1. Quit calling it "climate change." "Climate change is a euphemism cooked up with help from focus groups to allow deniers of the core concept to talk about it without conveying the distress associated with "global warming."

2. Quit calling it "global warming." Although descriptive of the long term, average trend for the Earth's temperature as a whole, the term is received by plain old folks to mean that every day, everywhere should be hotter (and drier) than what was recently regarded as normal for a particular local and season. As a consequence, whenever they experience weather extremes that are on the cold and wet side of normal, they convince themselves (often with help from certain P.R. firms and media companies friendly to them) that "global warming" is not real, which remains a significant impediment to even thinking about taking realistic mitigation measures.

3. Start calling it "Climate Destabilization," which gets to the heart of the matter as it is experienced by the common person as a costly and disruptive force around the world, whether in the form of a powerful storm, a prolonged drought, an untimely freeze, floods due to rapid snow melting, or what have you.

"Climate destabilization is readily understood as something that is unsettling to farmers, to insurance companies, to holiday plans, and many other simple, human endeavors that hinge on predictable timing and ranges of weather activity. It is a term that raises appropriate concern and invites explanations of how many things we take for granted in nature become vulnerable when seasonal norms can no longer be assumed to hold up.

Some will still want to argue about whether climate destabilization is primarily the consequence of human activities involving the burning of carbon fuels. That question becomes less pertinent once it is understood that many of the prudent responses to the theory of human induced climate destabilization are the same or similar to the responses to other limits confronting us at the same time, such as peak oil, top soil loss, marine dead zones, fisheries collapses, mercury pollution, conventional forms of air pollution, water shortages, water pollution, unsafe food imports, drug, bacteria, and virus infected livestock, etc., just to name a moderate list of things off the top of my head that tend to resolve themselves when we start thinking in terms of how to not only conserve "natural resources" and "services," but to actually rebuild and stabilize them--all of which clears the way for reductions in costly inputs and efforts that have even more costly and unwelcome side effects, such as the 3-D horror show of disease, disasters, and death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they are a bit strange looking, and they all have strange horses, that match in color. They are already riding slowly up and down, to and fro on the earth...it's already too late, folks.. .we must stop talking about who's fault, who is causing, and deal with it. It's past time cause the horsemen are on the move. Dont be suprised that they are in your town, right now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cons have been winning for 71 years ever since the ban on Cannabis first through OBSCENELY high tax rates followed by BIG GUBBMINT DEA banning it outright. To cure global warming, allow INDUSTRIAL HEMP to make its way into the market and let it compete with fossil fuels. Yes, progressives and liberals can learn to embrace a truly free market that is for the people rather than let the currently RIGGED fossil fuel market keep FUCKING AMERICA TO DEATH !

Oh, and get to work on improving the quality and costs on public transportation, conservation, etc ... Cut down those OBSCENELY high bus/rail fares, improve transporation routes to free up traffic, and improve the buses and trains to be more fuel efficient and less sloppy in delays and mandatory "holdups". It's time to override Big Auto and Oil as they are the culprits what with the gubbmint giving them "free handouts".

P.S.: Removing the ban on Cannabis will make high quality solar panels and voltaic cells along with wind energy turbines and machines more commonplace since we'll no longer be forced to use fossil fuels for all our manufacturing needs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. . .or of other articles on the subject, such as last week's "the Bush and Clinton administrations suppressed scientific knowledge" and its implication that, had we only known, we'd have done much better by now. I no longer believe that conservatives succeeded and we failed. I believe conservatives merely state what almost all Americans, liberal, conservative, want to hear: that there is a solution that will enable us to continue living exactly as we are, and furthermore, we not only deserve that solution but actually need it! That we should settle for nothing less than hybrid SUVs and "green" McMansions and constant brainless air travel.

It isn't suppression that's the problem or lack of inspiration or reframing that's needed, although those things are needed. Just go to an environmental meeting that deals with global warming (and PLEASE don't spread the idea of calling it "climate destabilization". Unconsciously, this culture would embrace a new soul-numbing term, one even more detached-sounded, however accurate, because the more distant and abstract the term sounds, the more we all get to ignore its implications) and try to engage in any kind of realistic discussion. Just attempt to have even a three-minute discussion on air travel, or why, if we're advocating carpooling or biking, we should actually do it ourselves! Watch the group come up with these ideas, interspersed with conversations insulting Hummer drivers or ethanol, then take umbrage in a later meeting when it's pointed out that even WE aren't following our own example. And we can seize on any distraction, any worse environmental sin than our own, to avoid looking at our own lives. We're basically no different than conservatives, with their decision that God only cares about the sins of gayness and abortion. We exempt ourselves from our own values systems. We think the only moral carbon is our carbon.

