Jump to content

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


Mr King

Recommended Posts

Of course there are risks involved....

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/state-of-despair/news-story/70c0b574a1da4b63ca3f31a1c4eb5b1c

 

 

''Let’s be very clear - renewable energy is not to blame for the power outages caused by these severe storms. The storm was fuelled by climate change and the power outages by the infrastructure damage those storms caused.”

Meanwhile, states fuelled by fossil fuels have no power outages at all."

Edited by Mike Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

 

Didn't Trump deny that during the Debate?

I didn't figure you for a Trump supporter....

 

I don't think he is; I think he was merely pointing another one of Trump's flip flops. Which seems pointless given how many times the guy has either switched opinions or outright lied. I'm quite certain in Trumps mind lying is good business.

 

Unlike Ms Clinton who views it Standard Operating Procedure.

 

Fair enough, she lies too. I would only argue she's more clever about it and manages to not contradict herself in the same sentence. I'm not voting for either one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So someone invented climate change to cash out on the research of climate change and the carbon credits that, AFAIK, don't currently exist. So basically its like Bitcoin only less clever and with a massive scientific conspiracy to back it up?

 

Were the Jews involved?

No, someone HYPED Climate Change and cashed in on the carbon credit market. Remember Al Gore? That movie? You don't think it's just coincidence that he's involved in the trading market?

 

Why does it need to be a massive conspiracy? It's people feeding at a trough. You do something that hypes the climate change and there's more money at the trough because the science is settled and Global Warming!!!!!

 

 

Oh and the Jews comment? I'm sure some are, just as anyone else may be. Specifically? Are you some sort of anti-semite?

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the words "conspiracy" and "Jews" come anywhere near each other in a single post, it is either an anti-semitic remark, or a sarcastic joke. Judging from Josh's usage, it was in sarcasm.

 

And I've been waiting for this moment to post the following:

 

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know that it's very difficult to just magically re-specialize into a new branch of science and pull in grant money?

 

Grant money typically goes into expanding the pool of grad students and equipment, not lining pockets; that is, bigger grants are turned into more research output (or more gold plating of labs), not enriching salaries.

 

The big issue with politicized GW is that it's now much tougher to get funding if you're forwarding dissenting opinions. But that's a very different situation from scientists coming in with the purpose of generating profit.

 

Ryan just fundamentally has no idea how scientific research works, but is anyone really surprised? I'm not.

 

Of course, US federal level climate research funding has barely changed in decades, but who needs facts, really. It's all about narrative.

Edited by Jason L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, someone HYPED Climate Change and cashed in on the carbon credit market. Remember Al Gore? That movie? You don't think it's just coincidence that he's involved in the trading market?

 

Why does it need to be a massive conspiracy? It's people feeding at a trough. You do something that hypes the climate change and there's more money at the trough because the science is settled and Global Warming!!!!!

 

 

Oh and the Jews comment? I'm sure some are, just as anyone else may be. Specifically? Are you some sort of anti-semite?

 

 

The DNC's leaked emails show this kind of stuff going on.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know that it's very difficult to just magically re-specialize into a new branch of science and pull in grant money?

There was environmental research on climate before the 80s. Remember the global cooling thing? Remember the Ozone layer thing. Folks started to look more at it. I suspect its all an outgrowth of weather research.

 

Grant money typically goes into expanding the pool of grad students and equipment, not lining pockets; that is, bigger grants are turned into more research output (or more gold plating of labs), not enriching salaries.

I know for a fact that the NIH doles out grant money to people not grad students as well. I know this because I worked in a research lab for more than a year. There were three of us in that lab. My mother wrote grants for the research lab she worked for. Has it occurred to you that maybe scientific research at universities works a bit differently than it does for which ever industry you work in?

 

Of course, US federal level climate research funding has barely changed in decades, but who needs facts, really. It's all about narrative.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no doubt there is corruption regarding hand outs to specific researches and businesses. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the entire science of climate study, at its basis, false and corrupt. And pretty much that community is largely in agreement about the current theory.

