How to Save the World Without Really Doing Anything At All

Five simple methods to deal with climate change.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-doing-anything-at-all
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
>
> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-doing-anything-at-all

An amusing satirical article.

But let's get real for a minute. It _is_ true that ordinary people aren't likely to politically
support making sacrifices, but instead would prefer to hide their head in the sand.

But can we make ordinary people happy, even if the big oil companies still have to
be disappointed, and genuinely save the Earth and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

Why, yes.

Remember the book "The Case for Mars"? In that book, Zubrin pointed out that while
ethanol production conflicts with food production, methanol can be made from grass
clippings or sawdust. So it's a good carbon-neutral fuel that avoids the difficulties with
hydrogen or the limitations of battery-powered cars. But it does require new engines,
unlike ethanol, which can be used in gasoline engines.

As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have fission for the
places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder reactors, and the use of Thorium to
breed fissionable U-233, will give us abundant electricity from that source..

So we can solve global warming without asking everyone to tighten their belts,
without foregoing putting the economy on a war footing to manufacture more
tanks, guns, and airplanes for Ukraine, and so on and so forth!

To save the world, you do have to do _something_, but it is possible to save the
world without doing the things we _really_ don't want to do.

John Savard

On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
>>
>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
doing-anything-at-all
> ...
> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
> us abundant electricity from that source.
> ...

The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
claim neutrality.

In article <VkScM.3453445$iU59.2804016@fx14.iad>,
Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
>>>
>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
>doing-anything-at-all
>> ...
>> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
>> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
>> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
>> us abundant electricity from that source.
>> ...
>
>The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
>specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
>claim neutrality.

I bet fission would be doing better if the up front costs weren't so
steep. As it is, you can get as much or more bang for the buck faster
with rival technology.

(My father's heat transfer work is still used in atomic plants, apparently)
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> writes:
>On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
>>>
>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
>doing-anything-at-all
>> ...
>> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
>> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
>> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
>> us abundant electricity from that source.
>> ...
>
>
>The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
>specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
>claim neutrality.

The idea that 'The use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233 will give
us abundant electricity' might be correct from a physics standpoint
(i.e. we know breeding works). It's the engineering and economics that make
the idea becomes less tractable. Yes, Thorium is abundant in the
crust. However the economic cost to extract it will likely prevent it
from becoming a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near term.

The same is true for "Uranium from seawater". EROEI is the key to
the viability of any alternate energy source.

"For conventional nuclear fission as it has been practiced
thus far, the proven reserves of uranium only last 90 years
at today's rate of use, and less than 4 years if we tried to
get all 18 TW from fission."

Analysis here:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#etoc@tocid.16

Fundamentally, the growth in energy use cannot continue
forever without rendering the planet uninhabitable.

In article <0a2dM.3732659$vBI8.733805@fx15.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> writes:
>>On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
>>>>
>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
>>doing-anything-at-all
>>> ...
>>> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
>>> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
>>> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
>>> us abundant electricity from that source.
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
>>specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
>>claim neutrality.
>
>The idea that 'The use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233 will give
>us abundant electricity' might be correct from a physics standpoint
>(i.e. we know breeding works). It's the engineering and economics that make
>the idea becomes less tractable. Yes, Thorium is abundant in the
>crust. However the economic cost to extract it will likely prevent it
>from becoming a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near term.
>
>The same is true for "Uranium from seawater". EROEI is the key to
>the viability of any alternate energy source.
>
> "For conventional nuclear fission as it has been practiced
> thus far, the proven reserves of uranium only last 90 years
> at today's rate of use, and less than 4 years if we tried to
> get all 18 TW from fission."
>
>Analysis here:
>
>https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#etoc@tocid.16

Why would companies keep looking for new reserves if the on
hand supplies are good for much longer than any stockholder's
remaining lifespan?

>Fundamentally, the growth in energy use cannot continue
>forever without rendering the planet uninhabitable.

Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:58:39 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org> writes:
> >On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>
> >>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
> >>>
> >>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
> >doing-anything-at-all
> >> ...
> >> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
> >> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
> >> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
> >> us abundant electricity from that source.
> >> ...
> >
> >
> >The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
> >specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
> >claim neutrality.
> The idea that 'The use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233 will give
> us abundant electricity' might be correct from a physics standpoint
> (i.e. we know breeding works). It's the engineering and economics that make
> the idea becomes less tractable. Yes, Thorium is abundant in the
> crust. However the economic cost to extract it will likely prevent it
> from becoming a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near term.
>
> The same is true for "Uranium from seawater". EROEI is the key to
> the viability of any alternate energy source.
>
> "For conventional nuclear fission as it has been practiced
> thus far, the proven reserves of uranium only last 90 years
> at today's rate of use, and less than 4 years if we tried to
> get all 18 TW from fission."
>
> Analysis here:
>
> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#et...@tocid.16
>
> Fundamentally, the growth in energy use cannot continue
> forever without rendering the planet uninhabitable.
Scanning through the reference, it seems that the figure given is excluding the use of breeder reactors, and their worries about breeder reactors are not based on engineering, but on politics and proliferation. (And it would appear that Breeder Reactors are not so much Science Fiction as history - I beleive that I walsk round some sort of display at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dounreay#Dounreay_Fast_Reactor while on summary holiday with my parents hile it was still operating).

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.

Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
that it has not yet become a serious concern.

If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
are limited in that area.

John Savard

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> > can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> > molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>
> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> are limited in that area.

If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
burning fossil fuels.

Pt

In article <97f3e744-e8d2-4e76-a642-b47f923b560an@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> > Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>> > can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>> > molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>
>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>> are limited in that area.
>
>If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
>due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
>burning fossil fuels.

_Right now_ the pressing issue is greenhouse gas emissions. However,
if we developed entirely carbon-neutral energy sources, radiated heat
would still limit what we can do without Venusian-style planetary
death. That limit is both very, very large compared to our current
production of waste heat (like, at least three orders of magnitude)
and something we could reach surprisingly quickly with continued
exponential growth.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <5864eb53-9bc8-4527-953e-5b5959bc9ec8n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we
>certainly do have fission for the places that can't get
>hydroelectricity. Breeder reactors, and the use of Thorium
>to breed fissionable U-233, will give us abundant electricity
>from that source.

Yeah.

I flatly do not and will never believe that the people who
claim to be oh so very very concerned about CO2 induced
climate change really care about that issue, as long as
they oppose nuclear power. They certainly don't care
sufficiently to educate themselves. Or, their agenda is
something else entirely.

We can not run industry just on sunny days when the wind
is blowing.

(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
as quickly as posible for going on 50 years now. And I
am not nor do I have any relatives working in the nuclear
power industry.)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On 5/29/2023 11:04 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <97f3e744-e8d2-4e76-a642-b47f923b560an@googlegroups.com>,
> pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>
>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>> are limited in that area.
>>
>> If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
>> due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
>> burning fossil fuels.
>
> _Right now_ the pressing issue is greenhouse gas emissions. However,
> if we developed entirely carbon-neutral energy sources, radiated heat
> would still limit what we can do without Venusian-style planetary
> death. That limit is both very, very large compared to our current
> production of waste heat (like, at least three orders of magnitude)
> and something we could reach surprisingly quickly with continued
> exponential growth.

If I recall correctly, the waste heat is six orders of magnitude to
reach the Sun's heat on Earth. It is an easy back of the envelope if
you want to correct me.

Lynn

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:38:22 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <0a2dM.3732659$vBI8....@fx15.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org> writes:
> >>On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
> >>doing-anything-at-all
> >>> ...
> >>> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
> >>> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
> >>> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
> >>> us abundant electricity from that source.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
> >>specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
> >>claim neutrality.
> >
> >The idea that 'The use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233 will give
> >us abundant electricity' might be correct from a physics standpoint
> >(i.e. we know breeding works). It's the engineering and economics that make
> >the idea becomes less tractable. Yes, Thorium is abundant in the
> >crust. However the economic cost to extract it will likely prevent it
> >from becoming a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near term.
> >
> >The same is true for "Uranium from seawater". EROEI is the key to
> >the viability of any alternate energy source.
> >
> > "For conventional nuclear fission as it has been practiced
> > thus far, the proven reserves of uranium only last 90 years
> > at today's rate of use, and less than 4 years if we tried to
> > get all 18 TW from fission."
> >
> >Analysis here:
> >
> >https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#et...@tocid.16
> Why would companies keep looking for new reserves if the on
> hand supplies are good for much longer than any stockholder's
> remaining lifespan?

