Climategate; ManBearPig dead?

[RangerM]

what do the doomsayers have to gain?

 

What do the deniers have to gain?

 

That's all you need to ask.

In many cases, the answer to both questions is the same.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

In many cases, the answer to both questions is the same.

 

1.5 hours left of the "weather change" summit after 2 weeks of hot air & sweet nothings decided, so tax looter Gordon Brown & Prince Big ears the UK highest overpaid unemployed layabout jet off back to the Britain in their biz jets, 45,000 greenies finish their tax on the weather conference same way it started.

 

Meantime UK 2000 schools get closed as Britain get a 8 inch blanket of snow as chaos hit Britain, Snow talk of it at the conference.

No doubt we will all drown under a 20 foot high wave when the snow melts

 

 

LINK

Edited December 18, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[stephenhawkings]

I do not appreciate being told that I have a "belief system". I don't believe in belief. I would love to have someone show me how we are going to ward off the coming catastrophe when we are not able to produce enough oil fast enough. Vague talk about alternative energy does not do it. Oil is our life blood. Many products contain oil or oil derivatives. We are almost as dependent on oil as we are on air and water. Nuclear fusion is the only real possibility that I have heard. We are just in the early theoretical stages right now. If anything ever comes of it, we are a century away from anything practical. The most optimistic oil experts predict that peak oil will come by 2020, just ten years away. Realists say that we have peaked already. Even if the optimists are right, we are screwed. There is nothing going on in the world right now that will get us off oil in ten years. I see a lot of war going on. Population reduction would push back peak oil.

sounds like you believe in a peak oil catastrophe.

I don't know about you but blood is my life blood, and it is made mostly of water.

I never thought I would be agreeing with you TRIM, but Fusion, the power not the car, is the way to go.

[Edstock]

Nuclear fusion is the only real possibility that I have heard. We are just in the early theoretical stages right now. If anything ever comes of it, we are a century away from anything practical.

So, you believe that with fusion, "we are a century away from anything practical"?

 

The U.S. Navy happens to think otherwise. Somehow, I think they know more than you do.

 

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/

[NickF1011]

So, you believe that with fusion, "we are a century away from anything practical"?

 

The U.S. Navy happens to think otherwise. Somehow, I think they know more than you do.

 

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/

 

Just because the Navy is continuing research on it in no way indicates that it is any bit close to reaching a practical application. Nothing in that article indicated it either. Are they making advances in the study of fusion energy? Absolutely. But I'd compare it to intergalactic exploration. We're making great advances in space travel. but we're still nowhere near travelling to other star systems.

[Trimdingman]

sounds like you believe in a peak oil catastrophe.

I don't know about you but blood is my life blood, and it is made mostly of water.

I never thought I would be agreeing with you TRIM, but Fusion, the power not the car, is the way to go.

 

Do I believe? If I did, and if in ten years we were producing 100 million barrels a day, and Al Gore was telling us to buy ten cylinder mega SUVs to burn up that oil before it floods the world, I would be riding a bicycle and storing up food for the coming peak oil apocalypse. That is what belief is. It is something that you will stick with no matter what common sense tells you. If the world suddenly becomes flush with oil, I will say that I was wrong. I only want the truth. If I am wrong, it will only be for a very short time because I will quickly change my opinion to the correct one. That is the way I am. That is why I am usually (99% of the time) right. I don't follow beliefs. I follow truth, logic, common sense. If you think that nuclear fusion is suddenly going to come along and solve everything, it doesn't work that way. We are dependent on oil for virtually everything; even the food that we eat. Urban living would be impossible without oil. How do you feed millions of people living in a few square miles? Millions of acres have to be harvested and delivered, and many thousands of head of livestock have to be raised and butchered and delivered every day or else the urban dwellers would soon starve. Whole cities are planned on the assumption of an uninterrupted supply of oil.

 

Explain to me how everything is going to be just rosy. We are just barely making it now as far as producing oil fast enough to keep up with our present consumption. Oil production will eventually have to tail off, but dependence will not, at a similar rate. What happens when we are not producing oil at the rate we are using it? Everything will shut down. I want to be wrong about this. Show me how I am wrong. Explain how the whole infrastructure of the world will suddenly be transformed into one that uses nuclear fusion energy. Where will the money come from. It will take lots of oil to do the building of this infrastructure. It isn't being done because they know it is impossible. What do you think they are doing? Maybe they are figuring out ways to save their own asses, and to hell with us. Human leaders tend to incarcerate and exterminate excess population when such crises occur. There are many examples throughout history.