We already have enough information. We have heard enough inspiring speakers. People I know were so MOVED by An Inconvenient Truth! Oh, you should just SEE it! I lose points because I haven't but gain none because I drive rarely and don't fly. We're symbolic now. We Support The Troops with words but don't care if they have body armor. We Protest The War by holding a sign at a convenient time, and pout because Bush, who didn't pay any attention at first, is still not paying the least attention. In the past week or so I received forwards about turning off lights for an hour to Send A Strong Messaage To Our Leaders (wow, we really showed them! haven't you all noticed the big reaction they had?) and the importance, on this fifth anniversary of the war, on Staying The Course and being sure to attend as many vigils as possible.

It is starting to seem as though a culture that, on one hand, takes symbolic ancient teachings literally and thinks there was an Adam and an Eve, but on the other hand, futily attempts to eradicate the right half the brain and the human importance of symbolic stories to present universal truths, is doomed to blindly act out our dilemnas symbolically until we get the message or destroy ourselves. It isn't that the World Wildlife Fund had a bad idea about turning off the lights, it's that they set the bar childishly low, naively expected attention and action by elected and corporate leaders, and didn't ask us for anything real. Why not google and email them, letting them know you're ready for something not only symbolic, not only demanding OF action, but actually consisting of action? They let the cause down when they encourage our false beliefs and enable us in our addictions, by playing into our dearly-loved belief that if we just accumulate enough symbolic points, someone will fix everything and our intact lifestyles will continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In addition to these great and important suggestions, reframe current economics-as-usual as 1) "the toxic economy" and 2) borrow/link the toxic economy to the human rights concept of "unacceptable practices."

It is an unacceptable practice to poison the bodies and brains of children with mercury. It is unacceptable practice to poison AND deplete topsoil. It is unacceptable to render the commons unfit and unsafe for human existence. It is unacceptable practice to cause crops to fail if one can avoid it (and we can), and so on.

The strategy, then, is fourfold:
1) As rune wisely suggests, use "climate destabilization." Consider "extreme climate destabilization" as well as "mass human destabilization."

2)Reframe wealth as wellbeing, as Joe suggests;

3) reframe current economics as usual as "the toxic economy;" add to this that the toxic economy is an "emmiserating" economy - i.e., this system makes us miserable as well as sick, filling us with the poison of despair and hopelessness as well as actual poisons;

4) Use "unacceptable practices" as an organizing principle for political activism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I enjoyed the article. Yes, pitting the economy against the environment is silly. But the comments above by Rune and Beck are intrinsically more useful. Similar to what Rune argues, I too find the language of "climate change" and "global warming" to be counterproductive. We need to bring the discussion down to the lives of everyday people - talk about water and air pollution and soil erosion. This gets at the heart of the real problem. Furthermore, a discussion about renewable, self-sustaining energy in the context of national security needs to be put on the forefront: eliminate our need for foreign oil and we drastically reduce our need to meddle in the affairs of people who now hate us.
But Beck has some very good points as well: the big picture here is cutting our consumption and restructuring how our economy works. This no-limit, neo-classical economic paradigm simply doesn't jive with nature or logic. We're killing ourselves and our planet. Until we understand this, all this talk about "going green" is pointless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear all God's Children (May I call you all that as I'm one of God's children too)

To find out the truth and what happening in the next 2 to 4 years, may I invite all of you to visit the only positive news channel at

suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=sos_main

Here are some suggestions from that website:

“How you can help

1. Save lives and the planet by not eating meat

The 2006 United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, documents the livestock industry’s 18% contribution to global warming, which is more than the warming effect of all transportation throughout the world.

A 2007 report from the Earth Institute affirms that a plant-based diet consumes only 25% of a meat-based diet. And changing from a meat-based to a vegetarian diet is at least 50% more effective in counteracting climate change as switching from a Suburban SUV to a Toyota hybrid car.

“Please eat less meat – meat is a very carbon intensive commodity. Don't eat meat, ride a bike, and be a frugal shopper – that's how you can help brake global warming.” - Rajendra Pachauri, Chief of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

International environmental organization EarthSave features VEGPLEDGE!TM at www.vegpledge.com, a program dedicated to helping anyone who wants to benefit the planet with a Go Veg! pledge.

Research by University of Chicago geophysics professors Gordan Eishel Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concludes that going vegan for one year saves 1.5 tons of emissions relative to the standard American diet, 50% more than switching from an SUV to a Toyota Prius.

New York Times article written by Mark Bittman, a non-vegetarian, explains the detrimental cost of meat consumption to our planet, our health, and to the poor.

If each person in the Netherlands goes meat-free one day per week, the lowered emissions would equal the Dutch government’s goals for emission reductions for all households for one year.

A vegetarian driving a Hummer SUV is more environmentally friendly than a meat-eater on a bicycle.

In South America, where 400 million hectares of soya crops are fed to animals for human consumption, only 25 million hectares would be needed be needed to directly feed all the humans in the world.