 

Here's another question, what has the US lost economically to date regarding the acceptance of human caused global warming? So far no dramtic action has been taken - promises are made, sure, but outside some subsidies and regulations I don't see any large economic activity being hindered. Certainly there are EPA air standards and cars are required to have certain efficiency standards, but I believe these kind of job killing regulations predated global warming and were instigated by a GOP president and for other reasons - the Chinese actually are going in the same direction finally apparently just for air purity reasons as well.

 

Yes, 'the jews' comment was sarcasm because just about everything can be blamed on stripper Masad assassins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've no doubt there is corruption regarding hand outs to specific researches and businesses. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the entire science of climate study, at its basis, false and corrupt. And pretty much that community is largely in agreement about the current theory.

 

 

I think it's evident to some that some of the selection of research is that which has profound and deep impact. That selects for some of the researchers who are less than adherant to basic scientific principles and specifically hide the way they arrive at their conclusions or worse, how they defend their conclusions.

 

From looking at Judith Curry's site, I note that there's apparently a problem with the "Settled science" bit meaning that we don't need to fund climate research any more and we just need to fund the mitigation aspects.

 

 

JC reflections

 

 

Back in 2001, when Al Gore was running for President, I spoke with with many scientists that were concerned by how climate science would fare under a Gore administration. Because of Gore’s ‘science is settled’ activism on this topic, the concern was that funding for basic climate research would be redirected to impacts assessment and mitigation research. In fact, there has been a rough rule of thumb over the last few decades regarding U.S. climate science funding – funding for is better under Republican administrations (who want more research, rather than to implement politically undesirable solutions). An exception to this is the NASA budget, whereby Republicans send more funding to extraterrestrial subject areas and Democrats send more funding to Earth monitoring.

 

She continues further down with this point:

 

 

Now that the UN’s community of nations has accepted a specific result from consensus IPCC climate science to drive international energy and carbon policy, what is the point of continued heavy government funding of climate research, particularly global climate modeling? I have argued previously [e.g. link] that we have reached the point of diminishing returns from the current path of climate modeling. That said, we still don’t understand how the climate system works on decadal to centennial time scales, and have very little predictive capability on these time scales, particularly on regional scales.

To make progress, we need to resolve many scientific issues, here is the list from my APS Workshop presentation:

  • Solar impacts on climate (including indirect effects)
  • Multi-decadal natural internal variability
  • Mechanisms of vertical heat transfer in the ocean
  • Fast thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, lapse rate)

 

 

 

 

 

Here's another question, what has the US lost economically to date regarding the acceptance of human caused global warming? So far no dramtic action has been taken - promises are made, sure, but outside some subsidies and regulations I don't see any large economic activity being hindered.

 

Looked at the Rust belt recently? Looked at our economy recently? Look at the real employment numbers? We're being cut down by a death from 1000 cuts. It's not just CO2 emissions. It's a whole host of things. Food prices in the US are dramatically higher because of the absurd ethanol mandates which increases the price of food products for live stock. The price of beef in the US has gone up, practically doubled.

 

 

 

Obamacare has strangled businesses. My wife's company CAN'T have anyone, especially their best workers, work full time otherwise they MUST pay them full benefits, even when they don't need them. My health care plan at work is better than anything my Wife's company could offer, but regardless of that, she can only work part time hours. Tank nut Tim and E5M have both related clear examples to how their industry sectors are seeing very hard time.

 

The official numbers are that employment is at 5% which is ideal. U6 data indicates it's more like 10%. Alternative methods of measuring place unemployment at 23% or so.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-22/fake-jobs-plague-us-economy

 

The demand for fuels and energy are also reflective of the state of the economy. Oil prices doubly so.

