Fusion, Maybe...

[server]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s fairly
nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

Temps are up a couple of degs C from the Little Ice Age, which was
really bad news. The next big ice age would kill off most of the
critters on earth. Maybe we can prevent it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#General_Crisis_of_the_Seventeenth_Century



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:10:52 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:09:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
wrote:
On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Fission is sensible but scares people.

True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
cannot melt down.

But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
will find out the hard way. Melting isn\'t the problem - producing
heat that you can\'t get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
got flooded and stopped working.

Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
a design that can\'t melt, you don\'t have the same kind of problem.

There are others.

With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot
enough to melt it\'s container, the radioactive elements will escape..

And there really isn\'t an upper limit to the temperatures you can get
get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
it could look very like an explosion.

Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough
neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up
sustaining a reaction.

But you have to have enough U-233 in your thorium fuel to generate the heat and the neutrons to keep the process running. Normally you take out the heat that you need - that\'s what the reactor is there to generate. Stopping it generating that heat when you can\'t take it out is the problem.

The first step of the reactions require moderation of the neutrons, using moderators that are only in the reactor. If the fuel overheats it melts a salt plug that allows it to drain into a tank where there is no moderator.

If nothing else blocks the hole the salt plug had been blocking. and the tank hasn\'t been filled with something else that wouldn\'t have been expected to end up in it, but did. Disasters don\'t always play out the way we\'d like them to.

> The reactions are no longer initiated. The heat is dissipated passively. The reactions die down in a relatively short time. The world is safe for the family.

The contests of the tank are still intensely radioactive, and will stay that way for quite a while.

> Do you really not understand this or are you talking about some other problem?

Do you really think that an optimists idea of the way a disaster might play out is the only possible scenario?

Drop the molten thorium salt into a container (it\'s /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake - re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the splat, and the reaction stops.

Sounds fine. Now think of all the ways that it might not work, and remember that mother nature has a more or less infinite capacity to come up with more.

I can\'t think of any. Please advise.

Get a better brain.

Don\'t invoke the Jurassic Park Dr. Ian Malcolm : \"John, the kind of control you\'re attempting simply is... it\'s not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it\'s that life will not be contained.. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.\"

As if failure is inherent.

It does happen pretty often, if unpredictably.

You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running again.

If it all works as you expected.

There are some other technical challenges with TMSR\'s - no one is
claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
plants, such as Fukushima).

They may be safer, but they aren\'t all that safe.The worst case
nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive
material to be dispersed.

You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
an atomic bomb on the reactor, it\'s the reactor that\'s the problem?
Seriously?

It\'s a possible scenario. I didn\'t invent it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack

Same is true for virtually any chemical factory or petroleum plant. Look at the Bhopal disaster. That didn\'t even require a nuke.

Not remotely true. There\'s a lot more concentrated nastiness in the middle of a nuclear reactor than any chemical plant - enough to make a country the size of Belgium uninhabitable for several thousand years.

Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It\'s a safe metal - it\'s
found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.

A nuclear reactor works by splitting the uranium nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

There are lots of possible products and quite a few of them are radioactive. They aren\'t safe. If a thorium reactor had a mechanism for electroplating them out of the molten salt on a continuous basis there might not be all that much nasty stuff there at any one time, but I haven\'t heard of any such scheme.

Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?

There was a film about it, called \"The Dambusters\".

They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
have with a regular nuclear reactor.

No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
reactor. (That doesn\'t mean that getting useful metals out of it is
necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
the waste compared to conventional reactors.

In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.

No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential
nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas
conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and
plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor
waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.

This is regularly claimed by proponents of thorium reactors. It doesn\'t seem to be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium

can be expected to be one of the fission products. Technetium, with atomic number Z = 43, is the lowest-numbered element in the periodic table for which all isotopes are radioactive, so it is the easy one to point to.It\'s most stable radioactive isotopes are technetium-97 with a half-life of 4..21 million years,technetium-98 with 4.2 million years, and technetium-99 with 211,100 years.