2. Recycling does make a difference

3. Planting trees benefits our Earth

4. Reduce carbon emissions with alternative energy transportation

5. Energy efficiency and renewable energy can help renew our Earth “

Thank you so much for your kindness of listening.

"God is here and so lucky for those who know Hes"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With props to Richard Dawkins for the perfect title I should like to ask just what in the name of Sweet Fanny Adams any of you think you're doing? Why should we be concerned with 25 year fluctuations in temperature gradients when we turn around and make fun of young earth creationists for ignoring evidence of the true nature of geologic time. It seems disingenuous to tout the sprawl of years on one hand then deny it when it suits your agenda. When I was in second grade in 1973 the world was headed for another ice age, What changed? Oh, I know, There wasn't any money in it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real problem with the climate change debate is that so-called "progressives" have allowed the media to focus the debate on climate change, rather than over the well-documented and well-known fact that pollution is very harmful to people.

The known harmful effects of pollution on people is plenty reason enough to get rid of as much pollution as possible, even if global warming is a total myth. If the debate were centered on the harmful effects of pollution on people, then the voices from the conservative wrong would be effectively silenced. What right-wing radio or tv wonk wants to argue that pollution is not harmful to people?

More Information
Pollution, People and Global Warming

Richard Aberdeen www.FreedomTracks.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Measurement is key to wealth and your syllogism doesn't mention it. Air quality is certainly a utility value but it like any other good has a price (some utilities are not goods such as love but that is another story...).

What libertarians and conservatives are saying is not that the environment is not wealth at all, but that the monetary units involved in solving such a problem are far greater than the equivalent value in good air and the like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A great champion for the defense of Mother Earth in the person of Academy Award and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore. The trouble with our country is that it's largely composed of know nothing, do nothing numbskulls, who resent and dislike those with more intelligence and better educations than themselves. We've simply got to get those schools back up to speed, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. POPULLUTION

2. "SIX DEGREES" BY MARK LYNAS

3. GOOGLE:SIX DEGREES AND WATCH NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC'S PRESENTATION 1 DEGREE AT A
TIME.

4. PRAY TO HELL THEY ARE WRONG!!!

Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The well-being of our communities (isn't that what we mean by a healthy economy?)"

Ask almost anybody their definition of a healthy economy and they will say something like: "me getting a raise and a fat year end bonus". Not the pie in the sky sentiment quoted above. I'm all for changing the terms of the debate, but lets get real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent cover to use the "environmental" movement to oppress the poor and developing countries. At its core this is a Malthusian movement to reduce the population of the "lower classes".
Let's impose restrictions that stop other countries from developing. China is growing too fast for the Malthusians and is now the number one CO2 producer. Let's roll them back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do conservatives and progressives both agree to avoid the biggest taboo subject of all, overpopulation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can limit population growth through mandatory birth control or it will limit itself through plague and starvation.

Which is more humane?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the economic effect of the extinction of the human race?
The denial of anthropic global warming is putting civilization in danger of collapse
and it is putting Homo Sapiens on the endangered species list.

The economic cost of the extinction of Homo Sapiens is infinite, and the cost of
the fall of civilization is very nearly infinite and way beyond any possible benefit
of any kind to anybody. Calculating a cost of global warming in money is
therefore the ultimate in foolishness. Money does not exist without people, but
people can exist without money. ANY such calculation is way beyond morally
wrong. Project 1 is avoiding extinction at any cost.

Nature's eventual wrath and retaliation includes:
1. The impending EXTINCTION of human life in maybe 1 or 2 centuries.

2. The downfall of civilization a lot sooner than our extinction. Maybe
civilization will fall within 30 years.

1. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to happen if we don't mend our coal
burning ways is the same as the End Permian mass extinction: Hydrogen Sulfide
[H2S] bubbling out of a hot ocean killing everybody and almost everything. It is
possible to avoid it, but the power of wealth must be overcome. 5 groups of
paleontologists have come to the same conclusion independently. That is
sufficient evidence to take drastic action regardless. Reference list in next post.

Reference Book: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. See a summary at:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/
six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees
-as-published-in-the-guardian

2. Reference Book: "The Long Summer, How Climate Changed Civilization" by
Brian Fagan, 2004 Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02281-2
Summary: Smaller climate changes than we have caused already, caused the fall
of many civilizations.
Reference Book: "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared
Diamond. 99.99% of all people in the collapsing civilization die, including the
richest. Hunting the neighbors as food happens. We really really don't want to
go there.
See:
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/
The drought in Georgia, California, Australia, Greece, Turkey, the Sahel, China
and other places is part of the desertification that will soon cause agriculture to fail
and civilization collapses when agriculture fails. The rich have the privilege of
being the last to die of starvation, but their deaths will happen quite soon after the
deaths from starvation of everybody else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmental policy IS energy policy because Global
Warming can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming
out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe the world is so engrossed with this "Global Warming" thing that the basic roots of human needs is placed in the backround...namely our "Global Pollution" and addressing its reversal. We had better open our eyes. On that note, I have written a few articles that I hope enlighten some.

