On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:54:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> ...
>>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
>>> be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
>>>
>>> > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>>>
>>> Sure, just duck and cover.
>>>
>>> William Hyde
>>
>> Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
>> in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
>> then and still don't.
>
> The film /The Iron Giant/ contains an excellent satire of the concept.
>> We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
>> implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
>> previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
>
> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
>
>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
>
> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
> possibly go wrong!

Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
and China.
https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:54:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
>>>> be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
>>>>
>>>> > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, just duck and cover.
>>>>
>>>> William Hyde
>>>
>>> Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
>>> in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
>>> then and still don't.
>>
>> The film /The Iron Giant/ contains an excellent satire of the concept.
>>> We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
>>> implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
>>> previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
>>
>> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
>> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
>> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
>> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
>> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
>> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
>> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
>>
>>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
>>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
>>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
>>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
>>
>> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
>> possibly go wrong!
>
>Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
>and China.
>
>https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html
>

Did you read the article you cite?

"However, even if Japan successfully deploys a set of orbital solar
arrays, the tech would still be closer to science fiction than fact.
That's because producing an array that can generate 1 gigawatt of power -
or about the output of one nuclear reactor - would cost about $7 billion
with currently available technologies."

Recall that the daily worldwide electricity consumption is 15TW, which
historically has grown by 2.3% annually. That's a doubling every twenty
years or thereabouts.

15,000 * USD 7 billon dollars is 105 trillion dollars for a full array.
About 30% of that 15TW (4.5TW) is produced from renewable resources
today, so you can drop that to 80 trillon dollars. About 10% is
Nuclear, so that drops it a bit more.

That said, it would take about 12,000 new 1GB nuclear plants to replace
the remaining power generation sources (primarily coal, CH4). Looking
at the Vogtle Unit 3, which just came on line, you're looking at a
$30 billion dollar plant that took a decade, so well over 300 trillion
(Absurd, I'll admit, as economies of scale will take over at some
point, but perhaps not to the extent one might expect). (leaving aside
that the current known nuclear fuel reserves are a sixty year supply
for the existing fleet of about 100 reactors - adding tens of
thousands more means the fuel is gone in no time. Thorium,
who knows, aside it hasn't yet been shown commercially viable), and
if the EROEI for U fissionables recovered from seawater would
be favorable is unknown).

Keep in mind that all of that (satellites, nuclear plants) require significant
investments in energy as well, which without corresponding increases in supply
will inflate the costs of energy, perhaps substantially. (The so called Energy Trap).

On 7/31/2023 5:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:54:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
>>>>> be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
>>>>>
>>>>> > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, just duck and cover.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
>>>> in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
>>>> then and still don't.
>>>
>>> The film /The Iron Giant/ contains an excellent satire of the concept.
>>>> We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
>>>> implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
>>>> previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
>>>
>>> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
>>> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
>>> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
>>> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
>>> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
>>> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
>>> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
>>>
>>>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
>>>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
>>>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
>>>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
>>>
>>> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
>>> possibly go wrong!
>>
>> Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
>> and China.
>>
>> https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html
>>
>
> Did you read the article you cite?
>
> "However, even if Japan successfully deploys a set of orbital solar
> arrays, the tech would still be closer to science fiction than fact.
> That's because producing an array that can generate 1 gigawatt of power -
> or about the output of one nuclear reactor - would cost about $7 billion
> with currently available technologies."
>
> Recall that the daily worldwide electricity consumption is 15TW, which
> historically has grown by 2.3% annually. That's a doubling every twenty
> years or thereabouts.
>
> 15,000 * USD 7 billon dollars is 105 trillion dollars for a full array.
> About 30% of that 15TW (4.5TW) is produced from renewable resources
> today, so you can drop that to 80 trillon dollars. About 10% is
> Nuclear, so that drops it a bit more.
>
> That said, it would take about 12,000 new 1GB nuclear plants to replace
> the remaining power generation sources (primarily coal, CH4). Looking
> at the Vogtle Unit 3, which just came on line, you're looking at a
> $30 billion dollar plant that took a decade, so well over 300 trillion
> (Absurd, I'll admit, as economies of scale will take over at some
> point, but perhaps not to the extent one might expect). (leaving aside
> that the current known nuclear fuel reserves are a sixty year supply
> for the existing fleet of about 100 reactors - adding tens of
> thousands more means the fuel is gone in no time. Thorium,
> who knows, aside it hasn't yet been shown commercially viable), and
> if the EROEI for U fissionables recovered from seawater would
> be favorable is unknown).
>
>
> Keep in mind that all of that (satellites, nuclear plants) require significant
> investments in energy as well, which without corresponding increases in supply
> will inflate the costs of energy, perhaps substantially. (The so called Energy Trap).