 

 

Factories are closing across the US. Even the Huffington Post has taken notice of this:

 

I’ve found a fascinating database online at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which enables one to get a blow-by-blow account of how American industry is falling apart. Go to their website here, then click on “QCEW Databases”, then “One Screen Data Search.” You can fiddle the various controls to get a picture of different states and different types of establishment.

What does one discover? Over the past decade, the United States has lost 53,224 factories. From 2009 to 2010, we lost 8,000. To be fair, some were quite small, “mom-n-pop” machine shops and the like. But since 2001, we have lost 603 factories employing more than 1,000 workers. That’s a 41 percent drop.

 

Certainly there are EPA air standards and cars are required to have certain efficiency standards, but I believe these kind of job killing regulations predated global warming and were instigated by a GOP president and for other reasons - the Chinese actually are going in the same direction finally apparently just for air purity reasons as well.

The question is not a 1 or a 0. The question is to what degree do we hamstring industry to get one last microgram of pollution out of emissions? Worse, how does the EPA assist corporations in finding a way to operate and not just showing up to beat them about the heads and ears?

 

When it comes to Hazardous material disposal, you can't expect the EPA to help in this regard. At some point, it's to be expected that they'll make it impossible for certain industries to operate in the US. Some industrial processes produce hazardous waste due to the materials involved. It's a fact of life. There are ways to deal with it. But the EPA doesn't make that possible any more.

 

 

 

 

Yes, 'the jews' comment was sarcasm because just about everything can be blamed on stripper Masad assassins.

Yes. And the anti-semite point was to get you back on base and out of left field. Human behavior can be explained easily in many ways without any cohesive unifying force like a conspiracy driving everything. At certain levels there's evidence of collusion (Carbon Credits and Al Gore) but on a wider scale, I don't think so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of good data on those posts, Ryan. Especially, the Curry reflections are very "unsettling", and she does not look like someone afflicted with that Dunning-Kruger thing.

 

Perhaps there is a "dynamic Dunning-Kruger syndrome", where people that are competent in several fields, more on some, less in others, are reluctant to present their doubts in public, or to concede other, seemingly less competent people, could be right sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semiconductor industry is dropping because tons of semi-conductor applications are being replaced with micro-controllers and the like. Also, China and other labour inexpensive countries are taking over manufacture.

 

Classic "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to make some random correlation".

 

The biggest issue with the economy sucking is quite simply that the available capital is being consolidated away from the "average joe". I've long maintained that the single biggest threat to free market is a failure to pay up to employees and to re-invest in the creation of new thought-work. And lo and behold that is precisely what is happening.

 

You can't sell people product when their salary sucks and more and more of it gets eaten away by inflating basic expenses.

 

The ethanol fuel thing is/was a complete debacle, and there is tons of basic research that shows that any practical biofuel scheme is pretty much bust. However this is a classic case of policy outstripping science. Biofuels were a hugely popular topic and various govs dropped a ton of money on science, industry and tech dev. The problem is that industry and tech dev actually outpaced the science/engineering analysis, they invested money and enacted economic policy before research had a chance to fully digest the problem.

 

Plenty of good data on those posts, Ryan. Especially, the Curry reflections are very "unsettling", and she does not look like someone afflicted with that Dunning-Kruger thing.

 

Perhaps there is a "dynamic Dunning-Kruger syndrome", where people that are competent in several fields, more on some, less in others, are reluctant to present their doubts in public, or to concede other, seemingly less competent people, could be right sometimes.

 

Stopped (analog) clocks are right twice a day. If you throw enough lead downrange eventually you'll hit something, etc, etc, etc

 

I've very frequently voiced doubts about the state of climate science. I'm just not a fan of tinfoil hats as a fashion statement.

 

I am also squarely in the same camp as TTK: that all of these problems boil down to expending energy and so we should be pre-occupied by securing our energy future. Some things are self-limiting as well: the world is turning away from coal, and one way or another, we will have to return to expanding nuclear power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread's been getting me thinking about scientists and trust issues.