Al Gore's Decree on Global Warming is Not Our Only Crisis

Our Energy Conservation Dilemma

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1.The equation that ‘practical’ energy is necessarily from Nuclear or Oil or Coal is just not a reasonable examination of the facts

2.The Malthusian belief that we humans are gong to over-populate, destroy our environment and then DIE, is accessible / believable to many people, but does not fit the facts of how most of humanity lives.

3. The best available models show a strong correlation between wealth and increase in population size (in the negative)

4. These models also suggest that this planet can support ~9,000 to 10,000 million humans, which is also the predicted stabilising point (no further population growth). About 1.5 times our existing population.

5. Wealth is intimately tied up to (a) cheap energy) (b) affordable money/ credit

6. Alternative energy sources can be extremely CHEAP, if you employ enough SCALE

7. Current elites, particularly the extractive industries and PARTICULARLY the Oil industry, are the greatest bunch of ignoble, greedy, exploitative, dishonest shits that we as a species have ever had to deal with. Closely followed by the banks and the rest of ‘Big’ industry. The Nazis are almost likeable by comparison to the Cheney- Bush – Roves of today.

To examine ‘do-ability’ of energy; for a NUCLEAR powerplant of 1000 Megawatt size, at 8760 Hours per annum, OutPut kW/Hr Annual = 8,760,000 MegaWatt/Hrs At 75% Efficiency, (Grid inefficiencies Incl) and at $0.15 per unit (Retail), gives $985,500,000 Revenue (1 Unit of electricity = 1 kW/Hour)

HOWEVER: Solar, at a suitably large scale, 12.25 km x 12.25 km, in (most of) USA will give 150,001,256,250 Units of energy, At 15% efficiency (Photovoltaics are 13.5% and improving, expected to be at 20% efficiency within a couple of years) translates TO: 150,001,256,250 units, and at $0.15 per unit (Retail), gives $3,375,028,266 Revenue

The Difference is a factor of 3.4, PVs at the size indicated, give 3.4 TIMES more energy, and 3.4 times more revenue.

Thermal Solar is much higher efficiency, (initially 93%) but heat, while useful locally, is not as readily transmissable as electricity. Hence the comparison.

PLEASE ALL, Read Richard Smalley, "The Terrawatt Challenge" for interesting answers (Short pdf paper, just google it)

Now on the subject of conversion of existing Coal, Gas, Oil & Nuclear plants, yes I agree that coal is a terrible fuel, when simply burnt (though it might be a feedstock for a near future of synthetic diesel production)

BUT since all these generating stations essentially heat water from ambient temperature, to 100 Celsius, (steam) and then Superheat to ~500 Celsius, to power steam turbines, and considering that water takes a great deal of energy to heat from 20 to 100 Celsius, and a much smaller amount of energy to then top it up to superheat, then the implications and possibilities of FREE Solar heat become apparent.

So, consider pre-heating your water with thermal solar panels [Say 100 metres x 100 metres, 1 Hectare, ~ 2.4 Acres] This will give 10 MegaWatts for about 8 hours of most of your summer OR averaged across the year, 8-10 MegaWatt/Hours per annum. (Taking Solar Insolation as ~ 1 KW/hr per sq metre, per annum)

That is a lot of energy, for FREE (After you pay off the infrastructure costs, ($3,000,000 or Less?) for this 2.4 Acres of solar collection]

The next part of the trick has to be to design machines to process that 100 degrees Celsius heat to get it easily to say 450 degrees Celsius. So far, 150 Celsius is relatively easy.

Stop getting depressed; Start getting ACTIVE; intellectually bludgeon the careless Right (which is to say most of them) with the force of polite and effective FACTS; as somebody once said 'Don't let the bastards get you down!'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not happy to report that both this article and the “Comparing Climate Proposals” both are unsustainable and lack science. When I apply the Sustainability Principle of Energy (www.bonusjoules.co.nz) to key symbols I detect a net denial of change and stewardship.
Take the headline
How Conservatives Have Duped Us in the Global Warming Fight

The conservative symbol is here associated with people that do not conserve the resources that sustain us. Implicit is the idea that those that do conserve resources are framed as non-conservatives. Hence any call to conserve climate balances is framed by grand denial because the symbol is associated with activities that put our climate balances at risk for us. This use of the conservative symbol reflects dissonance within the user and onto the audience with the dissonance being manifest as confused and conflicting associations with the symbol.

The global warming symbol is here associated with malevolence and constitutes a profound denial of change and stewardship. The use here denies the fundamentals of thermal change in our universe and the life sustaining power of global warming. It denies stewardship by projecting responsibility for our activities. The climate is framed as the problem, not our activities with their affects on climate balances.