The fission of a gram of uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of technetium-99, Other fissile isotopes produce similar yields of technetium, such as 22mg from one gram of uranium-233.

With a half life of 200,000 years, would that not be only very slightly radioactive?

Technetium-99 is only one of three more or less stable isotopes Te-97 and Te-98 have half-lives of about 4.2 million years, so are even more slightly radioactive. Nuclear fission produces lots of others elements and some of the isotopes are shorter-lived. You don\'t want any of them.

We still haven\'t got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
and we\'ve been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a
small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn\'t one that you
can ignore.

The world has done so quite happily so far.

But unwisely.

And it\'s a far more tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear power station, including its waste storage.

We aren\'t dealing all that well with damage done and still being done by the fossil fuel industry. That problem isn\'t tractable either.

Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
can undergo nuclear fission.

Yes, that\'s the point - that\'s what makes it safe.

But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of
splitting U-235. You don\'t transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn\'t remotely safe.

You need to read up on how this all works.

I have done. You clearly haven\'t.

(Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more
efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten
salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
is better still.)

But still insanely dangerous.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe.

Until they aren\'t.

What a silly thing to say.

Everybody says that stuff is \"walk-away safe\" until some unanticipated problem comes up

A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
over.

If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
remaining frozen but broke everything else!

If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn\'t serve any useful purpose.

This isn\'t rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
how powerful earthquakes can get. making a foundation and catch bowl
that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of
spending enough money on the problem - and it\'s not a lot of money in
the total budget.

Of course when you\'ve spent the money, you\'ve got to wait for that earthquake to find out that you didn\'t spend the money in quite the right way.

Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won\'t survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.

Or somebody dropping a nuclear bomb on it.

That\'s the point of this design it is \"fail safe\" - lots of things
must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
That is not the case with uranium.

Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn\'t entirely obvious.

And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
flooded.

That\'s one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it a little, but not enough.

They are reducing it at a rate determined by our capacity to build more solar cell farms and windfarms. We\'ve got economies of scale on solar cells, and we are starting to get them on windfarms.

It now a matter of keeping on turning the handle (and installing enough grid storage of various sorts to cover nights and windless days).

Deciding to go nuclear with novel thorium reactors isn\'t going to solve the problem faster - it\'s just going to divert investment away from an approach which is clearly working and should get us where we need to be before global warming has wrecked our capacity to do anything on that kind of scale.

I was reading something about wind energy and found that in that area (don\'t recall the details) wind fell off dramatically as a seasonal thing, possibly winter. That is not likely to ever become manageable by building storage.

In your ever-so-expert opinion. The local obsession is to use solar power to make elelctrolitic hydrogen in Australia and liquify it here before shipping it off to Japan and South Korea.

You can store months of energy as liquid hydrogen (as you can with liquified petroleum gas). You only get back a quarter of the energy you used to make the liquid hydrogen, but that doesn\'t seem to be worrying anybody.

Most people who complain that grid storage won\'t work aren\'t really looking at much relevant data. But I\'ve never found data that says it can work effectively either.

It isn\'t a cheap - at the moment - as a fast-start gas-turbine powered generator running on natural gas - now - or hydrogen - later.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:11:25 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s fairly
nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.


Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

Or has, so far. Heat waves are starting to kill people too, and we are getting more of them.

Temps are up a couple of degs C from the Little Ice Age, which was
really bad news. The next big ice age would kill off most of the
critters on earth.

None of the previous ones did. We\'ve been having one every hundred thousand years or so for the past few million years.

>Maybe we can prevent it.

We already have,

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#General_Crisis_of_the_Seventeenth_Century

Misleading.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Mike Monett]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s
fairly nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument. We are not in an ice age. Rising temperatures due to CO2
from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves
which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are melting
glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in coastal areas.

Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane, a
potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature, which
causes further melting.

Organizations around the world have recognized the danger the planet is in
from global warming. Unfortunately, fixing the problem is very difficult,
and temperatures are expected to rise.

Temps are up a couple of degs C from the Little Ice Age, which was
really bad news. The next big ice age would kill off most of the
critters on earth. Maybe we can prevent it.