 

An engineer's job (to simplify a bit) is to understand the theoretical systems produced by scientists and turn them into practical applications.

 

As such, scientific product is critical to our profession and our livelihood. That could perhaps give us (thinking of Jason L and myself) a biased attitude towards scientists, a propensity to view them as more benign than they actually are. Perhaps.

 

On the other hand, it also gives us some familiarity with the scientific community, both personally and academically.

 

I know some scientists. They really genuinely believe in what they do, and I've listened sympathetically to their woeful grant-seeking stories. There are a lot of grant-giving institutions out there, all with their own worthiness criteria and convoluted whackadoodle politics. It's such a chaotic mess that I find it hard to believe that anyone, even a dark cabal of senators and congressmen, could exert too much control over who gets funded. They could control government grants, perhaps, but not NGO grants.

 

I also read a lot of trade journals and patents. My interests wander through parallel algorithms, cryptography, artificial intelligence, human immunology, material science, nuclear physics, ballistics and hypervelocity interaction physics. When someone publishes bogus science, or good science on a dubious topic, it becomes pretty obvious after working through their math. It does happen, definitely! But not that often. I'd estimate that only about 1% of the articles I've read have turned out to be bullshit.

 

Now, that having been said, these observations are not necessarily relevant to climate change science. For one, bullshit is not evenly distributed through different topics. AI articles are more frequently bullshit than are material science articles. So if someone claimed climate change articles were more frequently bullshit than others, I'd have no basis for disproving it (without actually sitting down and reading a lot of articles -- I admit to not being too widely read on climate change, just enough to scare the bejezus out of me).

 

For another, there are a lot of government grants specifically for climate change studies. Perhaps more than NGO-sourced grants? That would be something to look into. If we assume (pessimistically) that all government grants are thinly veiled bribes purchasing predetermined agenda-driven conclusions, but that NGO-sourced grants are more likely to result in honest conclusions, that would give us a notion of how much bullshit to expect of client change studies. I genuinely don't know how NGO grants compare to government climate change studies grants. Does anyone have some solid numbers for NGO grants? The graphs rmgill posted provide the government side of the equation.

 

It's not my intention to push any conclusions here, just thinking out loud and organizing the questions which would need to be answered before reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread's been getting me thinking about scientists and trust issues.

 

An engineer's job (to simplify a bit) is to understand the theoretical systems produced by scientists and turn them into practical applications.

 

As such, scientific product is critical to our profession and our livelihood. That could perhaps give us (thinking of Jason L and myself) a biased attitude towards scientists, a propensity to view them as more benign than they actually are. Perhaps.

 

On the other hand, it also gives us some familiarity with the scientific community, both personally and academically.

 

I know some scientists. They really genuinely believe in what they do, and I've listened sympathetically to their woeful grant-seeking stories. There are a lot of grant-giving institutions out there, all with their own worthiness criteria and convoluted whackadoodle politics. It's such a chaotic mess that I find it hard to believe that anyone, even a dark cabal of senators and congressmen, could exert too much control over who gets funded. They could control government grants, perhaps, but not NGO grants.

 

I also read a lot of trade journals and patents. My interests wander through parallel algorithms, cryptography, artificial intelligence, human immunology, material science, nuclear physics, ballistics and hypervelocity interaction physics. When someone publishes bogus science, or good science on a dubious topic, it becomes pretty obvious after working through their math. It does happen, definitely! But not that often. I'd estimate that only about 1% of the articles I've read have turned out to be bullshit.

 

Now, that having been said, these observations are not necessarily relevant to climate change science. For one, bullshit is not evenly distributed through different topics. AI articles are more frequently bullshit than are material science articles. So if someone claimed climate change articles were more frequently bullshit than others, I'd have no basis for disproving it (without actually sitting down and reading a lot of articles -- I admit to not being too widely read on climate change, just enough to scare the bejezus out of me).

