Global Warming

On Apr 15, 9:44*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 15, 5:55 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:35 am, William Asher wrote:

No matter how you slice it, the US is more than holding up its share of
the increase in total CO2 emissions.

I'm really glad environmentalists made sure coal and natural gas
plants were built instead of nukes. *I am really glad the guvmint
built all those roads for people to drive on.

Banks put the stake in the US nuclear industry's
heart. *Greenies just closed the coffin lid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/

Cost overruns and cheaper fossil fuel alternatives
made it unattractive to start new nuke plants even
before Three Mile Island. *

I didn't read the following, but here it is:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

It has been a long time, but it seems I remember some stuff like this:

A reason investors would hold back was partly due to a moving (target)
regulatory environment, which made construction costs difficult to
predict. And that was to a good measure driven by environmentalists,
as I remember it. Construction would get halted-restarted-halted-
restarted-... due to court orders (lawsuits by environmental groups).
Not meeting schedules is extremely costly, and the general environment
for construction was highly volatile. What if a lawsuit ended up
succeeding? What if that caused investors to lose 100% of
investment?

Now the above is my remembrance of pop news stories, so it may be
crap. But if true, one could see that investors would simply not
consider nukes when they could build coal plants instead, due to the
investment risk.

I don't personally care which type of plant gets built. I just want
the juice. The reason I tend to bring up nukes in these global
warming alarmist threads is because of the enormous generating
capability of nukes contrasted with their zero CO2 emission
characteristic. If the alarmists can't face the AGW-solution tradeoff
realities, then no one needs to bother figuring out if the alarmists
are right or wrong on the technical issues of AGW, or the accuracy of
the AGW consequences models. That is where we are today.

Note the regulatory aspects to investment risk now facing coal-fired
generation:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Co...1970s_999.html

Also:
_Going Nuclear - A Green Makes the Case_, By Patrick Moore, Greenpeace
founder
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401209.html


The countries that
continued with nuke power (like France, Taiwan,
South Korea, Spain) either were short of local
fossil fuels or the govmint subsidized nuke
construction or both. *Cheap fossil fuels make
pursuit of any alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind,
reclaimed Usenet flamewars) uneconomical until the
fossil fuels start to run out. *Then, it's panic
time.

The US still has domestic civilian nuke expertise
because we've been helping Spain, Korea, Taiwan etc
build their plants (IOW, our industry subsidized by
their govmints). *Let us hope that our industry has
learned something in the interim so that if we start
nuke construction, we don't make as big a hash of it
as we did in the 70s. *I have a relative in the
business (which is how I am familiar with this stuff)
and although I'd guess that our engineering is fine,
the management is as Dilbert-esque as the mgmt at any
large technology company, which doesn't totally
set my mind at ease.

Unfortunately, a strict regulatory environment is part and parcel to
Dilbert-esque mgmt. Regulations tend to protect businesses that would
otherwise go under from competition, as financial stability is often
one of the granted privileges traded for being regulated. If a
company is guaranteed to survive, no matter how stupid and inefficient
they are, then it is a haven for poorly performing managers and
workers. Such a firm turns into a bureaucracy, just like guvmint,
with all the defects. Plus there is this defect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture -- I'm not suggesting
the nuclear industry should not be regulated, I'm just sayin there
ain't no perfect solution. Choose your evil carefully and minimize it
defects.

On a side note, the corp I work for now does not have retarded
management. I was pleasantly surprised, and hope I continue to feel
that way. It makes all the difference in the world. I had decided to
leave engineering because of how stupid it was getting -- and I had
embarked on new training -- but then I landed this job and redirected
back. The road has twists and turns.

On Apr 16, 1:25*am, "
wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:





In article
,

" wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:38 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I don't know about you but personally I'm sick and tired of fools
playing at
knowledge they don't have.

OTOH, it's occasionally kinda amusing watching you. Not always, and
not in large doses, but admittedly sometimes kinda amusing.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/temp-co2-spots.png

As a Canadian, I would like to heartily endorse whatever root cause is
responsible for that temperature trend.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...id=f5fecf8e-61
6e-4fb1-852c-1dd2ebf5810f&k=59121

If there is anything I could personally do to accelerate the process,
please let me know.

