Global Warming

On Apr 16, 5:29*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"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.

It ("custom") was apparently what was actually occuring. This is
another reason costs were higher than they would have been otherwise.
(A moving regulatory environment sure wouldn't help matters, and are
perhaps a partial cause in this.)

"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in message
...

It ("custom") was apparently what was actually occuring. This is
another reason costs were higher than they would have been otherwise.
(A moving regulatory environment sure wouldn't help matters, and are
perhaps a partial cause in this.)

Here's the underscoring -

1) A large installation such as a nuclear power plant costs nearly the same
designed from scratch or "mass produced". These are huge buildings with
equipment that is so large that it must be produced at the time or order
anyway. Since you can't mass produce it there's no savings from mass
production which is where MOST volume savings occur. Why do you think that
skyscrapers are all different? Because it doesn't cost any more.

2) The equipment inside the plant is pretty much designed already because
you have to use stuff already tested. So while scale might change somewhat,
it isn't really "custom" core, heat transmission stuff, etc.

3) Each site is different from every other site. This demands that changes
be made to each design to fit such sites. You can't use a seaside design in
the desert.

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

On Apr 16, 6:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 6:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Ahh, then you know what I mean. So can you refer me to your atmospheric CO2
paper?

In article ,
wrote:

On Apr 16, 6:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

It's Tom's life story: a guy who doesn't understand (name the subject) is always
discussing it as if it was so simple. And calling those who do understand it "fools."

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Michael Press wrote:
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.

I remember those. They used to have Romberg integration and matrix
determinants etc. I seem to recall attempting to write a Gaussian
elimination program myself.

Now where is rec.nostalgia.calculators.

On Apr 16, 7:21 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
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.
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.

To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.

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.

You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.

There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.

Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

Ben

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 16, 7:21 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
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.
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.

To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.

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.

You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.

There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.

Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

PWhat is the estimated amount of sea level rise? Bangladesh has a very
specific problem because half the country is less than 3' ASL. I live
considerably less than a mile from the coastline, and my house is 50'
ASL.

Doomsayers seem to be reaching a consensus estimate of 28-34 cm on sea
level rise. That's about a foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

How many new houses will need to be built, really?

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_d...d_of_living_an
d_GDP

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/T..._4/Air_Quality
/02.html

making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 16, 7:21 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
On Apr 15, 6:01 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,
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.
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.

To get to the root problem with this theory, you're just making stuff
up.

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.

You can tax Canada. That boring column I referenced upthread is pointing
to a government report that says, with a lot of caveats and doomsaying,
that a rise in temperature would make Canada a nicer place to live.

There's a lot more Canada (and Russia) than there is coastline.

Yeah, there will be more storms to mess with the crops. On the other
hand, the amount of arable land will massively increase.

But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.

Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.

Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.

wrote:

Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.


I agree! Since there is little heavy industrial production in the New
York area anymore, air and water quality have improved markedly. Still
some rather serious problems, such as the Superfund cleanup site
centered in Newtown Creek from the old refineries, but once we begin
importing cars from China I'm sure the formerly-industrial midwest will
also reap even more of the economic and environmental benefits of
outsourcing.

You betcha. Fargo would have been a different movie if they did it in
bikinis.

Steve


Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.

Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001