The new SMRs are using recycled nuclear fuel. We have got plenty of old
fuel.

BTW, "Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity
from about 440 power reactors." That is not including hidden nuclear
power military plants nor nuclear vessels, mostly submarines.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

Plus, I would not base the estimated cost of the Solar Power Satellites
on the first system.

BTW2, we extract bromine and chlorine from seawater here in Texas. Very
large quantities of those for plastic production plus several other base
chemicals and metals. There is very good membrane technology for
element extractions now.

Lynn

On 7/31/2023 5:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:54:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
>>>>> be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
>>>>>
>>>>> > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, just duck and cover.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
>>>> in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
>>>> then and still don't.
>>>
>>> The film /The Iron Giant/ contains an excellent satire of the concept.
>>>> We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
>>>> implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
>>>> previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
>>>
>>> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
>>> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
>>> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
>>> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
>>> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
>>> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
>>> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
>>>
>>>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
>>>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
>>>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
>>>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
>>>
>>> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
>>> possibly go wrong!
>>
>> Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
>> and China.
>>
>> https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html
>>
>
> Did you read the article you cite?
>
> "However, even if Japan successfully deploys a set of orbital solar
> arrays, the tech would still be closer to science fiction than fact.
> That's because producing an array that can generate 1 gigawatt of power -
> or about the output of one nuclear reactor - would cost about $7 billion
> with currently available technologies."
>
> Recall that the daily worldwide electricity consumption is 15TW, which
> historically has grown by 2.3% annually. That's a doubling every twenty
> years or thereabouts.
>
> 15,000 * USD 7 billon dollars is 105 trillion dollars for a full array.
> About 30% of that 15TW (4.5TW) is produced from renewable resources
> today, so you can drop that to 80 trillon dollars. About 10% is
> Nuclear, so that drops it a bit more.
>
> That said, it would take about 12,000 new 1GB nuclear plants to replace
> the remaining power generation sources (primarily coal, CH4). Looking
> at the Vogtle Unit 3, which just came on line, you're looking at a
> $30 billion dollar plant that took a decade, so well over 300 trillion
> (Absurd, I'll admit, as economies of scale will take over at some
> point, but perhaps not to the extent one might expect). (leaving aside
> that the current known nuclear fuel reserves are a sixty year supply
> for the existing fleet of about 100 reactors - adding tens of
> thousands more means the fuel is gone in no time. Thorium,
> who knows, aside it hasn't yet been shown commercially viable), and
> if the EROEI for U fissionables recovered from seawater would
> be favorable is unknown).
>
>
> Keep in mind that all of that (satellites, nuclear plants) require significant
> investments in energy as well, which without corresponding increases in supply
> will inflate the costs of energy, perhaps substantially. (The so called Energy Trap).

BTW, the USA increase of electricity is very stable with regard to
population. It is the electrification of the third world that is
providing most of the increase.

BTW2, Texas is now at about 25% of the electricity coming from wind
turbines and solar panels. This may be the max for grid stability.