This denial is compounded by the use of the fight symbol. Having framed the issue as a climate problem the headline promotes a militaristic response. A more sustaining symbol use might include the harmony symbol.

The association of the duped and us symbols implies that there was no active involvement in the process by the writer and those described as “us”. The symbol uses in the headline and in the articles reveal an active denial of sustaining change and stewardship. This suggests a high degree of compliance with the current popular use of these key symbols. I hypothesise that the authors and the “us” they refer to are more likely to lead lives that fail to conserve resources eg mineral oil and gas that can never be replaced.

Thus though the articles contain many sustaining ideas these are framed in non-science and are thus rendered unsustaining.


A more sustainable headline might read:
How we have failed to conserve our climate balances.
Or How we have failed to conserve our climate symbols.

The Sustainability Principle of Energy provides us with a profound spiritual challenge and please note this is written with compassion, a state of being that I cannot value too highly. Readers interested to see how an education system founded in compassion might work can visit my website. The curriculum framework page links to my proposals for conserving the potential of key symbols, such as the energy, power, atmosphere, warming and global warming symbols.

I have attempted to communicate with George Lakoff and the Frameworks Institute a number of times over the years but have failed in my endeavours.
Readers can go directly to key symbols list http://tinyurl.com/6xqwww

In compassion

Dave McArthur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Example of dissonance in Comparing Climate Proposals paper:
Carbon trading and carbon taxes are framed together.
According to the Sustainability Principle the carbon trading symbol works to generate high risk and misery because it involves the active denial of change (e.g. the eonic change involved in the formation of fossil fuels) and stewardship (something called “the market” will put a sustainable value on carbon.) The carbon trading mechanism is simply derivatives trading where the value placed on a resource has no relationship between the sustainability of the use of the carbon resource and the market value.
The carbon tax symbol works to generate lower risk and harmony because it is tends to an acceptance of change (the resource is valued as finite) and stewardship (a definite value is placed on the carbon resource).
Note: The tax symbol has been actively re-engineered in Anglo-American nations since the 1980s so it is associated with malevolence. In corrupt societies taxes become a mechanism for enriching a few and promoting warfare. However in sustainable societies taxes are experienced as investments in civilisation and a means of active stewardship. In such societies a carbon tax is automatically used to conserve by placing value on a resource with the taxation money being used to ameliorate the impact of uses.

Dave McArthur
The Sustainability Principle of Energy

“When a symbol use works to deny change it will materially alter the potential of the universe (energy) in a way that results in a reduction in the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality. When a symbol use works for the acceptance of change it will increase the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality.”

www.bonusjoules.co.nz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With all this talk, by people who obviously care about the environment, no one is screaming for us to stop storing nuclear waste, and start recycling it? This would be reducing existing waste, and providing carbon-neutral power at the same time, win-win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SOLAR doesn't work at night.
AND put your money where your mouth is.

As I have said many times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please read this book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere
(CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changing the global climate
by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in
these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy
required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is
in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI
st century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl
accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for
nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and
important information about the future of our planet.

Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

Reproduced from the journal "Health Physics" with permission from the Health
Physics Society.
Subject book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be brainwashed by
antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a book that presents the issues
regarding nuclear energy in a clear and dispassionate manner. In plain non-
technical language, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a nuclear
engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the essential facts regarding all the
major areas of controversy about nuclear power.

The first half of the book, titled "The Atomic Paradox," describes in layman's
language the risks of nuclear power, its environmental impact, quality and safety
standards, waste management, why a power reactor is not a bomb, energy
alternatives, nuclear weapons, and other major global and environmental problems.
In each case the major conclusions are framed for greater emphasis. Although
examples are taken from the French nuclear power program, the conclusions are
equally valid elsewhere.

The second half of the book is titled "Information on Nuclear Energy and the
Environment" and briefly provides a historical survey, an explanation of the
different types of radiation, radioactivity, dose effects of radiation, Chernobyl,
medical uses of radiation, accident precautions, as well as a glossary of terms and
abbreviations and a bibliography (…)

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a primer for high-school classes,
teacher training courses, or environmental discussion groups.

Despite the slightly provocative title, it is a well-balanced if unapologetic
exposition of the competitive advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy as a
power source. It should appeal to all readers with an interest in the subject who
have not already closed their minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The opinions expressed in this section are those of the authors and do not represent
the official position of the Journal, the Health Physics Society, or the authors'
institutions.

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
Table of Contents
Preface of the English edition by James Lovelock
INTRODUCTION
An environmentalist For Nuclear energy

PART I :

THE ATOMIC PARADOX

CHAPTER 1: Nuclear energy: it's cleaner than you think.

CHAPTER 2: A well-designed nuclear power plant has little effect on the
environment.

