Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
"build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.


The US already has nuclear power.


Bertie

On Mar 14, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
"build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.

The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

"Dan" wrote:


The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

Indeed.

Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.

Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
problems...

"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "

-Wikipedia

On Mar 14, 6:58 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

Indeed.

Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.

Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
problems...

"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "

-Wikipedia

I'm more than confident that we can quickly ramp up to meet this need
domestically if there is adequate demand.

With all due respect to whatever writer posted that wikipedia entry --
We haven't forgotten how to make steel in Pittsburgh.

Dan Mc