Lynn

On Sunday, 30 July 2023 at 23:04:25 UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:54:58 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > ...
> > > So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
> > >
> > > I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
> > > be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
> > >
> > > > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
> > >
> > > Sure, just duck and cover.
> > >
> > > William Hyde
> >
> > Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
> > in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
> > then and still don't.
> >
> > We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
> > implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
> > previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
> Well, that would make it easier as at 10C there would only be a few nations left.
>
> Mind you, it would be hard to implement the design without workers. The global
> population, I suspect, would be a few million, what with most of our
> current farmland too hot or under water and the seas too acid for plankton.
> The probable nuclear wars wouldn't help either.
>
> On the other hand perhaps ten C would be enough to trigger a runaway
> greenhouse. I suspect so. I which case, hello Mars! By 3000AD we might
> have the human population back over a million!

I don't think that "runaway greenhouse effect" means
that people can and should run away. Though I don't
have an alternative option once it's happening.

On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 05:46:16 UTC+1, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <d21f9cf7-17ae-4731...@googlegroups.com>,
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (SNIP!!)(
> >
> > But the null hypothesis in this case is that there is no warming without
> > human influences, and I've seen nothing that refutes that hypothesis.
> >
> > Note, I still use "refute" in it's earlier meaning of "show to be wrong",
> > rather than the new usage of "oppose", which seems to me to render
> > the world useless. Rather than trash "refute", I'd even rather they
> > use "refudiate", ugly as it is.
> >
> I entirely agree that "refute" is being misued. But, doesn't "rebut"
> mean oppose?

I had to resort to <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rebut>
to get even an apparent difference in meaning.
The words have different roots, but in usage, meaning
overlaps. <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute>
has to resort to "what the original Latin word meant" -
and that isn't written in stone. (Well, it often is, but
I hope you take my point.)

The "refute" article says that "a rebuttal, in formal
debate terms, is a counter-refutation, and it also
has a specific legal sense, though like refutation,
the word has taken on the informal and disputed
meaning of denial."

I suspect that what the word means in a debate
meeting or a law court is less old than the word
itself - which apparently is from French and perhaps
ultimately from the same Latin word as "refute"?

Having said that, my own choice is to use "rebut"
for denial without a convincing argument ("No it isn't"),
such as in politics, and "refute" for "to prove wrong",
and I think in that case I'll have to use "rebut" for
"an argument that I judge unconvincing", which leaves
"refutation" in the eye of the beholder. As is a distinction
of what is and isn't "making an argument". Fallacies
aren't argument.

Now, then - WH invited us to consider the proposition
"There is no warming (or other climate change)
without human influences".

However, I'm led to believe that climate change, in effect,
has occurred in history and in prehistory that does not
seem to be due to human activity.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age>
apparently is disputed as to cause, is regional not
global, and of course doesn't refer to warming,
although the "Medieval Warm Period" does.
And humans were present for both events, at least.

But when a cold spell ends, there's warming.
When whatever made it colder, stops.

The sun's radiation varies at least temporarily, with
the appearance of sunspots, or their absence for an
extended period. IIRC the sun's energy output is
greater when it's spotty, although these regions of
the sun's surface are relatively dark - although
actually still intensely bright.

In the much longer term, the sun will be gradually
hotter. I've seen claims that in about one billion
years, the seas will have boiled away, whatever
we do. And also that one billion may be overstating
the time left.

I hope this isn't too bad news.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/31/2023 5:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

