A while back, a big topic in the news was how China was bullying
the world by limiting its exports of rare earth metals, in violation
of certain trade agreements.

The minerals from which rare earth metals are extracted, however,
are common in many places around the world. China had no
monopoly - except that it was hard to perform the extraction
anywhere else, due to environmental concerns and economic
factors.

Now this:

https://www.techspot.com/news/91552-reduced-silicon-output-china-leading-increased-chip-production.html

Silicon - one of the Earth's most common elements, the basis
for most kinds of rock - would seem the most unlikely thing for
any country to be able to monopolize.

And this time, the shortage isn't due to a direct intention by China,
but instead due to restrictions on energy use the country put in
place to reduce pollution!

So China is a country that can put the world's economy in turmoil
by unintentionally monopolizing the world's most plentiful and
un-monopolizable resources! My, what would we face if they ever
got upset with us?

John Savard

On 2021-10-04, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> So China is a country that can put the world's economy in turmoil
> by unintentionally monopolizing the world's most plentiful and
> un-monopolizable resources! My, what would we face if they ever
> got upset with us?
>
Don't worry, they are lost without political commissar guidance :P

> John Savard

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
to weak you should be meek, and you should brainfuck stronger
https://github.com/rofl0r/chaos-pp

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:49:07 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> A while back, a big topic in the news was how China was bullying
> the world by limiting its exports of rare earth metals, in violation
> of certain trade agreements.
>
> The minerals from which rare earth metals are extracted, however,
> are common in many places around the world. China had no
> monopoly - except that it was hard to perform the extraction
> anywhere else, due to environmental concerns and economic
> factors.
>
> Now this:
>
> https://www.techspot.com/news/91552-reduced-silicon-output-china-leading-increased-chip-production.html
>
> Silicon - one of the Earth's most common elements, the basis
> for most kinds of rock - would seem the most unlikely thing for
> any country to be able to monopolize.
>
> And this time, the shortage isn't due to a direct intention by China,
> but instead due to restrictions on energy use the country put in
> place to reduce pollution!
<
Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
onto the grid ??
>
> So China is a country that can put the world's economy in turmoil
> by unintentionally monopolizing the world's most plentiful and
> un-monopolizable resources! My, what would we face if they ever
> got upset with us?
<
Greed is what got all those industries into China !
What motivation will get us out ?
>
> John Savard

On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
><
> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
> What motivation will get us out ?

Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>
>> John Savard

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:

> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
> onto the grid ??

Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.

Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
for Trump.)

I think that the reason some are driven to deny the obvious science of
the greenhouse effect is clear:

- people who aren't climate scientists don't know for sure that a
global warming catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
ways (although now we're starting to see the evidence...)

- but they do know for sure that if we drastically cut our energy use,
two things will happen:

1) the economy will be throttled, and lots of people will be thrown
out of work, and

2) America's industrial base will be weakened, and therefore its
ability to defend itself against the totalitarian powers (Russia and
China).

So the way to win over this segment of the population is to have a
*positive* plan for going carbon free, one that promises unlimited
supplies of energy.

And we've got that. We've got a proven technology that can be used
to produce just about as much electricity as anyone could want for
hundreds of years. Nuclear power. With reprocessing (and, hence,
breeder reactors).

Of course, some people think that nuclear reactors are unsafe.
As they tend to be liberals, though, that could just be sold as
another way to "own the libs", so I think it can be managed.

Also, it's claimed that nuclear power is expensive. Some of that
is because nuclear power projects often get hindered by
attempts to block them. The applicable laws can be streamlined.
Also, subsidies to big companies in the military-industrial
complex aren't considered "socialism", so they're acceptable in
the American political context.

John Savard

On 10/7/2021 11:33 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>> onto the grid ??
>
> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
>

Or existing ones.

In premise, NiFe cells could be well suited to this use case, or even
NiMH. LiON cells are ill-suited to grid-level energy storage.

Something like Sodium Ferrocyanide cells (Na-Ion) could offer a
reasonable compromise (similar properties to LiON, but cheaper materials
and potentially more stable).

> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
> for Trump.)
>

I suspect many people would probably much rather mod their large lifted
pickups with dual smokestack exhausts and driving around doing the whole
"rolling coal" thing, ...

> I think that the reason some are driven to deny the obvious science of
> the greenhouse effect is clear:
>
> - people who aren't climate scientists don't know for sure that a
> global warming catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
> ways (although now we're starting to see the evidence...)
>
> - but they do know for sure that if we drastically cut our energy use,
> two things will happen:
>
> 1) the economy will be throttled, and lots of people will be thrown
> out of work, and
>
> 2) America's industrial base will be weakened, and therefore its
> ability to defend itself against the totalitarian powers (Russia and
> China).
>
> So the way to win over this segment of the population is to have a
> *positive* plan for going carbon free, one that promises unlimited
> supplies of energy.
>
> And we've got that. We've got a proven technology that can be used
> to produce just about as much electricity as anyone could want for
> hundreds of years. Nuclear power. With reprocessing (and, hence,
> breeder reactors).
>
> Of course, some people think that nuclear reactors are unsafe.
> As they tend to be liberals, though, that could just be sold as
> another way to "own the libs", so I think it can be managed.
>
> Also, it's claimed that nuclear power is expensive. Some of that
> is because nuclear power projects often get hindered by
> attempts to block them. The applicable laws can be streamlined.
> Also, subsidies to big companies in the military-industrial
> complex aren't considered "socialism", so they're acceptable in
> the American political context.
>

Yeah, we could build a bunch of molten salt nuclear reactors and similar.

And maybe some concentrating solar plants for good measure.

More likely, people will just try to build "biomass" plants, but then
use word wrangling to try to reclassify coal as a type of biomass, and
thus "green".

They could be like "it is not coal, it is carboniferous timber".

When the air gets bad, this is then a new marketing opportunity, they
start hermetically sealing houses, installing house-wise HEPA, HEGA, and
ULPA filters (integrated into the existing HVAC systems), and eventually
Sabatier reactors to reprocess the CO2 from the indoor air, ...

Then everyone will be like "not my problem" when all the world's plant
and animal life starts dying off... They come up with a new catchy name,
like Permian 2.0, or something...

We still get the skies of dark haze, and bare dirt free of vegetation,
just with more big pickups still driving around spewing smoke from their
smoke-stack exhaust systems.

All because, you know, going nuclear is too scary sounding, and coal is
cheaper, ...

....

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>> onto the grid ??
>
> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.

That claim has been made numerous times, and so far I have not seen
anything approaching a clear plan of what this should look like.

At the moment, "dream" sounds more appropriate.

On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>> <
>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>> What motivation will get us out ?
>
> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
> China firms are not welocome in the west :P

Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA". Most of the west is happy to
work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.

The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them. The
real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds. Currently,
China is the favourite enemy of the USA. I don't mean that China does
/not/ pose a threat, economic, diplomatic and military, to the USA or
other countries - merely that the USA exaggerates it for its own purposes.

The rest of the west is caught up in the USA's chest-beating. They have
to side with the USA, while at the same time trying to be more
cooperative trade partners with China, because that's what makes most
economic sense.

On 08/10/2021 06:33, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>> onto the grid ??
>
> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
>

It is not just storage. There is transport, distribution, updates to
infrastructure, replacement of existing devices (like cars), raw
materials and production of replacements, etc. And then there is the
/real/ big issue - which country controls the resources. Big, powerful
countries like the USA, Russia and China would rather destroy the planet
with overheating than accept African desserts covered with solar panels
as the powerhouse of the world.

There /is/ scope to get enough power from solar power in deserts, or
wind power from mountainous areas, Antarctica, jet streams, etc. But it
is in the wrong places. And there is not enough of the raw materials
currently needed - lithium, rare earth metals, quality silicon, etc., -
to make it work.

> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
> for Trump.)