A foolish concept. Rising temperatures will kill more people while you are
waiting for the next ice age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#General_Crisis_of_the_Sevent
eenth_Century

Quote from your link:

\"Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation,
heightened volcanic activity (specifically the catastrophic Kaharoa
eruption of Mount Tarawera in 1315[12]), changes in the ocean circulation,
variations in Earth\'s orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent
variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population\"

- what decreases in human population have to do with ice ages is not clear.

\"Global average temperatures show that the Little Ice Age was not a
distinct planet-wide time period but the end of a long temperature decline,
which preceded the recent global warming.[1]\"

The image showing temperature changes during the little ice age are
completely overwhelmed by the temperature rise due to burning fossil fuels
and release of methane:

https://tinyurl.com/mr9awycc

From Wikipedia:

\"Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts
on Earth\'s weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate
change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to
natural causes.[2] Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse
gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for
energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking,
cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Greenhouse
gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth\'s
surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases
absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth\'s surface. As the planet heats
up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover,
amplifying global warming.[4]\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

While you can try to fabricate arguments in favor of your denials, the
documented facts are against you.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

The statistics in Death Valley say otherwise.

 

[server]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s
fairly nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument. We are not in an ice age.

Did I say we were? I thought I said that temps are up from the LIA. We
are actually in a fairly rare inter-glacial period, which is why you
and me are alive.

Rising temperatures due to CO2

from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves
which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are melting
glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in coastal areas.

Sea level is increasing about 2mm per year. Kids with plastic shovels
and pails of sand could keep up with that.

Coral islands are mostly getting bigger. I guess the corals like warm
water and lots of CO2.

Don\'t build a ranch-style house on the beach. Obama and his pals are
all building ocean-front estates where they have parties without
masks.

Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane, a
potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature, which
causes further melting.

Fear and neurosis and hysteria. It\'s beautiful outside. I like it.





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:34:32 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

The statistics in Death Valley say otherwise.

Well, it is called Death Valley for a reason. Nobody can claim they
weren\'t warned.





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Mike Monett]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett
spamme@not.com> wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s
fairly nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument. We are not in an ice age.

Did I say we were? I thought I said that temps are up from the LIA. We
are actually in a fairly rare inter-glacial period, which is why you
and me are alive.

Rising temperatures due to CO2
from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves
which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are
melting glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in
coastal areas.



Sea level is increasing about 2mm per year. Kids with plastic shovels
and pails of sand could keep up with that.

As humans continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, oceans
have tempered the effect. The world\'s seas have absorbed more than 90
percent of the heat from these gases, but it’s taking a toll on our
oceans: 2021 set a new record for ocean heating.

Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels
have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of
those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises
another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) New research published on February 15, 2022
shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot
by 2050.

That translates into as much sea level rise in the next 30 years as
occurred over the last century, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s latest technical data, which updates 2017
projections with the most precise estimates yet.

Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, called the findings “historic,” and
warned that the projected rise will occur regardless, even if carbon
emissions are drastically cut. In the United States, the most vulnerable
populations live on the East and Gulf Coasts, where damaging flooding is
predicted to occur 10 times more often in 2050 than it does today.

Coral islands are mostly getting bigger. I guess the corals like warm
water and lots of CO2.

Don\'t build a ranch-style house on the beach. Obama and his pals are
all building ocean-front estates where they have parties without
masks.



Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane,
a potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature,
which causes further melting.

Fear and neurosis and hysteria. It\'s beautiful outside. I like it.

Weather is not climate.

The dangers are real. Many countries are implementing plans to reduce CO2
emissions.

From Wikipedia:

\"Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts
on Earth\'s weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate
change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to
natural causes.[2] Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse
gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for
energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking,
cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Greenhouse
gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth\'s
surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases
absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth\'s surface. As the planet heats
up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover,
amplifying global warming.[4]\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

The Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate
change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December
2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5
degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global
peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a
climate neutral world by mid-century.