>>>> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
>>>> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
>>>> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
>>>> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
>>>> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
>>>> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
>>>> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
>>>>
>>>>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
>>>>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
>>>>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
>>>>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
>>>>
>>>> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
>>>> possibly go wrong!
>>>
>>> Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
>>> and China.
>>>
>>> https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html
>>>
>>
>> Did you read the article you cite?
>>
>> "However, even if Japan successfully deploys a set of orbital solar
>> arrays, the tech would still be closer to science fiction than fact.
>> That's because producing an array that can generate 1 gigawatt of power -
>> or about the output of one nuclear reactor - would cost about $7 billion
>> with currently available technologies."
>>
>> Recall that the daily worldwide electricity consumption is 15TW, which
>> historically has grown by 2.3% annually. That's a doubling every twenty
>> years or thereabouts.
>>
>> 15,000 * USD 7 billon dollars is 105 trillion dollars for a full array.
>> About 30% of that 15TW (4.5TW) is produced from renewable resources
>> today, so you can drop that to 80 trillon dollars. About 10% is
>> Nuclear, so that drops it a bit more.
>>
>> That said, it would take about 12,000 new 1GB nuclear plants to replace
>> the remaining power generation sources (primarily coal, CH4). Looking
>> at the Vogtle Unit 3, which just came on line, you're looking at a
>> $30 billion dollar plant that took a decade, so well over 300 trillion
>> (Absurd, I'll admit, as economies of scale will take over at some
>> point, but perhaps not to the extent one might expect). (leaving aside
>> that the current known nuclear fuel reserves are a sixty year supply
>> for the existing fleet of about 100 reactors - adding tens of
>> thousands more means the fuel is gone in no time. Thorium,
>> who knows, aside it hasn't yet been shown commercially viable), and
>> if the EROEI for U fissionables recovered from seawater would
>> be favorable is unknown).
>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that all of that (satellites, nuclear plants) require significant
>> investments in energy as well, which without corresponding increases in supply
>> will inflate the costs of energy, perhaps substantially. (The so called Energy Trap).
>
>The new SMRs are using recycled nuclear fuel. We have got plenty of old
>fuel.

SMRs(thermal) use U235. SMRs (fast) use Pu239, or can breed using U238.

Neither are using recycled fuel. And no, we don't have "plenty of old fuel".

>BTW2, we extract bromine and chlorine from seawater here in Texas. Very
>large quantities of those for plastic production plus several other base
>chemicals and metals. There is very good membrane technology for
>element extractions now.

And very energy intensive.

Not currently a viable solution for extracting uranium.

And some studies show the capital cost of SMR is the same as
larger reactors - the idea that they're cheaper depends on the
economies of scale. Construction costs may be less, but exploitation
costs may be more. At least one study has shown that over 3000 SMRs
would need to be produced to be worthwhile on a cost per unit power
generated basis.

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

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/31/2023 5:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:54:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
>>>>>> be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, just duck and cover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
>>>>> in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
>>>>> then and still don't.
>>>>
>>>> The film /The Iron Giant/ contains an excellent satire of the concept.
>>>>> We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
>>>>> implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
>>>>> previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
>>>>
>>>> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
>>>> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
>>>> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
>>>> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
>>>> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
>>>> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
>>>> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
>>>>
>>>>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
>>>>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
>>>>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
>>>>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
>>>>
>>>> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
>>>> possibly go wrong!
>>>
>>> Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
>>> and China.
>>>
>>> https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html
>>>
>>
>> Did you read the article you cite?
>>
>> "However, even if Japan successfully deploys a set of orbital solar
>> arrays, the tech would still be closer to science fiction than fact.
>> That's because producing an array that can generate 1 gigawatt of power -
>> or about the output of one nuclear reactor - would cost about $7 billion
>> with currently available technologies."
>>
>> Recall that the daily worldwide electricity consumption is 15TW, which
>> historically has grown by 2.3% annually. That's a doubling every twenty
>> years or thereabouts.
>>
>> 15,000 * USD 7 billon dollars is 105 trillion dollars for a full array.
>> About 30% of that 15TW (4.5TW) is produced from renewable resources
>> today, so you can drop that to 80 trillon dollars. About 10% is
>> Nuclear, so that drops it a bit more.
>>
>> That said, it would take about 12,000 new 1GB nuclear plants to replace
>> the remaining power generation sources (primarily coal, CH4). Looking
>> at the Vogtle Unit 3, which just came on line, you're looking at a
>> $30 billion dollar plant that took a decade, so well over 300 trillion
>> (Absurd, I'll admit, as economies of scale will take over at some
>> point, but perhaps not to the extent one might expect). (leaving aside
>> that the current known nuclear fuel reserves are a sixty year supply
>> for the existing fleet of about 100 reactors - adding tens of
>> thousands more means the fuel is gone in no time. Thorium,
>> who knows, aside it hasn't yet been shown commercially viable), and
>> if the EROEI for U fissionables recovered from seawater would
>> be favorable is unknown).
>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that all of that (satellites, nuclear plants) require significant
>> investments in energy as well, which without corresponding increases in supply
>> will inflate the costs of energy, perhaps substantially. (The so called Energy Trap).
>
>BTW, the USA increase of electricity is very stable with regard to
>population. It is the electrification of the third world that is
>providing most of the increase.