That would be very long term thinking. The appropriate time
frame, at the longest, is for the reappointment time of
executives, or the vesting time of their stock options, whichever
is shortest.

True, one company did try to issue a thousand year bond, but
regulators pointed out that this was just a tax dodge, being
effectively preferred shares with the payment coming from
pretax rather than post tax income.

William Hyde

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:38:22 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> > In article <0a2dM.3732659$vBI8....@fx15.iad>,
> > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org> writes:
> > >>On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
> > >>doing-anything-at-all
> > >>> ...
> > >>> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
> > >>> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
> > >>> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
> > >>> us abundant electricity from that source.
> > >>> ...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
> > >>specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
> > >>claim neutrality.
> > >
> > >The idea that 'The use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233 will give
> > >us abundant electricity' might be correct from a physics standpoint
> > >(i.e. we know breeding works). It's the engineering and economics that make
> > >the idea becomes less tractable. Yes, Thorium is abundant in the
> > >crust. However the economic cost to extract it will likely prevent it
> > >from becoming a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near term.
> > >
> > >The same is true for "Uranium from seawater". EROEI is the key to
> > >the viability of any alternate energy source.
> > >
> > > "For conventional nuclear fission as it has been practiced
> > > thus far, the proven reserves of uranium only last 90 years
> > > at today's rate of use, and less than 4 years if we tried to
> > > get all 18 TW from fission."
> > >
> > >Analysis here:
> > >
> > >https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#et...@tocid.16
> > Why would companies keep looking for new reserves if the on
> > hand supplies are good for much longer than any stockholder's
> > remaining lifespan?
> That would be very long term thinking. The appropriate time
> frame, at the longest, is for the reappointment time of
> executives, or the vesting time of their stock options, whichever
> is shortest.
>
> True, one company did try to issue a thousand year bond, but
> regulators pointed out that this was just a tax dodge, being
> effectively preferred shares with the payment coming from
> pretax rather than post tax income.

How about a perpetual bond, with no expiration?
https://news.yale.edu/2015/09/22/living-artifact-dutch-golden-age-yale-s-367-year-old-water-bond-still-pays-interest

Ben Franklin also got into the perpetuities racket:
https://www.historynet.com/ben-franklins-'gift-keeps-giving/

Perpetuities are now banned in the US, but you can tie a contract's
duration to a person's life. Disney recently tried to regain control
over its Florida real estate with a contract that would run until
'the last currently living descendent of King William III of England
died'.

Pt

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:54:12 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/29/2023 11:04 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> > In article <97f3e744-e8d2-4e76...@googlegroups.com>,
> > pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> >>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> >>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> >>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> >>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> >>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
> >>>
> >>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> >>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> >>> are limited in that area.
> >>
> >> If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
> >> due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
> >> burning fossil fuels.
> >
> > _Right now_ the pressing issue is greenhouse gas emissions. However,
> > if we developed entirely carbon-neutral energy sources, radiated heat
> > would still limit what we can do without Venusian-style planetary
> > death. That limit is both very, very large compared to our current
> > production of waste heat (like, at least three orders of magnitude)
> > and something we could reach surprisingly quickly with continued
> > exponential growth.
> If I recall correctly, the waste heat is six orders of magnitude to
> reach the Sun's heat on Earth. It is an easy back of the envelope if
> you want to correct me.

Not that this is particularly relevant to today's issues, as it will take us a long
time to waste even a mere one order of magnitude more heat, but I already
corrected you on April 18 on the Adrian Walker thread. You posted
further on that thread.