The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change
process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all
nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat
climate change and adapt to its effects.

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agree
ment

Electric cars

Many countries are abolishing internal combustion engines to reduce CO2
emissions. Quote:

\"Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles means stopping selling and using
vehicles which are powered by fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel,
kerosene and fuel oil: it is one of the three most important parts of the
general fossil fuel phase-out process, the others being the phase-out of
fossil fuel power plants for electricity generation and decarbonization of
industry.[1]\"

\"Countries with proposed bans or implementing 100% sales of zero-emissions
vehicles include China, Japan, Singapore, the UK, South Korea, Iceland,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, the 12 U.S. states that adhered to
California\'s Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program, Sri Lanka, Cabo Verde,
and Costa Rica.[2]\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

Certainly, these actions will help. It remains to be seen if they will be
sufficient.

 

[server]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett
spamme@not.com> wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s
fairly nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument. We are not in an ice age.

Did I say we were? I thought I said that temps are up from the LIA. We
are actually in a fairly rare inter-glacial period, which is why you
and me are alive.

Rising temperatures due to CO2
from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves
which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are
melting glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in
coastal areas.



Sea level is increasing about 2mm per year. Kids with plastic shovels
and pails of sand could keep up with that.

As humans continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, oceans
have tempered the effect. The world\'s seas have absorbed more than 90
percent of the heat from these gases, but it’s taking a toll on our
oceans: 2021 set a new record for ocean heating.

Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels
have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of
those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises
another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) New research published on February 15, 2022
shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot
by 2050.

That translates into as much sea level rise in the next 30 years as
occurred over the last century, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s latest technical data, which updates 2017
projections with the most precise estimates yet.

Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, called the findings “historic,” and
warned that the projected rise will occur regardless, even if carbon
emissions are drastically cut. In the United States, the most vulnerable
populations live on the East and Gulf Coasts, where damaging flooding is
predicted to occur 10 times more often in 2050 than it does today.

Coral islands are mostly getting bigger. I guess the corals like warm
water and lots of CO2.

Don\'t build a ranch-style house on the beach. Obama and his pals are
all building ocean-front estates where they have parties without
masks.



Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane,
a potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature,
which causes further melting.

Fear and neurosis and hysteria. It\'s beautiful outside. I like it.

Weather is not climate.

The dangers are real. Many countries are implementing plans to reduce CO2
emissions.

From Wikipedia:

\"Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts
on Earth\'s weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate
change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to
natural causes.[2] Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse
gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for
energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking,
cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Greenhouse
gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth\'s
surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases
absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth\'s surface. As the planet heats
up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover,
amplifying global warming.[4]\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

The Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate
change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December
2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5
degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

Hilarious. Any oil, gas, or coal that you don\'t want, the Chinese and
Indians and Africans and South Americans will be glad to take off your
hands. The Australians will sell them as many megatons of coal as they
can shove into their new power plants.

The Russians and Saudis (and Americans) will cheerfully furnish oil
and gas.

A billion people on Earth don\'t have electricity, heat, decent
shelter, or clean water. They will get it, even though w(h)iney
Tesla-driving air-conditioned jet-set New York Times subscribers want
to keep them poor.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5
degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.
Hilarious. Any oil, gas, or coal that you don\'t want, the Chinese and
Indians and Africans and South Americans will be glad to take off your
hands. The Australians will sell them as many megatons of coal as they
can shove into their new power plants.

The Russians and Saudis (and Americans) will cheerfully furnish oil
and gas.

A billion people on Earth don\'t have electricity, heat, decent
shelter, or clean water. They will get it, even though w(h)iney
Tesla-driving air-conditioned jet-set New York Times subscribers want
to keep them poor.

Does anyone know what is wrong with the brain of this curmudgeon? Why does he paint anyone who doesn\'t share his fantasies as evil and selfish? At some point the conversation is no longer about the issue, because while he mentions energy, he isn\'t really talking about energy, he is talking about what people think.

God, he lives in such a miserable world.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

[...]

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s
fairly nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.