While that may be true for residential use (in part due to the
widespread replacement of incandescent light bulbs), that's definitely
not true for commercial and industrial usage.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:55:38 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On 7/31/2023 5:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On 7/31/2023 10:55 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:54:51 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> >>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/20/2023 4:06 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> So you propose to chill down nuclear armed Russia, while suppressing rainfall in nuclear armed India, and possibly China.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if the spacecraft, space stations, and manufacturing you're going to need to move planets around could possibly
> >>>>>> be vulnerable to hydrogen bombs?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > And the side effects hopefully are minimal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, just duck and cover.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> William Hyde
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, we ducked and covered when I was in elementary school in Oklahoma
> >>>>> in old cinder block buildings in the 1960s. I did not think much of it
> >>>>> then and still don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> The film /The Iron Giant/ contains an excellent satire of the concept.
> >>>>> We really don't need a good case of canned sunshine. I would not
> >>>>> implement my XXXXX Pournelle's plan until we got 5 C or 10 C above the
> >>>>> previous average. And then only as a joint effort between nations.
> >>>>
> >>>> An article claiming that this summer is on track to be the hottest
> >>>> summer in 120,000 years (based, after the first 200 years or so, on
> >>>> ice cores and tree rings) noted that the extreme temps in the American
> >>>> Southwest are or nearly are 1.5 degrees Celsius above whatever is
> >>>> being used as the starting point. IOW, the push to keep global warming
> >>>> under 1.5 degrees Celsius is a push to avoid having that sort of heat
> >>>> around 24/365 (366 in leap years).
> >>>>
> >>>>> Now solar power satellites, I think that we should do those today in the
> >>>>> USA. When SpaceX gets their super super heavy (Starship) going, we
> >>>>> should be able to lift entire assemblies into orbit. I don't have a
> >>>>> clue where the best place for a solar power satellites is, LEO or GSO.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah ... beaming large amounts of energy at the Earth. That can't
> >>>> possibly go wrong!
> >>>
> >>> Ask the Japanese, they are building systems right now. So is the USA
> >>> and China.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.engadget.com/japan-will-try-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-by-2025-214338244.html
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did you read the article you cite?
> >>
> >> "However, even if Japan successfully deploys a set of orbital solar
> >> arrays, the tech would still be closer to science fiction than fact.
> >> That's because producing an array that can generate 1 gigawatt of power -
> >> or about the output of one nuclear reactor - would cost about $7 billion
> >> with currently available technologies."
> >>
> >> Recall that the daily worldwide electricity consumption is 15TW, which
> >> historically has grown by 2.3% annually. That's a doubling every twenty
> >> years or thereabouts.
> >>
> >> 15,000 * USD 7 billon dollars is 105 trillion dollars for a full array..
> >> About 30% of that 15TW (4.5TW) is produced from renewable resources
> >> today, so you can drop that to 80 trillon dollars. About 10% is
> >> Nuclear, so that drops it a bit more.
> >>
> >> That said, it would take about 12,000 new 1GB nuclear plants to replace
> >> the remaining power generation sources (primarily coal, CH4). Looking
> >> at the Vogtle Unit 3, which just came on line, you're looking at a
> >> $30 billion dollar plant that took a decade, so well over 300 trillion
> >> (Absurd, I'll admit, as economies of scale will take over at some
> >> point, but perhaps not to the extent one might expect). (leaving aside
> >> that the current known nuclear fuel reserves are a sixty year supply
> >> for the existing fleet of about 100 reactors - adding tens of
> >> thousands more means the fuel is gone in no time. Thorium,
> >> who knows, aside it hasn't yet been shown commercially viable), and
> >> if the EROEI for U fissionables recovered from seawater would
> >> be favorable is unknown).
> >>
> >>
> >> Keep in mind that all of that (satellites, nuclear plants) require significant
> >> investments in energy as well, which without corresponding increases in supply
> >> will inflate the costs of energy, perhaps substantially. (The so called Energy Trap).
> >
> >BTW, the USA increase of electricity is very stable with regard to
> >population. It is the electrification of the third world that is
> >providing most of the increase.
> While that may be true for residential use (in part due to the
> widespread replacement of incandescent light bulbs), that's definitely
> not true for commercial and industrial usage.
>
> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040