Conservative Americans are a small proportional of world population, but
they are a serious PITA for any kind of progress. There are subgroups
of them who fully understand that humans are a big influence on global
warming, pollution, war, epidemics, and everything else bad in the world
- but they /want/ that, because bringing on the end of the world is a
step towards "rapture" and the "second coming".

>
> I think that the reason some are driven to deny the obvious science of
> the greenhouse effect is clear:
>
> - people who aren't climate scientists don't know for sure that a
> global warming catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
> ways (although now we're starting to see the evidence...)
>

The evidence for global climate change has been clear for a good while
now, and it is getting clearer at an increasing rate. At this stage,
the question is not if a catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
habits - but if the catastrophe can be avoided if we /do/ change.

> - but they do know for sure that if we drastically cut our energy use,
> two things will happen:
>
> 1) the economy will be throttled, and lots of people will be thrown
> out of work, and
>
> 2) America's industrial base will be weakened, and therefore its
> ability to defend itself against the totalitarian powers (Russia and
> China).

When you say "they know for sure", I take you mean these anti-science
conservatives are convinced that they know this. You don't mean to
imply that these are facts.

>
> So the way to win over this segment of the population is to have a
> *positive* plan for going carbon free, one that promises unlimited
> supplies of energy.
>

Yes, that sounds good.

> And we've got that. We've got a proven technology that can be used
> to produce just about as much electricity as anyone could want for
> hundreds of years. Nuclear power. With reprocessing (and, hence,
> breeder reactors).
>

Agreed. In particular, you want higher temperature molten salt reactors
that make far more efficient use of their fuels and are safer (you can't
get meltdowns in a system that is molten already), and you want thorium
as the fuel since it is plentiful, safe, is not suitable for weapons,
and is found in nice countries.

> Of course, some people think that nuclear reactors are unsafe.
> As they tend to be liberals, though, that could just be sold as
> another way to "own the libs", so I think it can be managed.
>

That won't work in the USA - not at all. You have to have a solution
that both sides of your ridiculous political rift can agree upon.
Otherwise you'll have one president starting to build new nuclear power
plants, then four or eight years later the next one will tear them down
just as they are ready to go online.

> Also, it's claimed that nuclear power is expensive. Some of that
> is because nuclear power projects often get hindered by
> attempts to block them. The applicable laws can be streamlined.
> Also, subsidies to big companies in the military-industrial
> complex aren't considered "socialism", so they're acceptable in
> the American political context.
>

On 2021-10-08, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>> <
>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>
>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>
> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA". Most of the west is happy to
> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>
Yeah, China is pure slavery to it's own workers...
>
>

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

On 10/7/2021 5:21 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 2:49:07 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> A while back, a big topic in the news was how China was bullying
>> the world by limiting its exports of rare earth metals, in violation
>> of certain trade agreements.
>>
>> The minerals from which rare earth metals are extracted, however,
>> are common in many places around the world. China had no
>> monopoly - except that it was hard to perform the extraction
>> anywhere else, due to environmental concerns and economic
>> factors.
>>
>> Now this:
>>
>> https://www.techspot.com/news/91552-reduced-silicon-output-china-leading-increased-chip-production.html
>>
>> Silicon - one of the Earth's most common elements, the basis
>> for most kinds of rock - would seem the most unlikely thing for
>> any country to be able to monopolize.
>>
>> And this time, the shortage isn't due to a direct intention by China,
>> but instead due to restrictions on energy use the country put in
>> place to reduce pollution!
> <
> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
> onto the grid ??

Sure. The utility companies to begin with. We can generate as much
electricity as we can foreseeably need "on average". We are still
working on the storage problem to reasonably handle the peaks.

>> So China is a country that can put the world's economy in turmoil
>> by unintentionally monopolizing the world's most plentiful and
>> un-monopolizable resources! My, what would we face if they ever
>> got upset with us?
> <
> Greed is what got all those industries into China !

I suppose you could call it "greed", but I prefer a less derogatory term
like maximizing profits. It has been the basis of capitalism for
centuries, as explained by Adam Smith. It generates the "wealth of
nations".

> What motivation will get us out ?