I'll put it a different way this time.

Waste heat in 2005 was estimated to be equivalent to .0028 Watts per square metre.

Absorbed sunlight is about 240.

So three orders of magnitude is already an increase which is over one percent of
solar. Four orders of magnitude results in a planet (ignoring positive feedbacks)
of fifteen or so C above today, five orders of magnitude renders the planet
entirely uninhabitable, and six order of magnitude and we are competing with
red dwarf stars for surface temperature.

I say go for eight. That'll put the earth into upper G class and show a thing or
two to that oh-so-superior sun.

Plus it might make Mars habitable. We'll need it.

William Hyde

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22=E2=80=AFAM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:=
>=20
>>=20
>> > Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market=20
>> > can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of=20
>> > molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the=20
>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away=20
>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.=20
>>=20
>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start=20
>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options=20
>> are limited in that area.=20
>
>If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
>due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
>burning fossil fuels.

As long as we limit to that, and don't augment with solar power
harvested in space (e.g. satellites) or fission/fusion. Or ZPE
or other magic free energy source should one be discovered.

To fit within the TSI budget, we'll need to use less than we
do today, given the limitations of current solar, wind, and
tidal generation source and the cost of replacing fossil
sources completely with contemporaneous solar-derived energy.

There was a short blurb the other day about a device that harvests
energy from humidity.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230524181948.htm

And here are the players, with analysis of the potental
energy provided by each:

Chapter 10: Renewable overview
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=182

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/29/2023 11:04 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <97f3e744-e8d2-4e76-a642-b47f923b560an@googlegroups.com>,
>> pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>
>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>
>>> If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
>>> due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
>>> burning fossil fuels.
>>
>> _Right now_ the pressing issue is greenhouse gas emissions. However,
>> if we developed entirely carbon-neutral energy sources, radiated heat
>> would still limit what we can do without Venusian-style planetary
>> death. That limit is both very, very large compared to our current
>> production of waste heat (like, at least three orders of magnitude)
>> and something we could reach surprisingly quickly with continued
>> exponential growth.
>
>If I recall correctly, the waste heat is six orders of magnitude to
>reach the Sun's heat on Earth. It is an easy back of the envelope if
>you want to correct me.

Recall that it is the last two doublings that add 75%
of the total.

Extrapolating the current 2.8% growth rate forward,
the impact of the waste heat on global average T() is:

Years Power Density T(K) DeltaT(C)
(W/m2)
----- ---------------- ------- ------------

100 1.4 288.1 0.1
200 14.0 288.9 ~1
300 140.0 296.9 ~9
400 1400.0 344 56
417 2070 373 100
1000 1.4x10^9 8600 8300

Original table and full supporting calculations here:

Section 1.3 (Thermodynamic Consequences)
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#section.1.3

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:30:24 PM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:38:22 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> > > In article <0a2dM.3732659$vBI8....@fx15.iad>,
> > > Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org> writes:
> > > >>On Sat, 27 May 2023 10:31:59 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 8:36:45 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Five simple methods to deal with climate change.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/how-to-save-the-world-without-really-
> > > >>doing-anything-at-all
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>> As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we certainly do have
> > > >>> fission for the places that can't get hydroelectricity. Breeder
> > > >>> reactors, and the use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233, will give
> > > >>> us abundant electricity from that source.
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>The arguments against nuclear fission technology have always seemed
> > > >>specious to me. However, my dad was a nuclear engineer, so I can't
> > > >>claim neutrality.
> > > >
> > > >The idea that 'The use of Thorium to breed fissionable U-233 will give
> > > >us abundant electricity' might be correct from a physics standpoint
> > > >(i.e. we know breeding works). It's the engineering and economics that make
> > > >the idea becomes less tractable. Yes, Thorium is abundant in the
> > > >crust. However the economic cost to extract it will likely prevent it
> > > >from becoming a viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near term.
> > > >
> > > >The same is true for "Uranium from seawater". EROEI is the key to
> > > >the viability of any alternate energy source.
> > > >
> > > > "For conventional nuclear fission as it has been practiced
> > > > thus far, the proven reserves of uranium only last 90 years
> > > > at today's rate of use, and less than 4 years if we tried to
> > > > get all 18 TW from fission."
> > > >
> > > >Analysis here:
> > > >
> > > >https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#et...@tocid.16
> > > Why would companies keep looking for new reserves if the on
> > > hand supplies are good for much longer than any stockholder's
> > > remaining lifespan?
> > That would be very long term thinking. The appropriate time
> > frame, at the longest, is for the reappointment time of
> > executives, or the vesting time of their stock options, whichever
> > is shortest.
> >
> > True, one company did try to issue a thousand year bond, but
> > regulators pointed out that this was just a tax dodge, being
> > effectively preferred shares with the payment coming from
> > pretax rather than post tax income.
> How about a perpetual bond, with no expiration?
> https://news.yale.edu/2015/09/22/living-artifact-dutch-golden-age-yale-s-367-year-old-water-bond-still-pays-interest