 

For another, there are a lot of government grants specifically for climate change studies. Perhaps more than NGO-sourced grants? That would be something to look into. If we assume (pessimistically) that all government grants are thinly veiled bribes purchasing predetermined agenda-driven conclusions, but that NGO-sourced grants are more likely to result in honest conclusions, that would give us a notion of how much bullshit to expect of client change studies. I genuinely don't know how NGO grants compare to government climate change studies grants. Does anyone have some solid numbers for NGO grants? The graphs rmgill posted provide the government side of the equation.

 

It's not my intention to push any conclusions here, just thinking out loud and organizing the questions which would need to be answered before reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

 

+1...I posted that graph though.

 

Most failings in peer review are in the social sciences, and health sciences particularly in dealing with complex statistics. Physical sciences suffers from a very high rate of stuff that isn't bad, but is basically just junky: Papers with no ideas or insight, just plugging and chugging at experiments or a model. So little data on modelling that it's useless other than as a showcase that your particular model works because no one could meaningfully reproduce it.

 

I have never seen how much private/NGO "dark money" goes into climate research. Mostly because it is basically dark money. You need to poke researchers with ATI requests to get funding breakdowns. The NGOs certainly spend tons of money on "climate" stuff, but most of that goes into politics and lobbying not feeding grad students.

 

The vast majority of spending increases is in developing renewable/green technologies. But that's such a broad field that includes things like better batteries for your phone, fuel cells (which are an overall pretty damn useful technology), smart grids (again good for everyone), networked traffic management (again good for everyone), etc, etc, etc.

 

Basic climate research is basically a minute portion of the economic investment in green stuffs.

Edited by Jason L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semiconductor industry is dropping because tons of semi-conductor applications are being replaced with micro-controllers and the like. Also, China and other labour inexpensive countries are taking over manufacture.

 

Classic "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to make some random correlation".

By itself fine. With all of the other aspects of the economy. You're the one out to lunch. See also the data on Durable Goods, Heavy Goods, etc. See also U6.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that micro controllers are a form of groups of semi-conductors. You know, Integrated Circuits. AKA Chips, made at Chip fabs which is part of the Semi-conductor industry.

 

The biggest issue with the economy sucking is quite simply that the available capital is being consolidated away from the "average joe". I've long maintained that the single biggest threat to free market is a failure to pay up to employees and to re-invest in the creation of new thought-work. And lo and behold that is precisely what is happening.

Even service industry jobs are being exported. E5M has pointed this out with his observations on H1B visas. Our company is outsourcing as much of the bog standard IT support to India, Poland and Rumania. Corporate IT's Server Operations Monitoring Site is going to Mexico. Every one of these things has returned observations from everyone that the over seas operations are next to useless. It's still happening. More regulations mandate it.

 

Even with the quality miles behind, the labor costs (not wages) are the driving factors. There's more to labor costs than paying the employee.

 

You can't sell people product when their salary sucks and more and more of it gets eaten away by inflating basic expenses.

What do you

 

The ethanol fuel thing is/was a complete debacle, and there is tons of basic research that shows that any practical biofuel scheme is pretty much bust. However this is a classic case of policy outstripping science. Biofuels were a hugely popular topic and various govs dropped a ton of money on science, industry and tech dev. The problem is that industry and tech dev actually outpaced the science/engineering analysis, they invested money and enacted economic policy before research had a chance to fully digest the problem.

Well, he finds one acorn that's handed to him.

 

 

I've very frequently voiced doubts about the state of climate science. I'm just not a fan of tinfoil hats as a fashion statement.

How many times do I have to repeat it? I'm firmly convinced you have optimistic blinders on when it comes to some basic human behaviors that are bog standard. I've seen them. Other members have related them. I'm just gonna have to figure that you're sheltered like a little explosives inclined Sheldon Cooper.