[xr7g428]

Trim, a few fresh facts to consider:

 

First off, there has never been a time when the peak of oil production was NOT being predicted.

 

Second, did you read anything about the Malthusian Catastrophe? In order for your scenario to pan out, it requires that everything be held the same; no substitutions, and no new technology, and no adaptations of any sort. This only happens in the lab, not in the natural world. That is why the catastrophe you predict never occurs. Please research this.

 

We are just barely making it now as far as producing oil fast enough to keep up with our present consumption

 

Producing oil for which there is no demand is stupid. Excess capacity is stupid. The goal of any manufacturing effort is to build exactly the amount you can sell for the best incremental rate of return. Producing too much oil just drives the price down of all oil. Do not take as evidence of one thing, that which is better explained as another. The industry strives to produce no more than the quantity that produces the greatest economic benefit to the industry. We will never be flush with oil, and this is the important part, we NEVER have been. Even when the gushers were running in Texas and oil was a dime a barrel, the prediction was that we would run out in just another few decades. I grew up in the oil patch and I have heard these stories all of my life.

 

If you think that nuclear fusion is suddenly going to come along and solve everything, it doesn't work that way.

 

Nothing needs to SUDDENLY solve everything. We won't suddenly run out of oil. What you are not getting is that there no imperative to replace oil until it becomes more expensive than the alternatives. As the price of oil rises, the economics of substitutes gets to be more attractive. At $100 a barrel the amount of available oil is staggering. At $25 a barrel, there is not much. At $100 a barrel, there are also many substitutes, from synthetics to bio fuels to gas to liquids and even synthetics.

 

We are dependent on oil for virtually everything; even the food that we eat.

 

We are dependent on energy, not oil. We have plenty of Natural Gas, Coal, Oil Shale, Nuclear, and many other sources of potential energy. Oil is the common name for liquid hydrocarbons. Liquid hydrocarbons are built up from Hydrogen, and Carbon. These are two of the most abundant elements on earth and in the universe. They are not used up when hydrocarbons are burned. They simply combine with oxygen to form CO2 and H2O. the carbon and hydrogen can be reclaimed from the CO2 and H2O and turned back into hydrocarbons. This is exactly what plants do in photosynthesis. And by the way, fertilizer is made from natural gas, not oil.

 

What happens when we are not producing oil at the rate we are using it? Everything will shut down. I want to be wrong about this.

 

You are wrong about this. EVERYTHING will not shut down. It is not like we fall off a cliff. All oil sources don't end at the same time. What will happen is that people will find ways to decrease their consumption to match their budget. People will drive smaller cars, walk more, ride a bike if it suits them, and do a thousand other things to reduce their energy cost. Others will work hard to develop the substitutes that will make them rich and make life styles better for the rest of us.

 

Human leaders tend to incarcerate and exterminate excess population when such crises occur. There are many examples throughout history.

 

Really? Provide some specific examples where the crisis was not the product of the government in question?

[jpd80]

Before oil ever runs out, it will get way too expensive as an energy source.

As oil and coal gets dearer other sources of energy become more economically viable.

Edited December 19, 2009 by jpd80

[Edstock]

Just because the Navy is continuing research on it in no way indicates that it is any bit close to reaching a practical application. Nothing in that article indicated it either. Are they making advances in the study of fusion energy? Absolutely. But I'd compare it to intergalactic exploration. We're making great advances in space travel. but we're still nowhere near travelling to other star systems.

Check out

 

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/0...-two-years.html

 

Rick Nebel, the head of EMC2 Fusion (Polywell), has a few words to say in the comments at Next Big Future about the progress he is making in understanding The Polywell Fusion Reactor and its chances for power production.

 

"I believe we will know the answer for the Polywell in ~ 1.5-2 years. I haven't looked at MSimons design, but I know he has a lot of good ideas. We'll probably take a closer look at D-D reactors over the next 2 years."