Thanks for that.

When I was a young lad following the market, "perpetuals" were always quoted, usually at about 55% of par as they
were issued just postwar. People who inherited perps were really irritated that they couldn't sell them back
to the government at par. Eventually the gov bought them all back, (presumably at market) but if they had been allowed to continue,
they'd have been well above par by the early 2000s.

>
> Ben Franklin also got into the perpetuities racket:
> https://www.historynet.com/ben-franklins-'gift-keeps-giving/

And that. I had no idea. I wonder if the Boston trust got so much larger because they were less
generous, or better in invested? I was briefly associated with a trust that had shrunk as they
gave away all profits. The rules were changed so as to retain inflation+2%, which meant
that payments were badly reduced for a generation. But otherwise they'd have soon
stopped entirely.

>
> Perpetuities are now banned in the US, but you can tie a contract's
> duration to a person's life. Disney recently tried to regain control
> over its Florida real estate with a contract that would run until
> 'the last currently living descendent of King William III of England
> died'.

But William III had no children. Wasn't it supposed to be Charles III?

Hundred year bonds can still be issued. I doubt that there has been a market for them
in recent decades.

William Hyde

On 5/29/2023 3:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/29/2023 11:04 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <97f3e744-e8d2-4e76-a642-b47f923b560an@googlegroups.com>,
>>> pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>>
>>>> If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
>>>> due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
>>>> burning fossil fuels.
>>>
>>> _Right now_ the pressing issue is greenhouse gas emissions. However,
>>> if we developed entirely carbon-neutral energy sources, radiated heat
>>> would still limit what we can do without Venusian-style planetary
>>> death. That limit is both very, very large compared to our current
>>> production of waste heat (like, at least three orders of magnitude)
>>> and something we could reach surprisingly quickly with continued
>>> exponential growth.
>>
>> If I recall correctly, the waste heat is six orders of magnitude to
>> reach the Sun's heat on Earth. It is an easy back of the envelope if
>> you want to correct me.
>
> Recall that it is the last two doublings that add 75%
> of the total.
>
> Extrapolating the current 2.8% growth rate forward,
> the impact of the waste heat on global average T() is:
>
> Years Power Density T(K) DeltaT(C)
> (W/m2)
> ----- ---------------- ------- ------------
>
>
> 100 1.4 288.1 0.1
> 200 14.0 288.9 ~1
> 300 140.0 296.9 ~9
> 400 1400.0 344 56
> 417 2070 373 100
> 1000 1.4x10^9 8600 8300
>
> Original table and full supporting calculations here:
>
> Section 1.3 (Thermodynamic Consequences)
> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#section.1.3

You know, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future
(Niels Bohr).

400 years ago, we were sailing small crude ships around the planet. Who
knows what the next 400 years will bring?