CHAPTER 3: The risk of accident is reduced by strict quality and safety standards.

CHAPTER 4: Safe management of nuclear waste.

CHAPTER 5: A nuclear power station is not an atomic bomb.

CHAPTER 6: Managing the planet's energy as best we can.

CHAPTER 7: The economic and strategic advantages of nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 8: The real environmental issues lie elsewhere: starvation,
malnutrition, political unrest in third world countries, drugs, alcohol and cigarette
addictions, destruction of tropical forests, chemical pollution of the environment,
urban wastes, overpopulation…

CHAPTER 9: The example of France, the world's leader in nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 10: Nuclear fusion: an almost unlimited supply of clean energy for the
future?

CHAPTER 11: No to nuclear war: for an end to nuclear weapons and the specter
of nuclear war.

CHAPTER 12: The environmentally friendly solution to transportation problems:
electric vehicles.

CHAPTER 13: Modern, efficient, and intelligent environmental program: pro-
nuclear green movements for tomorrow.

CHAPTER 14: Errors to avoid.

CHAPTER 15: For better information - and against disinformation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IN FAVOR OF BETTER PUBLIC INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

Principal dates in the history of nuclear power. What is an atom? The principle of
nuclear fission. The principle of nuclear fusion. What is radioactivity? What is
radiation? How we can protect ourselves from radioactivity and radiation.
Different types of radiation. The difference between irradiation and radioactive
contamination. The natural disintegration of uranium 235 to lead. The natural
disintegration of uranium 238 to lead. Units of measurement of radioactivity and
irradiation. How do we measure radioactivity? Permitted and lethal doses of
irradiation. The effects of intense irradiation on the human body. Authorized limits
for human irradiation. A few examples of received doses. Natural radioactivity is
considerably different from region to region. Average natural irradiation by region
in France. The Chernobyl accident. International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) -
classification of nuclear accidents and incidents. Irradiation resulting from the
Chernobyl accident. The medical use of radiation. Doses of radiation delivered
during some medical radioisotopic examinations. Comparison of the effect of
nuclear arms, of nuclear medicine and of the nuclear power industry. How a
nuclear power plant operates. Diagram of a PWR nuclear power unit. Nuclear fuel.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. How to prevent accidents in a modern nuclear
power plant. Three successive confinement barriers isolate nuclear fuel from the
environment. Countries possessing nuclear arms and the problem of their
proliferation. The half-life of some radioactive substances. The irradiation of food
products. Authorized food irradiation table. What to do in case of a nearby nuclear
accident war (or atomic bomb explosion).

 
CONCLUSION:

LET'S BUILD A BETTER WORLD NOW.

Some useful addresses - Abbreviations - Bibliography.

About the Author - Acknowledgments - Other publications by Bruno Comby

Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. http://www.ecolo.org/

http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The below are exerpts from a paper by Dr. Smalley found
at:
http://cohesion.rice.edu/
NaturalSciences/Smalley/
emplibrary/
120204%20MRS%20Boston.pdf
with my comments on Smalley's mistakes.

Smalley: Imagine that by mid-century, nano-technologies,
new materials, and possibly new physics will have enabled
us to create local storage units for electrical energy that are
not much bigger than this lectern. The units would store
100 kilowatt-hours, which is enough to run a normal house
for 24 hours.
Asteroid Miner: That is 4167 watts average. A small
house starts with 200 amp service, which is 22000 watts
available at all times. Smalley must be living in a one room
house which is very small indeed! Smalley lives in Texas
but he has foregone air conditioning? Sorry professor, air
conditioning is a necessity in most of the country, especially
in Texas! Multiply that storage capacity by 5.3 to get a
reasonable storage capacity to start with.

Smalley: If we tried to run this type of unit right now
using a lead acid battery, the unit would have to be about
20 times this volume —the size of a small room. The cost
would be around $10,000. I believe that if we really put
our minds to it, we could think of a way to shrink the unit
volume significantly and drop the cost dramatically. There
must be many technologies that would fit inside this “box”
and store that amount of energy..
Asteroid Miner: IF Smalley's guess is right on the cost per
unit, and I doubt it, the cost is $53000.

Smalley: Since the unit would have to be inexpensive —a
few thousand dollars at most —customers who were not
satisfied could replace their units or trade up to a better
model, as they do now with other technical products such
as computers. It would be a way to “PC ” this critical
aspect of the energy industry. Every five years or so, on
average, customers would opt to upgrade their storage unit,
based on local economic incentives and newly available
product improvements driven by free markets and
entrepreneurship.
Asteroid Miner: So the entrepreneurs get another chance
to rip us off another $53000 every five years. $53000 is a
whole year's gross income for most people. It is also half
the price of the house these batteries are storing power for.
Smalley may be able to afford such nonsense, but most of
us cannot. Of course, the batteries will be designed to fail
in 5 years, just in case you had any inclination to keep them
longer.