[Mark B. Morrow]

NPR ran a story yesterday morning about a company called Solaren that is building a space based solar power plant that will run 24 hrs a day in continuous sunlight and beams the power to Earth as radio waves. A California utility PG&E has contracted to buy the power paying only for what they receive. The guys involved are retired NASA and military. The one interviewed certainly sounded like he knew what he was talking about. The plan is to launch the necessary pieces within the next couple of years.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=121531373

 

"If it works, it could be a real game changer in the industry and indeed for the entire world," says Jonathan Marshall, a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric. The utility has signed the nation's first commercial contract to buy enough power from Solaren for nearly a quarter of a million homes. The price they agreed to is proprietary, but described by both parties as similar to ground-based solar. Marshall says there's no risk in the deal for PG&E.

 

"We're paying only for the energy if and when its delivered," says Marshall. "If they don't deliver, we don't pay."

Edited December 19, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[Trimdingman]

We are caught up in a "tangled ball of twine" as far as getting out of oil is concerned. It isn't going to be easy. Oil is used in the production of many products, including plastic. We have no way of verifying Middle East oil reserve claims. You could be of the opinion that if reserves are underestimated, the price will be forced higher, therefore there is probably more oil than they claim. In the real world, which runs on credit, higher reserves equals more credit and lower interest payments. If they were near or past peak oil, it could lead to World War III if the superpowers found out. I think they would keep that little tidbit of information under their hat.

 

Back in the early 1970s, and I was there, there was a temporary 5% shortage of oil. All Hell broke loose. The first people who felt it were drivers, who lined up for hours to get gas, and many didn't get any. Luckily it was a very short term shortage. Imagine if this shortage became permanent and increasing. Civilization would quickly break down. Economics will not solve this. People need affordable gasoline, period. If we are all forced into mass transit, the auto industry will collapse, causing a depression. This is only one of a great number of calamities that would occur. Without industry, we don't eat for very long. We don't have electricity. We don't have banking. We don't have the internet. We don't have stores. We don't have law and order. In the cities, people would be killing each other for food. The military would be training its guns on the government, like what happened in Moscow in 1991. People in power must be aware of all this, and are probably working in secret to ensure their own survival, at our expense.

[RangerM]

NPR ran a story yesterday morning about a company called Solaren that is building a space based solar power plant that will run 24 hrs a day in continuous sunlight and beams the power to Earth as radio waves.

I'd be interested in knowing more about this. I've read about similar systems before, but the amount of power lost in transmission brings down the efficiency to levels where it isn't cost effective. Either they've found a way around this, it doesn't work, or the losses don't make it cost prohibitive.

Edited December 19, 2009 by RangerM

[Trimdingman]

I'd be interested in knowing more about this. I've read about similar systems before, but the amount of power lost in transmission brings down the efficiency to levels where it isn't cost effective. Either they've found a way around this, it doesn't work, or the losses don't make it cost prohibitive.

 

 

I read a book many years ago titled Space Enterprise. It theorized about placing huge sheets of mylar plastic in orbit to beam microwave energy to earth. These sheets would each cover hundreds of square miles. I haven't heard of anyone actually working on it.

 

We are going to be dependent on oil during our lifetimes. We do not even know how secure the supply of oil is. We do not know if oil reserve data is correct, in error, or purposely mis-stated. We need over 80 million barrels of oil per day right now. That amount is increasing. How much are we capable of producing per day? Is that figure going to be stable, or decrease over time? The answers to these questions are life or death. Why are they not being answered? Maybe it is because we would not like the answers.

[suv_guy_19]

We don't actually need 80M barrels per day. There are other forms of energy that can be substituted for many of the tasks that are currently done using oil. Don't be such a downer.

[Trimdingman]

We don't actually need 80M barrels per day. There are other forms of energy that can be substituted for many of the tasks that are currently done using oil. Don't be such a downer.

 

Where something as important as the future of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to come is involved, I want something more secure than some pie in the sky. Wind power, alcohol, and solar power combined will not produce over 1% of our energy needs. It would postpone the crash by maybe a few months. If the whole planet was planted with corn, and that corn made into alcohol, it would not be enough. Wind turbines do not pay for themselves in energy produced. They are just a diversion to calm the people. We need trucks, hydro generation, plastics, automobiles, military, railroads, aircraft, farm machinery. All these run on oil. Without an oil supply of 80 million barrels a day, everything would break down within a short time. In the cities, where massive populations live in a small space, there would be gridlock. Within a month, people would be starving, and would be desperate. These people are not equipped to live off the land, and in the city, there is no land, anyway, only concrete. It would be dog-eat-dog until the weak were killed and plundered by the strong. The population would diminish until it is at a level that can be sustained in a non-industrial world.