We don\'t need the temperature rise.

Actually, it\'s good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.

My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/


--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.
My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
There wouldn\'t be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

Remove blinders and take in more information.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.
My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Remember The Population Bomb, Peak Oil, mass starvation? 1/5 of the US
population dead from AIDS?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a19stdo3bbm2zyk/World_Grain.jpg?raw=1

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.
My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world\'s wheat crop, that was twelve
years ago.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:32:31 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.
My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,
Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Remember The Population Bomb, Peak Oil, mass starvation? 1/5 of the US
population dead from AIDS?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a19stdo3bbm2zyk/World_Grain.jpg?raw=1

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

This is the person who ridiculed the prediction that 250,000 would die of Covid in the US by the end of 2020. We actually hit that number in November and nearly reached 400,000 by year end. Now we can expect to see the count at 1,000,000 before the end of March. Yet he still mocks those who take the disease seriously.

His misunderstanding of the basic concepts he ridicules is amazing. His inconsistency is equally amazing. The NASA link about excess CO2 being part of greening the earth is entirely based on computer models. Computer models that he so often ridicules as meaning nothing when analyzing global warming. Perhaps Larkin has multiple personalities? Part of him says \"maybe\", part of him says \"maybe not\".

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

False argument.
My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world\'s wheat crop, that was twelve
years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports

If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe in fear of the
simulated end of the world, well, enjoy.

Things seem to be getting steadily, remarkably better to me.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world\'s wheat crop, that was twelve
years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports

If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
future is only better if it\'s a scaled-up version of today.

Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
capacity of this globe.

Quality, not quantity, is what we can most improve. That means less greenhouse gas.

 

[server]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world\'s wheat crop, that was twelve
years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports

If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
future is only better if it\'s a scaled-up version of today.

More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
capacity of this globe.

If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
of 10 or so, we don\'t need as much farmland to feed the world.

Once half the population was farmers and they barely fed themselves.
The USA now has under 2% farmers and we have cheap reliable food and
surpluses to export.

We have a moral obligation to help the poorest people escape poverty
and hunger. Energy and fertilizers and education are required to do
that.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10:44:09 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world\'s wheat crop, that was twelve
years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports

If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
future is only better if it\'s a scaled-up version of today.
More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

In the US, both food and electricity kill people. Probably the food more than the electricity.

How did more electricity come out of global warming again? I think I missed that.

Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
capacity of this globe.
If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
of 10 or so, we don\'t need as much farmland to feed the world.

Sorry, you are combining technology with CO2? A tenfold increase in crop production has little to do with CO2 levels. You can be pretty funny sometimes.

Once half the population was farmers and they barely fed themselves.
The USA now has under 2% farmers and we have cheap reliable food and
surpluses to export.

We have a moral obligation to help the poorest people escape poverty
and hunger. Energy and fertilizers and education are required to do
that.

Yes, and global warming is not a needed part.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 2:44:09 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
in a warming earth,

Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
disaster for, what, 50 years now?

Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world\'s wheat crop, that was twelve
years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports

If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the future is only better if it\'s a scaled-up version of today.

More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

Neither of which depend on burning more fossil carbon.

Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
capacity of this globe.

If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor of 10 or so, we don\'t need as much farmland to feed the world.

More CO2 doesn\'t increase crop yield by more than a few percent - plants also need water, accessible nitrogen (nitrates, or urea) phosphate and so forth.

Technology can be more helpful, but that doesn\'t depend on burning fossil carbon.

Once half the population was farmers and they barely fed themselves.
The USA now has under 2% farmers and we have cheap reliable food and
surpluses to export.

That was the agricultural revolution, and it preceded steam power and the industrial revolution by quite a bit.

> We have a moral obligation to help the poorest people escape poverty and hunger. Energy and fertilizers and education are required to do that.

None of which depend on burning fossil carbon. That was the route we took when we knew a lot less than we do today. John Larkin\'s point of view does seem to stuck on coal-fired energy sources.

> I yam what I yam - Popeye.

Relentlessly ignorant and depressingly gullible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney