Climate continues to change.

[Klinkster]

Once again, if you knew that, you could correlate CO2 to deltaT.

You have a theory.
Makes sense.
Not proven.

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change.

 

[gunthernehmen]

What does the age of exploration have to do with orbital solar?

Call it what you will. Mankind no longer does great things for the sake of doing them. If there's not a buck in it, it doesn't happen.

But let pretend anyway. How many rocket launches will be needed to put enough solar panels in orbit to power the planet?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-pollution-is-produced-by-rockets/

I guess the question of how badly the rocket launches will harm us is "up in the air".

How are you going to get the juice down to earth? A big extension cord? Maybe one for each country? How much copper and rubber will you need?

Oh, you're planning to broadcast the power, you say? Be sort of like living inside a microwave oven! THAT'LL go over well with the econazi's that crippled the nuclear power industry.

Wow. I can only hope you were joking.

 

[phrodeau]

Infrared power transmission. FDA approved.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjk-vAX_2Ak

 

[phrodeau]

Once again, if you knew that, you could correlate CO2 to deltaT.

You have a theory.
Makes sense.
Not proven.

A CO2 increase of 140 ppm causes a 1.4 Fahrenheit degree increase in global average temperature. Each ppm equals 7.8 Gigatons of CO2. So 780 Gigatons of CO2 added to the atmosphere causes one Fahrenheit degree increase.

Think it’s incorrect? Show us what your theory yields.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Infrared power transmission. FDA approved.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjk-vAX_2Ak

You actually think it matters if it is safe? Environmental groups crippled nuclear and that is safe. Or at least it can be.

You're all deluding yourselves.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Call it what you will. Mankind no longer does great things for the sake of doing them. If there's not a buck in it, it doesn't happen.

But let pretend anyway. How many rocket launches will be needed to put enough solar panels in orbit to power the planet?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-pollution-is-produced-by-rockets/

I guess the question of how badly the rocket launches will harm us is "up in the air".

How are you going to get the juice down to earth? A big extension cord? Maybe one for each country? How much copper and rubber will you need?

Oh, you're planning to broadcast the power, you say? Be sort of like living inside a microwave oven! THAT'LL go over well with the econazi's that crippled the nuclear power industry.

Wow. I can only hope you were joking.

Your cute. Giant microwaves in the sky aside there's a large array of alternative energies; solar power, wind power, wave and tidal energy, geothermal power, magnetic energy. Much cheaper, much cleaner.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Call it what you will. Mankind no longer does great things for the sake of doing them. If there's not a buck in it, it doesn't happen.

But let pretend anyway. How many rocket launches will be needed to put enough solar panels in orbit to power the planet?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-pollution-is-produced-by-rockets/

I guess the question of how badly the rocket launches will harm us is "up in the air".

How are you going to get the juice down to earth? A big extension cord? Maybe one for each country? How much copper and rubber will you need?

Oh, you're planning to broadcast the power, you say? Be sort of like living inside a microwave oven! THAT'LL go over well with the econazi's that crippled the nuclear power industry.

Wow. I can only hope you were joking.

Let's go back to your insinuation that the age of exploration has something to do with orbital solar. I disagree. Low Earth and geostationary orbit are already well explored. They're commercialised and populated by artificial satellites. Furthermore, the science of solar collection and microwave transmission is relatively straightforward. There aren't any scientific revolutions needed to build a solar power station. What is missing is the profit motive by reduced launch costs. But launch costs are falling. They need to fall to 100-200USD per kilogram to LEO before orbital solar is economically feasible.

 

[Klinkster]

Have no idea if it's correct or not, and I sure as hell won't take your word for it. My guess is that's a theory, that you got from the DOMSU.

Where is the proof? If it exists, it should be able to be correlated by history if it is true.....or don't you get that?

I have no theory.
My point is, I am not going to sell the shithouse, based on a theory.
You want to....have at 'er.

A CO2 increase of 140 ppm causes a 1.4 Fahrenheit degree increase in global average temperature. Each ppm equals 7.8 Gigatons of CO2. So 780 Gigatons of CO2 added to the atmosphere causes one Fahrenheit degree increase.

Think it’s incorrect? Show us what your theory yields.

 

[butters]

Oh, hey...

China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/

Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China’s nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn’t want it.

The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development.

The bigger problem is financial. Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear plants in China, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Moreover, high construction costs make nuclear a risky investment.

financially, coupled with public opinion after fukushima, renewables are on the up and up in china as well as elsewhere around the globe. lots of work to do yet, cleaning up the dirty, but steps in the right direction are always good.

 

[Klinkster]

Buy some solar panels in the US....you will find out that most all are made in China.
And, most of the companies that claim to be US, are just US importers of made in China solar panels.
There are a few US companies that still manufacture, but most of those us Chinese components.

financially, coupled with public opinion after fukushima, renewables are on the up and up in china as well as elsewhere around the globe. lots of work to do yet, cleaning up the dirty, but steps in the right direction are always good.

 

[nowisthetime]

Pretty much.

AJ and BotanyBoy are incapable of fathering children (G-d is merciful!)
Que abandoned his kids.
And Ishmael, well let's not even go there. The childhood mortality rate in his family is sickening.

Hmm, come to think of it, wow, they are some shitty people.

But they sure do have a grandiose sense of self for no reason at all. Mind-boggling!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Let's go back to your insinuation that the age of exploration has something to do with orbital solar. I disagree. Low Earth and geostationary orbit are already well explored. They're commercialised and populated by artificial satellites. Furthermore, the science of solar collection and microwave transmission is relatively straightforward. There aren't any scientific revolutions needed to build a solar power station. What is missing is the profit motive by reduced launch costs. But launch costs are falling. They need to fall to 100-200USD per kilogram to LEO before orbital solar is economically feasible.

The pollution caused by launching enough solar panels to power a PLANET would be second only to the ecological devastation caused by the strip mining of sufficient raw materials to make them. We won't even go into what happens when they deorbit or simply wear out. It doesn't matter anyway because the econazis doubt care of your opening microwaves are safe or not. They'll never let you do it.

This is even better than your plan to cork up the volcanoes.

You are so far out of touch with reality...

 

[icanhelp1]

Call it what you will. Mankind no longer does great things for the sake of doing them. If there's not a buck in it, it doesn't happen.

But let pretend anyway. How many rocket launches will be needed to put enough solar panels in orbit to power the planet?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-pollution-is-produced-by-rockets/

I guess the question of how badly the rocket launches will harm us is "up in the air".

How are you going to get the juice down to earth? A big extension cord? Maybe one for each country? How much copper and rubber will you need?

Oh, you're planning to broadcast the power, you say? Be sort of like living inside a microwave oven! THAT'LL go over well with the econazi's that crippled the nuclear power industry.

Wow. I can only hope you were joking.

Very complex issue and one' fix all' idea doesn't work. If you get your science from left leaning sources they will tell you 99% of the science is proven that CO2 emissions are causing global warming and others say that warming is cyclical. One event that has a big impact is the melting of the polar icecaps. Whether that is cyclical is not known. Core samples tend to prove otherwise and that man made pollution is a factor. Our last ice age was 2.6 million years ago and hard to prove a base line. But it is proven that super cooled fresh water dropping into the deep trenches and migrating into major currents can affect climates and salinity of our oceans. Warmer ocean currents can cause all kind of things, droughts, hurricanes, change of rain patterns AND YES MAJOR SNOW STORMS, just because you have a major snow event or a series of very abnormally cold days doesn't constitute global cooling but in fact the science proves otherwise.

One thing scientist noted is that natural phenomena such as volcanoes, forest fires and natural events tend to be cyclical in nature and self correcting. The impact of the sun also tends to be cyclical in nature, solar flares and sun spots all tend to go up and down as the events happen. After much study in the 60s, the cooling of the earth or the proposed beginning of an ice age was debuncted as being cyclical nature and insignificant. The one constant in all of these studies does point to the fact that as climates change and warming is a measured event, the steady increase of man made green house gases is playing a role. CO2 is but one of those gases but the jury is still out on whether that's the culprit. The effects of fluoro carbons, methane, ethane and sulfides have been proven to be exponentially more damaging both to the ozone layer and global warming effects. The elimination or reduction of these gases could only be a good thing.

Alternative energy sources is a good start. Solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear or any other source that doesn't require the burning of organic fuels is a key factor in slowing carbon emissions. Growing our forrest, cleaning our oceans is key. Scrubbing power plant of CO2 and other producers of green house emissions is key until science catches up with the production of clean energy to economy of scales ( cheaper ). Destroying whole economies and reverting back to the stone age isn't the answer. Hydrogen is the cleanest fuel whether it's used in cold fusion plants or to run our cars somehow. Burning hydrogen produces water and maybe someday it can be made to provide the energy we need but hydrolysis requires energy ( maybe solar to convert to electrical ). Right now there is technology for hydrogen fuel run cars but for some reason it disappeared. Until we, through a free market system, make the use of fossil fuels less attractive and more expensive to use along with cheaper and more efficient production of clean energy, this conversion will take generations.

The word is getting out there. China is making substantial progress.The medical cost for people breathing toxic fumes in their cities opened their eyes to the cost of inaction. We need to use Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl as a learning tool on how to make safe power plants, use safer fuels and more stable plant locations, nuclear power plants are scary but an alternative to green house gas emissions.

This might be pie in the sky stuff but I wonder if water distribution capabilities throughout the country is something to look at, could limit drought damage to agriculture. Well, we only have 12 years to figure it out. I don't think satellite microwave transmission is a feasible idea but some of tesla's ideas and theories could hold promise. Strictly my humble opinion.

There is no left or right to this issue. I didn't attach the 40 or 50 scientific opinions to my narratives because in some instances they contradict each other and fuel arguments for both sides. The planet has been in existence for over 4 billion years and will continue on without us. There is an event happening right now, the polar caps are melting and not to study this phenomena is at our own peril. Some stuff is exaggerated but some is spot on! To overreact and throw ourselves into economic depression and destroy our way of life for the sake of a degree is insanity. There is no doubt we have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, but has to be done smartly with as little impact as possible. Being 22 trillion dollars in the hole is going to be difficult to overcome, this conversion is going to cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and is going to have to be a global effort and some countries are going to have to help other countries. We all live on this rock together and we all have an affect on each other whether we like it or not.

 

[gunthernehmen]

There is no left or right to this issue. I didn't attach the 40 or 50 scientific opinions to my narratives because in some instances they contradict each other and fuel arguments for both sides. The planet has been in existence for over 4 billion years and will continue on without us. There is an event happening right now, the polar caps are melting and not to study this phenomena is at our own peril. Some stuff is exaggerated but some is spot on! To overreact and throw ourselves into economic depression and destroy our way of life for the sake of a degree is insanity. There is no doubt we have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, but has to be done smartly with as little impact as possible. Being 22 trillion dollars in the hole is going to be difficult to overcome, this conversion is going to cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and is going to have to be a global effort and some countries are going to have to help other countries. We all live on this rock together and we all have an affect on each other whether we like it or not.

Good thoughts. Yes, there's a problem. Everyone is divided on how serious, the cause(s), the fix(es) and nobody has the ability or even the right to force their fix on the entire planet. It's irksome that the von BS's and Phros of the world think they know all the answers and wish to impose their will on everyone and even seem surprised that anyone would disagree with them.

A little more discussion and cooperation and a little less braggadocio and perhaps we'll we still around in another thousand years.

 

[von_Bismarck]

The pollution caused by launching enough solar panels to power a PLANET would be second only to the ecological devastation caused by the strip mining of sufficient raw materials to make them. We won't even go into what happens when they deorbit or simply wear out. It doesn't matter anyway because the econazis doubt care of your opening microwaves are safe or not. They'll never let you do it.

This is even better than your plan to cork up the volcanoes.

You are so far out of touch with reality...

Hardly. Suppose Falcon Super Heavy rockets are used to launch a one GW orbital solar collector. Super Heavy is meant to burn methane. Using reasonable numbers, I get CO2 emissions of 800,000 metric tons. Compare that to the yearly emissions of single hydrocarbon plants, the emissions of which can be in the tens of millions of metric tons.

And what's this about corking volcanoes? You really don't care if I take you seriously, do you?

 

[icanhelp1]

Hardly. Suppose Falcon Super Heavy rockets are used to launch a one GW orbital solar collector. Super Heavy is meant to burn methane. Using reasonable numbers, I get CO2 emissions of 800,000 metric tons. Compare that to the yearly emissions of single hydrocarbon plants, the emissions of which can be in the tens of millions of metric tons.

And what's this about corking volcanoes? You really don't care if I take you seriously, do you?

Until we can break through scientifically with the use of 'anti gravity/magnetic propulsion' most of this stuff is just not efficient. We would be using more energy to put it in space than it can produce. How can microwave energy solve the energy problem? Volcanoes/ geothermal could be part of the solution.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Until we can break through scientifically with the use of 'anti gravity/magnetic propulsion' most of this stuff is just not efficient. We would be using more energy to put it in space than it can produce. How can microwave energy solve the energy problem? Volcanoes/ geothermal could be part of the solution.

Order of magnitude calculations for cost effectiveness are pretty straightforward. Others doing more rigorous estimates have found that orbital solar is financially competitive once launch costs are down to 100-200USD per kilogram to Earth orbit. No need for a revolution in launch technologies, just the economies of scale and reusable rockets.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Hardly. Suppose Falcon Super Heavy rockets are used to launch a one GW orbital solar collector. Super Heavy is meant to burn methane. Using reasonable numbers, I get CO2 emissions of 800,000 metric tons. Compare that to the yearly emissions of single hydrocarbon plants, the emissions of which can be in the tens of millions of metric tons.

And what's this about corking volcanoes? You really don't care if I take you seriously, do you?

Actually, no. I don't care in the slightest what you think of me. What gave you the first clue? What I can't figure out is why YOU seem so intent on impressing everybody with your degrees LOL

Volcano corking: Someone made a comment ages ago about volcanic gasses causing more harm than our use of fossil fuels and you commented that we could just cap them. Who knows, maybe you were kidding.

Sure, it's conceivable that some rockets exist/could be designed to expel fewer pollutants (it's not JUST carbon, you know). It's also conceivable that the total output is less than generating the next 50 years worth of electricity here on earth.

What you don't seem to understand is: It doesn't MATTER. The public perception will be that you're swamping us with pollution and forcing us all to live inside a giant microwave. It doesn't matter how silly that might actually BE.

Nuclear (and eventually fusion) energy is easily within our grasp AND can support the energy requirements of highly industrial and technological civilization. It can eliminate the use of fossil fuels for home, commercial and industrial purposes and substantially reduce the use of fossil fuels for mobile consumption like cars and trucks.

It faces similar opposition from nuts, but compared to the idea of developing and building out new technologies and adding more space junk that will inevitable come down, it makes ALL kinds of sense.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Volcano corking: Someone made a comment ages ago about volcanic gasses causing more harm than our use of fossil fuels and you commented that we could just cap them. Who knows, maybe you were kidding.

Yeah, that never happened.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Yeah, that never happened.

You're right. I went back and looked. It might be this post I'm remembering:

And who knows, maybe at some point in the future humans will be able to avoid the cooling and photosynthesis-suppressing effects of massive volcano eruptions by relieving pressure within a volcanic system in a more gradual way.

Anyway, it's the sort of nutty idea you would come up with, so it's a natural mistake.

 

[phrodeau]

Mining for solar panel materials will devastate our environment, but mining for nuclear fuels is totally fine?

 

[icanhelp1]

Order of magnitude calculations for cost effectiveness are pretty straightforward. Others doing more rigorous estimates have found that orbital solar is financially competitive once launch costs are down to 100-200USD per kilogram to Earth orbit. No need for a revolution in launch technologies, just the economies of scale and reusable rockets.

Just curious, than what? What does energy production look like?

 

[RocketLauncher]

Your cute. Giant microwaves in the sky aside there's a large array of alternative energies; solar power, wind power, wave and tidal energy, geothermal power, magnetic energy. Much cheaper, much cleaner.

Ffs. Never thought I'd quote myself but seriously I've never come across such rigid thinking before and I have an Aspie for a son.
Volcanoes? Solar space panels? Wtf. There are other forms of renewable energy, ya know.

 

[icanhelp1]

Mining for solar panel materials will devastate our environment, but mining for nuclear fuels is totally fine?

Right now your mining for an argument.. There is enough access to fissionable material without mining at all.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Just curious, than what? What does energy production look like?

The solar energy collected in orbit would get converted to microwaves (likely) and beamed down to a receiving station at the surface. I get that folks start to worry once you talk about beaming microwaves to Earth, but it's not as hazardous as it sounds. The energy density wouldn't be that much greater than ordinary sunlight. Wrong frequency range, too.