I know my household electricity use has gone up a lot, but hydrocarbon use
has dropped significantly over the last few years, mainly due to
the EV and installation of heat pumps.

pt

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 10:53:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 07:57:55 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:56:00?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>>
>> > "Well, I am a firm believer in evolution but I don't see how dogs can give
>> > birth to cats". Talk.origins has actually received posts in that mold, but
>> > usually they're a little more subtle. I far prefer open creationists.
>>
>> Well, dogs don't give birth to cats. Evolution proceeds by very slow and
>> gradual changes. So someone posting such a statement is telling the
>> truth - and shouldn't necessarily have to be a Creationist in disguise.
>
>I think we're considering a possibly hypothetical someone
>who claims that evolutionary theory says that dogs give
>birth to cats. They possibly might be misinformed, but they're
>probably creationist or intelligent design-ist - which means
>"creationist and lies about it".
>
>And here are actual examples from the good old bad times:
>
>https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html
>"If evolution was true, there would not be species, there
>would be a spectrum of cats and dogs and every form
>in between."
>
>https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
>https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH350.html
>"Every species has a kind and it cannot evolve to be
>a different kind [like cats from dogs]. The origin of each
>kind is God."
>
>https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
>"No new species have been seen" (like cats descended
>from dogs).
>
>https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB801.html
>"Species are rubbish."

When I read the Darwin volume in the /Great Books of the Western
World/ set, I found an illustration that illustrated why species
exist: they exist because /all the intermediate forms died out/ [1].

What we call "species" are just those bits of the continuum that have
survived. So far, anyway.

Which sounds a lot like the first quote. But evolution /is/ true (at
least in the sense of scientifically accepted, which is good enough
for me) and the intermediate forms /did/ die out.

[1] This would, of course, include all the intermediate forms that
would exist if their ancestors hadn't died out.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:55:38=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote=
>:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:=20

>> >BTW, the USA increase of electricity is very stable with regard to=20
>> >population. It is the electrification of the third world that is=20
>> >providing most of the increase.
>
>> While that may be true for residential use (in part due to the=20
>> widespread replacement of incandescent light bulbs), that's definitely=20
>> not true for commercial and industrial usage.=20
>>=20
>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=3D56040
>
>I know my household electricity use has gone up a lot, but hydrocarbon use
>has dropped significantly over the last few years, mainly due to
>the EV and installation of heat pumps.

Yes, that's a good point. Future adoption of EVs will add to the
current loads. My household electricity is provided by rooftop
solar, and I generated enough to have an annual surplus ($500 worth
last year; will be less this year as the per-kwh rate for feed-in has dropped
by 2/3). Don't have an EV yet however, which if I had one, would probably put
me in the position of less than break-even unless I add more panels or get rid
of the swim spa.

On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> Well as long as you refuse to go read the details on my page, you have actually no idea what you're talking about and cannot be of any help to me in this respect either.

Thinking you can save the world by posting to Usenet asking people to visit your web page is .... a little overoptimistic.

Studying physics and rising to a position of influence seems like a much better idea. But what do I know? I haven't yet spent the time reading the web page of a random Usenet kook.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:34:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
..
>
> Now, then - WH invited us to consider the proposition
> "There is no warming (or other climate change)
> without human influences".

If I ever said such a thing it was through bad writing.

Of course natural climate change exists. I did my PhD
thesis on the ice ages, and I didn't blame the Neanderthals
for those.

I've also written on the little ice age, and despite severe
temptation, did not blame Dr Johnson for that.