 

I am also squarely in the same camp as TTK: that all of these problems boil down to expending energy and so we should be pre-occupied by securing our energy future. Some things are self-limiting as well: the world is turning away from coal, and one way or another, we will have to return to expanding nuclear power.

You think that will happen? Note how Japan and Germany are closing DOWN their Nuke plants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that will happen? Note how Japan and Germany are closing DOWN their Nuke plants?

It is terribly likely that nuclear power will continue to be shunned.

 

There's a slim, slim chance of technological advancement turning things around, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

There are now, today, no fewer than three different approaches to nuclear fusion on the cusp of demonstrating net power gain. If that happens, and if fusion can establish its own "brand" and thus avoid the stigma of nuclear power, then maybe, maybe we'll see a renaissance of nuclear power. But it would likely be slow, and subject to the whims of fickle public sentiment, and opposed by the oil industry, and burdened by oppressive government regulation, just like fission's been.

 

There are also a lot of smart people working on the problem of muon-enhanced fusion (which works, but isn't energy-efficient). If they can figure out how to either generate muons several times more energy-efficiently or prevent them from boiling off so quickly with the fusion by-products so they can participate in more fusion events, it would make all methods of attaining nuclear fusion more energy-efficient .. perhaps a lot more energy-efficient, and that would be a potential game-changer. EMC2 made the design and theory behind their WB6 reactor public, and there's tidy open-source WB6 community out there with a few home-made WB6 models between them. The WB6 can't make plasma hot enough to net an energy gain, but with a sufficiently energy-efficient muon enhancement method that would change. The genie would be out of the bottle, and useful nuclear energy would be within reach of any of a number of sufficiently talented small groups or even individuals. The government couldn't keep a lid on it anymore, and humanity would finally have all the power it needed to lift itself out of the dust and establish a proper civilization.

 

It would be nice. Like I said, I'm not holding my breath, but there's also no point in giving up all hope, either. If all you have is a long shot, sometimes it's best to go ahead and take the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jason L

By itself fine. With all of the other aspects of the economy. You're the one out to lunch. See also the data on Durable Goods, Heavy Goods, etc. See also U6.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that micro controllers are a form of groups of semi-conductors. You know, Integrated Circuits. AKA Chips, made at Chip fabs which is part of the Semi-conductor industry.

Wow, you posted like three graphs and all of a sudden it's a thesis? Ironic given your penchant for criticizing science that at least has the pretence of rigorousness.

 

There are are a shitload of problems that are fucking the economy, funding green tech is pretty much an irrelevant one. How about the fact that salaries are shrinking as a portion of GDP and that capital is increasingly unavaillable for the less than ultrawealthy unless it's debt trading (mortgages, CCs etc). You don't generate wealth with that.

 

Since you don't know what you're talking about, I'll explain it slowly. Micro-controllers, along with a couple of specialized types of power semis lets you phase out large numbers of other semi types. A single microcontoller does the job of a whole gaggle of semis in older implementations. Chip fabs are offshored for the most part as well because of labour and cost issues. What does that have to do with climate science exactly?

 

Even service industry jobs are being exported. E5M has pointed this out with his observations on H1B visas. Our company is outsourcing as much of the bog standard IT support to India, Poland and Rumania. Corporate IT's Server Operations Monitoring Site is going to Mexico. Every one of these things has returned observations from everyone that the over seas operations are next to useless. It's still happening. More regulations mandate it.

 

Even with the quality miles behind, the labor costs (not wages) are the driving factors. There's more to labor costs than paying the employee.

And what does this have to do with climate science? You're not moving goal posts, you're changing playing fields.

 

You can't be ra-ra-ra capitalism and then bitch that companies are trying to maximize profits within the limit of the law.

 

How many times do I have to repeat it? I'm firmly convinced you have optimistic blinders on when it comes to some basic human behaviors that are bog standard. I've seen them. Other members have related them. I'm just gonna have to figure that you're sheltered like a little explosives inclined Sheldon Cooper.