Eat a lot of beef. *Raising beef cattle is very energy intensive.
You can also get hamburgers at the drive through and
eat them in the car, killing two birds (endangered shorebirds,
probably) with one stone.

Check, and I'll work on it...

However, if you eat enough beef to personally make a
difference, you may have a heart attack before realizing
any of the benefits of a warmer climate. *Then there's the
whole Bangladeshi-refugee thing. *Plus, you know what
a warmer climate means for bike racing, right?
Less cyclocross.

I'll put my evil-brain cards on the table: I have been to several places
in the world that are already under water.

Amsterdam and Richmond, BC, are doing okay.

The problem in Bangladesh is poverty, and eliminating that as a
structural issue is something, historically, which we have already
solved in several test cases (cf. S. Korea et al).

If Bangladesh is still too poor to build dykes by the time the water
starts rising appreciably, then I for one would still expect that the
problem is best regarded (and solved) as a crisis of poverty, not
tidelines.

Because, you know, on the margin being desperately poor isn't that much
better than being desperately poor and submerged. The former puts one in
mind of winning a Cat 4 race*.

To put it another way, I think we have a way better chance of making
Bangladesh rich than we do of changing the weather 100 years from now.
And I'm virtually certain the fiscal and social returns will be better.

There's a lot of coastline in the world. *And just
because we can defend Amsterdam now doesn't mean
it will be equally practical later. *By the time
this problem gets more pressing, the first world
countries will be so busy keeping the Connecticut
River out of Bill's ground floor and keeping the
Atlantic out of Myrtle Beach that alleviating the
Bangladeshis' problem by lifting them out of poverty
will take a back seat.

Actually, I think changing weather patterns (like
more strong flooding in various places) will be a
big problem well before actual sea level rise is,
but this is just a guess on my part. *In any case,
trying to continue with emissions-as-usual and
figuring we can grow economies to pay our way out
of it is hoping to cure the disease by palliating
the symptoms.

It's sort of like the Kübler-Ross
five stages of grief. *The grievous occasion is the
unsustainability of present consumption trends
(not just oil burning, but deforestation and so on) -
essentially, our way of life as presently arranged.
Kunich is in stage 1, denial. *Figuring that we can
cure it by economic growth alone, without planning
that growth so that it doesn't make things worse,
is in stage 3, bargaining.

Killing pigs will grow the economy and the middle class at the same
time, although you might not _completely_ agree with that.

Killing the piggies is powerful medicine, why couldn't it cure AGW
too?

I might have subconciously stolen that from BF.

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article , William Asher
wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/4suwfj


Nice. That's Inhofe right?

Carl's right, I'd say. It appears to be Jim Bob and Michelle
Duggar, who are up to
about 17, the last I saw. Holy crap, think about that: she's been
pregnant for pretty much 20 years. And what kind of name is "Jinger?"
Oh, it says here [1] that it's pronounced like "Ginger." Oh.

Anyway, that wasn't the first use of "clown car" I'd seen. That
came on this page
[2] and the kid kount is much lower but it's still funny. One must
scroll down but check out the whole page.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar

[2]
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/200...ls-photos.html


I was remembering this:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/images/trial3.jpg

--
Bill Asher

On Apr 16, 3:13 am, "
wrote:

What if not desired? You have to respect a cuisine
that can render even ice cream cake unappetizing.
Even cultures with trashy cooking generally manage
to make decent dessert.

Speaking of family recipes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...f_b_96666.html

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 15, 5:55 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:35 am, William Asher wrote:

No matter how you slice it, the US is more than holding up its share of
the increase in total CO2 emissions.

I'm really glad environmentalists made sure coal and natural gas
plants were built instead of nukes. I am really glad the guvmint
built all those roads for people to drive on.


