There is nothing wrong with the CAES unit you describe. I think it is one of two in the world, built in the (70?) The point is that the new technology is not geologically dependent on underground conditions, is the only CAES built since the early 90s, and is both scalable, able to be put close to where needed, burns zero fossil fuels, and can be made with current inexpensive materials.
Bart*Simpson
Senior member
Pew did a poll back around 2009 and their result at the time was around ~55% of scientists skewing liberal.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
That is a majority but it is not 'almost all'. I doubt that the numbers have changed radically in either direction since the poll was run.
From that poll, 81 % are or lean democrat and 12 % lean republican. Pnly 6 % identify
As republican. What I said stands,
thraashman
Lifer
The problem comes from your use of the word "liberal". Liberal and democrat do not necessarily coincide. Sure, democrats are more liberal than republicans, but they're not really liberals. Really, dems are about as liberal now as republicans were 30 years ago. It's just that the republican party has shifted so insanely far to the right that they view their own platforms from 30 years ago as socialism.
woolfe9998
Lifer
Good article. I've always liked Michael Schermer and the Skeptics Society. Also, Scientific American once did a great job debunking the 911 conspiracy theories. The key language is this:
Once again this reminds me of past debates with Holocaust deniers (and again, not comparing the beliefs on substance, only on procedural reasoning). It isn't enough to play the negationist and poke a hole here or there in the generally accepted version. You have to provide an alternative theory that explains the known evidence. It's like with 911 ct's, for example, they will point out an anomaly in this or that piece of evidence supporting the accepted narrative, but when it comes to explaining what really did happen, you'll get a different answer from each cter you talk to because they can't formulate a better narrative based on all known evidence. It's like saying something didn't happen, but we have no idea what did happen. That doesn't cut it.
With climate change, we want to know from the "skeptics" what is the best theory that explains the known evidence. In other words, what is really happening with the climate, is it getting hotter or colder (and to what degree) or staying the same, and if we agree it's warming then what is causing the warming if not MMGW. We're not looking for 8 different poorly thought out alternatives, but for the best theory that ties together and is consistent with all known data. A better theory to replace MMGW. The inability to do that is a serious red flag, an indication we are dealing with a belief system more interested in pursuing a predetermined result then in the legitimacy of the scientific process employed.
Once again this reminds me of past debates with Holocaust deniers (and again, not comparing the beliefs on substance, only on procedural reasoning). It isn't enough to play the negationist and poke a hole here or there in the generally accepted version. You have to provide an alternative theory that explains the known evidence. It's like with 911 ct's, for example, they will point out an anomaly in this or that piece of evidence supporting the accepted narrative, but when it comes to explaining what really did happen, you'll get a different answer from each cter you talk to because they can't formulate a better narrative based on all known evidence. It's like saying something didn't happen, but we have no idea what did happen. That doesn't cut it.
With climate change, we want to know from the "skeptics" what is the best theory that explains the known evidence. In other words, what is really happening with the climate, is it getting hotter or colder (and to what degree) or staying the same, and if we agree it's warming then what is causing the warming if not MMGW. We're not looking for 8 different poorly thought out alternatives, but for the best theory that ties together and is consistent with all known data. A better theory to replace MMGW. The inability to do that is a serious red flag, an indication we are dealing with a belief system more interested in pursuing a predetermined result then in the legitimacy of the scientific process employed.
Last edited:
Bart*Simpson
Senior member
You might enjoy this: I had someone tell me that Trumps' political platform most closely represents the platform of the Democrat Party from 1996.
Pretty much, yeah.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29611
Bart*Simpson
Senior member
Edited your post for space and to better align my response to these two points.
The two topics are similar not just in that they have skeptics but in terms of the vitriol and hateful response of those who dogmatically support an 'official version' of both topics.
I used to get all manner of hate from some people because my response to Holocaust skepticism (not all of it was outright denial which is batshit, IMHO) was that a scholarly response to questions about the Holocaust was the best way to separate legitimate skeptics from racist deniers. Naturally I was immediately denounced as a racist.
Twenty years later who's the biggest repository of scholarly Holocaust research and (ergo) revisionism? The Yad Vashem in Israel is. They've debunked a lot of myths about the Holocaust and in doing so they've refined the truth and what's been the result? Holocaust denial isn't a concern anymore in the West...it's just the Jew-hating Muslims who still practice this brand of hatred.
The same approach to the climate skeptics would help squelch skepticism but only if the claims of the warmists can stand up to open and public scrutiny.
The problem is I suspect that an awful lot of claims by the warmists won't stand up to public scrutiny given how there's a plethora of lawsuits right now where people want to see the documentation that supports the current claims about climate change.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=foia+climate+change
I mean if they're not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to hide, right? Especially when there's a Federal law (FOIA) that says their research and emails and etc. are supposed to be public information. They're supposed to produce these records on request and not lawyer up trying to hide raw data from ground-based weather stations.
And that's what sets the warming claims apart from the claims about the Holocaust. Legitimate Holocaust researchers eventually answered the questions of skeptics and the questions about the ENTIRE Holocaust went away as the details were supported or debunked.
With warming the answers to the skeptics are typically confined to epithets in the media or filings in the courts.
That's not the behavior you'd expect from scientists who you'd think would want to wave their research from the rooftops so everyone could replicate their results.
So why hide everything if there's nothing to hide? :\
sandorski
No Lifer
wtf?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