 

Where are the government insurances that we can continue on this path indefinitely? All they care about is some bullshit global warming, and printing up phony money and extorting the under-developed countries to accept it like gold, or else. It looks like we are going to hell in a handbasket. The boomers who are in charge don't give a rat's ass as long as they can keep it together until they kick the bucket.

[xr7g428]

Trim, you envision a world where we go from 80 million to 0 overnight. Even the most ardent peakers don't support this. You do have a belief system. You might as well substitute the book of revelations for the scenario you suggest. The book of revelations at least makes sense in light of nuclear weapons.

 

The only way to arrive at your belief is to accept as fact things that cannot be proven. And then add on a layer of disbelief to those things that can be proven as fact. You will not accept the fact of substitution, or innovation. In your world, copper can never be replaced by plastic in pipes of fiber optics for wiring. In your world, coal or electricity could never be used to power trains, only diesel (remember you have to ignore facts).

[NickF1011]

Check out

 

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/0...-two-years.html

 

Rick Nebel, the head of EMC2 Fusion (Polywell), has a few words to say in the comments at Next Big Future about the progress he is making in understanding The Polywell Fusion Reactor and its chances for power production.

 

"I believe we will know the answer for the Polywell in ~ 1.5-2 years. I haven't looked at MSimons design, but I know he has a lot of good ideas. We'll probably take a closer look at D-D reactors over the next 2 years."

 

So it is still several years away from even knowing if this design has any promise. I doubt we'll see fusion energy production on any significant scale in my lifetime.

[Edstock]

So it is still several years away from even knowing if this design has any promise. I doubt we'll see fusion energy production on any significant scale in my lifetime.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact that the U.S. Navy has continued funding shows, IMHO, that this design has promise. Anyway, 2-3 years is a short time. If it is valid, you will see it very quickly, as the device is inherently quite simple, as opposed to a Tokamak (ITER) or a fission reactor.

[suv_guy_19]

I just learned today that we can now grow individual human organs and within a few years transplants won't be a problem. I'm not so worried about oil given that.

[RangerM]

I just learned today that we can now grow individual human organs and within a few years transplants won't be a problem. I'm not so worried about oil given that.

So long as we have the freedom to prosper by our own ingenuity, I think you have little to worry about.

 

Whenever people wish to control others' behavior, they also wish to change society to their idea of what the status quo should be, and innovation (outside that paradigm) suffers.

Edited December 22, 2009 by RangerM

[suv_guy_19]

We should all have the ability to prosper, but for the scientists involved, inventions such as the one I mentioned have little to do with gaining prosperity.

[NickF1011]

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact that the U.S. Navy has continued funding shows, IMHO, that this design has promise. Anyway, 2-3 years is a short time. If it is valid, you will see it very quickly, as the device is inherently quite simple, as opposed to a Tokamak (ITER) or a fission reactor.

 

To say something has promise because the military is funding it is somewhat laughable. Have you seen some of the projects that get funding from the military? And again, back to my original response on this: Just because something isn't right around the corner doesn't mean you shouldn't be funding research on it. I'm glad there are still several groups researching this, as it is possible we may see some breakthroughs soon. Even if we don't though (which I doubt we will...at least on any commercially viable scale), it's a worthy venture to explore it further.

Edited December 22, 2009 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

We should all have the ability to prosper, but for the scientists involved, inventions such as the one I mentioned have little to do with gaining prosperity.

You may be right as far as the scientists are concerned, but not for the people who fund them.

 

Let's just say I'm a scientist who thinks he knows how to grow the same organs within the person's body or better yet, I can cure the ones that are diseased.

 

If my benefactor has no expectation of profit from my research, then he has no incentive to invest in it.

[Edstock]

To say something has promise because the military is funding it is somewhat laughable.

Adm. Hyman Rickover might disagree.

[NickF1011]

Adm. Hyman Rickover might disagree.

 

No he wouldn't. Just because he happened to develop something worthwhile doesn't mean every project undertaken by the military is worthwhile.