Smalley: In fact, we already have dc lines that carry
electricity for 1500 miles
Asteroid Miner: WRONG! We have AC lines, not DC
lines, that carry electricity for 1500 miles. 1500 miles is the
limit because power losses are too great beyond 1500 miles.
There are both resistance losses and radiative losses in a
line that long. To make an electric power transmission line
go all the way around the earth, as solar power requires, we
need a superconducting DC line. The superconductor
must be cooled to near absolute zero. Doing so is possible,
but the expense is so high, and the failures would be so
often, that it isn't really feasible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smalley: Nuclear power plants should be located in
remote places.
Asteroid Miner: WRONG! Smalley assumes that nuclear
power plants are dangerous. He is wrong. Nuclear
power is the safest kind. Nuclear power plants should be
located inside or very near cities.

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb

Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is nothing similar
about them except that they both need fissile materials. But they need
DIFFERENT fissile materials and they use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile material into a small
space. There is no other material in the volume containing the nuclear explosive.
The fissile material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If it is
uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238. There is
no isotope separation problem if the fissile material is plutonium. These fissile
materials are metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are difficult to
compress, a high explosive [high speed explosive] is required to compress them.
Pieces of the fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the nuclear
reactions to take place.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power generation, does not have
any pure fissile material. The fuel may be 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium
238. A mixture of 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be made to
explode no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with
the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot be made to explode like
a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you try. There has never been a nuclear
explosion in a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium are
flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further diluted by being
divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel is further diluted by
the need for coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so that heat
can be transported to a place where heat energy can be converted to electrical
energy. A reactor does not contain any high speed [or any other speed] chemical
explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have any explosive materials
at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no possible way that a
reactor could ever explode like a nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very
different. Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each other.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got safer. Convert
all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See the December 2005 issue of
Scientific American article on a new type of nuclear reactor that consumes the
nuclear "waste" as fuel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that Nuclear power is dangerous. Nuclear is the safest.
Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans.
Meanwhile, COAL kills 24000 Americans every year.
Coal kills more like a Million Chinese every year.

Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every
element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where
you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur,
Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial
grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial
grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the
whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze
it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out
of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to
reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because
of coal industry pressure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Squarehead: Circumspection, care might be in order if criticizing a Nobel
laureate on basic physics.
Asteroid Miner: Smalley is a chemist. What we are talking about is neither
basic physics nor basic chemistry. A Nobel Prize gets you a reading, not a
believing. Experts, even very smart ones, can be very ignorant outside of their
field. Smalley discovered C60, buckminsterfullerine. That is nanotechnology.
But Smalley refuses to take the next step. See: www.foresight.org for next steps,
such as nano devices, nanorobots, carbon nanotubes that are both long and strong,
etc. There is a whole industry devoted to proving Smalley wrong, and I am
betting against Smalley.
We are talking about nuclear engineering, electric power engineering and other
things that there is no reason for a chemist to know.

Squarehead: Offering the 22,000 watts as available power, and by extension
something that most people would actually use, is not very realistic.
Asteroid Miner: 22,000 watts is on the low side for available power. 22,000
watts is a small house, maybe 800 square feet. Most houses are much bigger. I
would pick a 500 amp service for a closer to average house, not a new house. I
think you forgot to turn on your air conditioner. You also forgot to plan ahead.
So you are right that is not realistic. It is probably too small.

Squarehead: Read the rest.
Asteroid Miner: I did read the rest. Nothing exciting.

Squarehead: I do concede that I found it difficult to follow sometimes the
quantity of energy as against the instantaneous supply of energy, within Smalley's
paper, but it is fundamentally a great paper, containing a wealth of knowledge
within 3 or 4 pages
Asteroid Miner: He said very little. It was a boring paper.

Squarehead: He offers a non-elitist solution to humankind's economic, health
and survival problems. One in which he can see a world of cheap, non-polluting
energy, necessary for these other problems of humankind.
Asteroid Miner: An additional $10,000 appliance is NOT cheap, and it is
inadequate and elitist. The average person can NOT afford another $10,000
every 5 years, let alone a more realistic $53,000 every 5 years. The average
person can NOT afford to pay 300 times as much for electricity to charge up this
$53,000 battery either. If you think solar power is going to be cheap, you are
badly mistaken.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Squarehead: He offers a 5 center solution, desert locations across the globe. I'm
sure he's right for a near future.
Asteroid Miner: He is wrong for the near future. Decades of research are
needed to make solar power competitive. If you want a cost effective solution
that already works, France has been getting 85% of its electricity from nuclear for
30 years now. The French are paying 30% less for their electricity than we do,
and they have had ZERO accidents. France recycles their nuclear fuel. There
are NO subsidies for nuclear power in France. The nuclear power industry pays
royalties to the French government.