>
> However, I'm led to believe that climate change, in effect,
> has occurred in history and in prehistory that does not
> seem to be due to human activity.

There was some human influence on climate starting with
the agricultural revolution, and much more starting with
the industrial revolution, but otherwise, natural causes.

William Hyde

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:42:23 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 10:53:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 07:57:55 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 3:56:00?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Well, I am a firm believer in evolution but I don't see how dogs can give
> >> > birth to cats". Talk.origins has actually received posts in that mold, but
> >> > usually they're a little more subtle. I far prefer open creationists..
> >>
> >> Well, dogs don't give birth to cats. Evolution proceeds by very slow and
> >> gradual changes. So someone posting such a statement is telling the
> >> truth - and shouldn't necessarily have to be a Creationist in disguise..
> >
> >I think we're considering a possibly hypothetical someone
> >who claims that evolutionary theory says that dogs give
> >birth to cats. They possibly might be misinformed, but they're
> >probably creationist or intelligent design-ist - which means
> >"creationist and lies about it".
> >
> >And here are actual examples from the good old bad times:
> >
> >https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html
> >"If evolution was true, there would not be species, there
> >would be a spectrum of cats and dogs and every form
> >in between."
> >
> >https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
> >https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH350.html
> >"Every species has a kind and it cannot evolve to be
> >a different kind [like cats from dogs]. The origin of each
> >kind is God."
> >
> >https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
> >"No new species have been seen" (like cats descended
> >from dogs).
> >
> >https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB801.html
> >"Species are rubbish."
> When I read the Darwin volume in the /Great Books of the Western
> World/ set, I found an illustration that illustrated why species
> exist: they exist because /all the intermediate forms died out/ [1].

Well, there are "ring species" in which a population is arranged around
an obstacle (a large lake, or the arctic area) and while each population
can interbreed with it's neighbors, and thus is the same species, the
two endpoints cannot interbreed. In this case the transitional forms
remain.

There is also speciation through isolation. Part of the range of a species
is cut off from the rest for some reason - climate change, geologic
change, predation. The two populations diverge in time until, even
if brought together they cannot interbreed. The transitional forms
are the direct ancestors of the current species.

In the case of insects, the separation may be a matter of meters.

William Hyde

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 21:44:22 UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:34:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> .
> >
> > Now, then - WH invited us to consider the proposition
> > "There is no warming (or other climate change)
> > without human influences".
> If I ever said such a thing it was through bad writing.
>
> Of course natural climate change exists. I did my PhD
> thesis on the ice ages, and I didn't blame the Neanderthals
> for those.

Checking back, you mentioned the year 2005 specifically
for... some reason. I think that got lost in the quoting -
I'm sorry about that.

You were talking about climate modelling and prediction
by computer, too.

> I've also written on the little ice age, and despite severe
> temptation, did not blame Dr Johnson for that.
> >
> > However, I'm led to believe that climate change, in effect,
> > has occurred in history and in prehistory that does not
> > seem to be due to human activity.
>
> There was some human influence on climate starting with
> the agricultural revolution, and much more starting with
> the industrial revolution, but otherwise, natural causes.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:20:27 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 21:44:22 UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:34:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > .
> > >
> > > Now, then - WH invited us to consider the proposition
> > > "There is no warming (or other climate change)
> > > without human influences".
> > If I ever said such a thing it was through bad writing.
> >
> > Of course natural climate change exists. I did my PhD
> > thesis on the ice ages, and I didn't blame the Neanderthals
> > for those.
> Checking back, you mentioned the year 2005 specifically
> for... some reason. I think that got lost in the quoting -
> I'm sorry about that.

Absent human forcing, model runs showed a slight decrease in temperature
up to the last one I have seen, which I think was 2005. Not a large
amount, though. I wouldn't be surprised if it is statistically no different
from zero change.

As I recall it, human-free simulations of the climate since 1950 show short
periods of sharp cooling following major tropical eruptions, followed
by a slow reversion to previous temperatures, modulated by solar
change. No long term trend.

William Hyde