Lynn

On 5/29/2023 4:32 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/29/2023 3:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 5/29/2023 11:04 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> In article <97f3e744-e8d2-4e76-a642-b47f923b560an@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can decarbonize, there's no need reduce energy use. Warming is
>>>>> due to extra energy from sunlight being absorbed, not the heat from
>>>>> burning fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> _Right now_ the pressing issue is greenhouse gas emissions. However,
>>>> if we developed entirely carbon-neutral energy sources, radiated heat
>>>> would still limit what we can do without Venusian-style planetary
>>>> death. That limit is both very, very large compared to our current
>>>> production of waste heat (like, at least three orders of magnitude)
>>>> and something we could reach surprisingly quickly with continued
>>>> exponential growth.
>>>
>>> If I recall correctly, the waste heat is six orders of magnitude to
>>> reach the Sun's heat on Earth.  It is an easy back of the envelope if
>>> you want to correct me.
>>
>> Recall that it is the last two doublings that add 75%
>> of the total.
>>
>> Extrapolating the current 2.8% growth rate forward,
>> the impact of the waste heat on global average T() is:
>>
>>    Years      Power Density      T(K)     DeltaT(C)
>>                   (W/m2)
>>    -----     ----------------  -------  ------------
>>
>>     100          1.4            288.1        0.1
>>     200         14.0            288.9        ~1
>>     300        140.0            296.9        ~9
>>     400       1400.0            344          56
>>     417       2070              373         100
>>    1000       1.4x10^9         8600        8300
>>
>> Original table and full supporting calculations here:
>>
>> Section 1.3 (Thermodynamic Consequences)
>> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#section.1.3
>
> You know, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future
> (Niels Bohr).
>
> 400 years ago, we were sailing small crude ships around the planet.  Who
> knows what the next 400 years will bring?
>
Which is not a good argument for doing nothing about current problems.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 5:21:26 AM UTC+10, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <5864eb53-9bc8-4527...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >As for electric power, while we don't have fusion, we
> >certainly do have fission for the places that can't get
> >hydroelectricity. Breeder reactors, and the use of Thorium
> >to breed fissionable U-233, will give us abundant electricity
> >from that source.
> Yeah.
>
> I flatly do not and will never believe that the people who
> claim to be oh so very very concerned about CO2 induced
> climate change really care about that issue, as long as
> they oppose nuclear power.

Yeah, because unless somebody has exactly the same understanding of the situation as you do they can't possibly care about something

> They certainly don't care
> sufficiently to educate themselves. Or, their agenda is
> something else entirely.
>
> We can not run industry just on sunny days when the wind is blowing.
>
Solar still works on cloudy days, producing up to 45% of what they do on sunny days
With wind power in multiple places (especially mixing onshore and offshore generation) you're likely to have some generation from wind power almost all the time
with a highly distributed generation system, smart transmission system and the ability to use excess to fill storage (whether that's battery storage, mechanical, pumped hydro, electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, methanol production...) combine that with Hydro, tidal, geothermal power where they're practical and it's quite possible that nuclear is not needed

The cost of a GW of solar production is about 1 billion and still falling, the cost of a GW of Nuclear is 8.4 billion (according to The World Nuclear Association)
So even at 25% efficiency producing hydrogen and using it as a fuel solar would still cost significantly less than Nuclear to produce a constant .

And that's ignoring that "Base load" is something we've created deliberately to suit coal generators
If we change pricing so that power is cheaper during the day than at night we can shift demand to daytime use rather than nighttime use, just like we shifted demand from daytime to nighttime use by having lower pricing for off-peak power and that individual companies investing in renewable for their own use reduces demand on the grid

> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
> as quickly as posible for going on 50 years now. And I
> am not nor do I have any relatives working in the nuclear
> power industry.)

and obviously your idea is the only possible correct one.

we have about 90 years of uranium reserves for current usage, if we converted all the coal generation to nuclear how long would it last?
Now it's possible to extract uranium from seawater but that's at a significantly higher cost and a lot of the claims to lower the cost are "yes, with this finely produced fibre extracting things over a month we can reduce the cost to $260/kg" which is still significantly more expensive and not proven to scale up
Thorium is unproven commercially

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 5:03:14 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:30:24 PM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]
> > Perpetuities are now banned in the US, but you can tie a contract's
> > duration to a person's life. Disney recently tried to regain control
> > over its Florida real estate with a contract that would run until
> > 'the last currently living descendent of King William III of England
> > died'.
> But William III had no children. Wasn't it supposed to be Charles III?