Squarehead: lead acid may have it's faults, but it's nice and simple and reliable
by comparison with the others
Asteroid Miner: Lead acid batteries are nowhere near reliable enough or cheap
enough for the application you suggest. The energy storage should be done by
the utility company at the solar or wind power generation site. The company has
a fighting chance that the customer does not in that the company is big enough to
do its own engineering. If you can't do your own engineering, you loose to
anybody who can. See: http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/
title/how-to-tell-which-new-
car-will-last-longer-greisch-ebooks.htm

Squarehead: I also assume that there are resistance losses tied to phase errors in
AC supplies. But you are probably right on the radiative losses. Is DC therefore
less radiative?
Asteroid Miner: Phase losses are not resistive losses. They are separate
subjects. Go get a degree in electrical engineering. The first 2 years should be
enough to get you past your present confusion. Radiative losses: A 60 Hz
transmission line longer than 1500 miles becomes a radio transmitter, radiating
power out into space. DC does not become a radio transmitter regardless of
length, but there are no DC transformers. Lack of DC transformers means no
high voltage DC. Switcher power supplies are not applicable in the way you
indicate. The only way to get DC to go a long distance is in a
SUPERCONDUCTING transmission line. Superconductors only work at
hundreds of degrees below zero, near absolute zero. Superconductors have
ZERO resistance so they have zero resistive losses. All ordinary conductors have
resistance. Superconductors must be cooled with liquid nitrogen or something
colder, liquid helium. Cooling to those cryogenic temperatures is very expensive
and generally limited to laboratories.
Go get a degree in engineering and quit trying to dupe people into thinking solar
can save us when it can't. Also quit trying to dupe people into thinking that
nuclear is dangerous. Nuclear is safe and can save us from extinction and from a
collapse of civilization. If all Americans had engineering degrees, we would
already have 85% to 90% of our electricity provided by nuclear power and we
wouldn't be having a climate crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The coal industry depends on your irrational fear of all things
nuclear to maintain its $100 Billion per year cash flow. The coal
industry knows perfectly well that nuclear power would have
driven coal out of business long ago if it were not for your
irrational fear of all things nuclear. It is greatly to the coal
industry's advantage for you to continue to advocate sources of
energy, such as solar and wind, that they know just won't work or
are so expensive as to be economically unfeasible. Every time
you advocate wind energy or solar energy as better than nuclear,
you are giving the coal industry a chance to continue causing
global warming for another year. Every time you advocate wind
energy or solar energy as better than nuclear, you are taking us
one year closer to the collapse of civilization and the extinction of
the human race. The only thing we can do to stop global
warming RIGHT NOW is to stop all objections to nuclear power
and unanimously advocate immediate conversion of all coal fired
power plants worldwide to nuclear.

Americans are paranoid about all things nuclear. NMR [Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance] had to be renamed MRI [Magnetic
Resonance Imaging] to get sick people into the scanner. The only
thing that changed was the name, yet patients refused "NMR"
scans, but willingly get "MRI" scans. Apparently, the average
American doesn't know that all matter, including people, is made
of atoms and that atoms have nuclei. The NMR/MRI machine
aligns the spins of the nuclei in the atoms in the patient using a big
magnet. Since different atoms have different nuclear spin
resonances, the NMR/MRI machine can see one element at a time.
I have no idea what the sick sick patients were thinking, but that
kind of thinking is what got us into the climate crisis that we are
now in.

32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have nuclear
bombs. The 4 biggest sources of CO2 have both. They are the
US, China, India and Russia. Canadian Candu reactors run on
UNenriched uranium. Thus proliferation of nuclear weapons is
an irrelevant issue. Every country should have the advantage of
American and Canadian technology so that nuclear power will be
the safest and cleanest energy available everywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smalley sold out is the conclusion I come to by reading Smalley's
paper. Smalley gave a speech to George W. Bush that was
pleasing to George W. Bush and the fossil fuel industries.

Withholding information is an important part of the duping
process:

From: Climate 411 - Environmental Defense Fund

Reply-To: Climate 411 - Environmental Defense Fund

Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:02 PM
Subject: Climate 411

Climate 411
CDC Says Climate Change Threatens Public Health
Posted: 11 Apr 2008 02:44 PM CDT
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial
manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Howard Frumpkin, a
senior official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), said there was strong scientific evidence of major health
problems due to climate change in the next few decades,
including:
Heat waves that put children and the elderly at risk
Danger of droughts and floods from extreme weather
Increased food-borne and water-borne infectious diseases
Worsened air pollution due to higher temperatures
Migration into new areas of vector-borne diseases
like malaria
At least he got to say it. Last October, CDC testimony on the
health risks from global warming was censored by the White
House .

Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif), who chaired the hearing, said she
suspected that "a layer of screening" continues to limit what CDC
officials are allowed to say.

(more…)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]