Banks put the stake in the US nuclear industry's
heart. Greenies just closed the coffin lid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/

Cost overruns and cheaper fossil fuel alternatives
made it unattractive to start new nuke plants even
before Three Mile Island. The countries that
continued with nuke power (like France, Taiwan,
South Korea, Spain) either were short of local
fossil fuels or the govmint subsidized nuke
construction or both. Cheap fossil fuels make
pursuit of any alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind,
reclaimed Usenet flamewars) uneconomical until the
fossil fuels start to run out. Then, it's panic
time.

The US still has domestic civilian nuke expertise
because we've been helping Spain, Korea, Taiwan etc
build their plants (IOW, our industry subsidized by
their govmints). Let us hope that our industry has
learned something in the interim so that if we start
nuke construction, we don't make as big a hash of it
as we did in the 70s. I have a relative in the
business (which is how I am familiar with this stuff)
and although I'd guess that our engineering is fine,
the management is as Dilbert-esque as the mgmt at any
large technology company, which doesn't totally
set my mind at ease.

The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up.
What is called for is a single design, with options.
Remember the late nineteenth century? Drummers crossed the
land selling (yes!) bridges. Single design, pre-fabricated,
modular iron bridges. Order it from Pittsburgh; in a few
weeks or less it shows up at your station platform.
Puzzle over the instructions, then put it up.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 15, 11:37 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Michael Press wrote:



In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

I don't need to be one of the cool guys. Because
that's impossible. I'm a nerd, remember? One of
those dorks who owns more than one HP calculator.

HP calculators? Bah. I have (and still use) one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/6g9hjt

Note the last line in the 'comments' section...

Had one of these for years, but it was stolen
http://www.thimet.de/CalcCollection/Calculators/Corvus-500/Contents.htm

Good ol' RPN! I haven't seen that in a while. That was on the first calculator I
had, a Novus 4510 that lasted about five months.

Mega-nerds use HP calculators because they (we)
like RPN. Actually, Postscript, as in the printer
language, is also RPN.

However, I started off with a TI-57
http://www.datamath.org/Sci/MAJESTIC/TI-57.htm
which is what I learned programming with. In fact,
I still have it and it works on AC power, although
the battery pack is long dead. Hmm, maybe I'll
rebuild the battery pack. Jesus, this thing is
almost as old as my most-ancient bicycle.

Yikes! I just remembered. Pawed through the pile
and came up with a TI-59. Plug in ROM problem solvers
and a magnetic strip read-write head.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article , William Asher
wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/4suwfj


Nice. That's Inhofe right?

Carl's right, I'd say. It appears to be Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, who are up to
about 17, the last I saw. Holy crap, think about that: she's been pregnant for pretty
much 20 years. And what kind of name is "Jinger?" Oh, it says here [1] that it's
pronounced like "Ginger." Oh.

Anyway, that wasn't the first use of "clown car" I'd seen. That came on this page
[2] and the kid kount is much lower but it's still funny. One must scroll down but
check out the whole page.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar

[2] http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/200...ls-photos.html

Yes I got all the way to Dorothy Hamill cut and further. Done laughing?
That is not her hair. So sad.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
William Asher wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article , William Asher
wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/4suwfj


Nice. That's Inhofe right?

Carl's right, I'd say. It appears to be Jim Bob and Michelle
Duggar, who are up to
about 17, the last I saw. Holy crap, think about that: she's been
pregnant for pretty much 20 years. And what kind of name is "Jinger?"
Oh, it says here [1] that it's pronounced like "Ginger." Oh.

Anyway, that wasn't the first use of "clown car" I'd seen. That
came on this page
[2] and the kid kount is much lower but it's still funny. One must
scroll down but check out the whole page.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar

[2]
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/200...ls-photos.html


I was remembering this:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/images/trial3.jpg

What is the bizarre image processing around the busts
back row, picture right?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:


What is the bizarre image processing around the busts
back row, picture right?


I think those are halos. Or maybe santorum.

--
Bill Asher

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...

The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up.
What is called for is a single design, with options.

Err, please don't tell me that you have an engineering background.