You're fucking basic is the real issue. Isn't this about climate scientists? You're an expert in climate scientists because you worked for a doctor once?

 

I mean that's really where the problem comes from. You can't see beyond your own nose and piddly little experiences. You treat your own little life like it's some universal.

 

Everyone with an even remote inkling of what science is like is telling you you're full of shit, they are just being polite about it.

 

And the really funny thing is, you can't even construct a fucking coherent narrative. You go from climate science funding to supposed structural weaknesses in the economy. You're missing a few links in that chain there bub.

 

I mean, the fucking absolute best thing? Your graphs are fucking straight lines that straddle the implosion of a huge chunk of the global economy. What do you expect them to look like?

 

You think that will happen? Note how Japan and Germany are closing DOWN their Nuke plants?

You can't escape thermodynamics. It has to happen eventually if humanity wants to maintain the standards it has set for itself. It doesn't really matter if it takes 50 yeas or 100 years. Eventually it will catch up.

 

It's no sweat off my back even if I don't live to see it.

Edited by Jason L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jason L

 

You think that will happen? Note how Japan and Germany are closing DOWN their Nuke plants?

It is terribly likely that nuclear power will continue to be shunned.

 

There's a slim, slim chance of technological advancement turning things around, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

There are now, today, no fewer than three different approaches to nuclear fusion on the cusp of demonstrating net power gain. If that happens, and if fusion can establish its own "brand" and thus avoid the stigma of nuclear power, then maybe, maybe we'll see a renaissance of nuclear power. But it would likely be slow, and subject to the whims of fickle public sentiment, and opposed by the oil industry, and burdened by oppressive government regulation, just like fission's been.

 

There are also a lot of smart people working on the problem of muon-enhanced fusion (which works, but isn't energy-efficient). If they can figure out how to either generate muons several times more energy-efficiently or prevent them from boiling off so quickly with the fusion by-products so they can participate in more fusion events, it would make all methods of attaining nuclear fusion more energy-efficient .. perhaps a lot more energy-efficient, and that would be a potential game-changer. EMC2 made the design and theory behind their WB6 reactor public, and there's tidy open-source WB6 community out there with a few home-made WB6 models between them. The WB6 can't make plasma hot enough to net an energy gain, but with a sufficiently energy-efficient muon enhancement method that would change. The genie would be out of the bottle, and useful nuclear energy would be within reach of any of a number of sufficiently talented small groups or even individuals. The government couldn't keep a lid on it anymore, and humanity would finally have all the power it needed to lift itself out of the dust and establish a proper civilization.

 

It would be nice. Like I said, I'm not holding my breath, but there's also no point in giving up all hope, either. If all you have is a long shot, sometimes it's best to go ahead and take the shot.

 

The same applies to fission power. Any sufficiently talented and small group of folks could make fission reactors but governments are relatively good at exercising control over smart people who are good at the whole risk/reward calculus when operating around other humans.

 

It is MUCH MUCH easier to breed fissionables and build a fission reactor than it is to build a fusion reactor, even if the genie get's let out. Mostly because plasma physics is a bitch.

 

They'll do the same thing with fusion: make the whole act illegal without gov issue permits and then just toss people in jail for non-compliance. Randian revolutions aren't very likely unless you've got a big enough stick to give the nation state pause. Conveniently they've all got monopolies on the sticks too.

Edited by Jason L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly O/T

 

EMC's wiffle ball designs does not rely in the kind of plasma heating a Tokamak, for instance, does. It's electrostatic fusion, similar to the thing those Farnsworth-Hirsch fusors do. Fusors are used as cheap, non-radioactive (when powered off, of course) neutron sources in several applications. See here, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Basic climate research is basically a minute portion of the economic investment in green stuffs.

 

It should be cut off entirely now that there is overwhelming consensus like the earth is round. We need no more studies or models proving the earth is round. Go find productive work like self-driving cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...