Oops. Brain fart. Shows how much attention I pay to the House
of Windsor.

pt

In article <ef644585-a589-4ba8-94a7-434045ea2fffn@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 5:21:26 AM UTC+10, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> I flatly do not and will never believe that the people who
>> claim to be oh so very very concerned about CO2 induced
>> climate change really care about that issue, as long as
>> they oppose nuclear power.
>
>Yeah, because unless somebody has exactly the same understanding of the
>situation as you do they can't possibly care about something

If the arguments they made stood up to reality, I'd
consider them, but so far, all I've seen range from
tendentious to cartoony un-reality. To be fair, yours
are much better than most I've seen.

>and the ability to use excess to fill storage (whether that's battery
>storage, mechanical, pumped hydro, electrolysis of water to produce
>hydrogen, methanol production...) combine that with Hydro, tidal,
>geothermal power where they're practical and it's quite possible that
>nuclear is not needed

Storage is the big issue. If someone could come up with
a really good flow battery at reasonable cost, that would
be a game changer. Electrolysys <> Fuel cell is one example,
but has issues. I've heard good things about the vanadium
flow battery, but it's apparently got even worse cost issues.

>The cost of a GW of solar production is about 1 billion and still
>falling, the cost of a GW of Nuclear is 8.4 billion (according to The
>World Nuclear Association)

How much of the cost of nuclear is inherent cost of nuclear,
and how much is the cost of fighting the barratry of the
anti-nuke lobby every step of the way? To a great extent,
the cost argument strikes me as a "Lizzie Borden demands the
court's mercy because she is an orphan" argument.

>And that's ignoring that "Base load" is something we've created
>deliberately to suit coal generators

That strikes me as complete nonsense. One extreme example,
you do *not* want to shut down an aluminum smelter and
let it all solidify overnight every night.

>we have about 90 years of uranium reserves for current usage

And we've never had more than 30 or so proven reserves
of oil. Proven reserves is an entirely different thing
than all there is, obviously.

And that's using the insanely wasteful "once through
throw most of the potential fuel away" non-cycle.
Reprocessing alone expands that a lot, before you even
get into breeder reactors.

>Now it's possible to extract uranium from seawater but that's at a
>significantly higher cost and a lot of the claims to lower the cost are
>"yes, with this finely produced fibre extracting things over a month we
>can reduce the cost to $260/kg" which is still significantly more
>expensive and not proven to scale up

True, it's expensive, but the cost of the uranium is not
the main driving factor.

>Thorium is unproven commercially

But a number of demonstration reactors have been built.
"It can't be done because we haven't done it yet" is an
argument that doesn't convince me.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
>In article <ef644585-a589-4ba8-94a7-434045ea2fffn@googlegroups.com>,
>Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>>The cost of a GW of solar production is about 1 billion and still
>>falling, the cost of a GW of Nuclear is 8.4 billion (according to The
>>World Nuclear Association)
>
>How much of the cost of nuclear is inherent cost of nuclear,
>and how much is the cost of fighting the barratry of the
>anti-nuke lobby every step of the way?

What anti-nuke "lobby" are you referring to. One can look at the
most recent plant, Vogtle #3, which was just recently put into
production, to see that the costs were not related to some
soi disant barratry of an anti-nuke lobby.

While I'm personally in favor of nuclear myself, I don't see it as
a panacea or the ultimate answer to electricity production; rather
as just another arrow in the quiver. Monocultures, after all, tend
to die rapidly.

It definitely has downsides, many severe, including dealing with
the waste issues with or without reprocessing and a lot of
pie in the sky optimism.

Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
>In article <ef644585-a589-4ba8-94a7-434045ea2fffn@googlegroups.com>,
>Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Thorium is unproven commercially
>
>But a number of demonstration reactors have been built.

Can you actually point to more than the experimental
operations at various national labs and the two small
research reactors in India?

And most of those were built in the early 1960s and
shut down within the decade.