Same thing. As we learn the costs of supply interruptions, etc. to
profits companies will react accordingly.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>> <
>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>
>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>
> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA". Most of the west is happy to
> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>
> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them. The
> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.

Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out". See
Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if the
Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.

> Currently,
> China is the favourite enemy of the USA. I don't mean that China does
> /not/ pose a threat, economic, diplomatic and military, to the USA or
> other countries - merely that the USA exaggerates it for its own purposes.

Or, conversely, Europe downplays it for its own purposes. It's a matter
of perspective.

>
> The rest of the west is caught up in the USA's chest-beating. They have
> to side with the USA, while at the same time trying to be more
> cooperative trade partners with China, because that's what makes most
> economic sense.

Yes, at least in the short term.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 11:33:30 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
> > Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
> > come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
> > energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
> > onto the grid ??
> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
<
So, what has grown to 2%-5% will be able to run at 130% in 20 years !?!
(130% provides for the growth in energy consumption as population grows
and as industries consume more energy.)
>
> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
> for Trump.)
<
If no more carbon was emitted into the atmosphere starting tomorrow,
the earth will continue to warm through 2300 !! probably close to 5ºC.
{Science news a few weeks ago}
>
> I think that the reason some are driven to deny the obvious science of
> the greenhouse effect is clear:
>
> - people who aren't climate scientists don't know for sure that a
> global warming catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
> ways (although now we're starting to see the evidence...)
>
> - but they do know for sure that if we drastically cut our energy use,
> two things will happen:
>
> 1) the economy will be throttled, and lots of people will be thrown
> out of work, and
>
> 2) America's industrial base will be weakened, and therefore its
> ability to defend itself against the totalitarian powers (Russia and
> China).
<
This has already happened ! We import most semiconductors, we import
100% of the lead used to make bullets, titanium, chromium, ....
We exported all kinds of small scale manufacturing, taking middle
class jobs and converting them to subsistence jobs.
>
> So the way to win over this segment of the population is to have a
> *positive* plan for going carbon free, one that promises unlimited
> supplies of energy.
<
It is a strategy, I agree--an impossible to pull off strategy, but a strategy
none-the-less.
>
> And we've got that. We've got a proven technology that can be used
> to produce just about as much electricity as anyone could want for
> hundreds of years. Nuclear power. With reprocessing (and, hence,
> breeder reactors).
<
Going to be a tough sell to the Greens.
>
> Of course, some people think that nuclear reactors are unsafe.
> As they tend to be liberals, though, that could just be sold as
> another way to "own the libs", so I think it can be managed.
>
> Also, it's claimed that nuclear power is expensive. Some of that
> is because nuclear power projects often get hindered by
> attempts to block them. The applicable laws can be streamlined.
> Also, subsidies to big companies in the military-industrial
> complex aren't considered "socialism", so they're acceptable in
> the American political context.
<
You underestimate the backlash by 2 orders of magnitude.
And I am on your side.
>
> John Savard

On 10/8/2021 4:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 06:33, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>>> onto the grid ??
>>
>> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
>> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
>>
>
> It is not just storage. There is transport, distribution, updates to
> infrastructure, replacement of existing devices (like cars), raw
> materials and production of replacements, etc.
Most of those are just money, e.g. we know how to make electric cars,
update the grid, etc. Storage is still the big technolgical problem.

> And then there is the
> /real/ big issue - which country controls the resources. Big, powerful
> countries like the USA, Russia and China would rather destroy the planet
> with overheating than accept African desserts covered with solar panels
> as the powerhouse of the world.

I don't see anyone in the US objecting to solar panels in Africa. And,
yes, the US is number one or two in greenhouse gas emissions, partially
due to its economic development history. But we are starting to deal
with it, albeit more slowly than many of us, including me, would like.
I don't know anything about Russia's or China's position on that issue.

> There /is/ scope to get enough power from solar power in deserts, or
> wind power from mountainous areas, Antarctica, jet streams, etc. But it
> is in the wrong places. And there is not enough of the raw materials
> currently needed - lithium, rare earth metals, quality silicon, etc., -
> to make it work.
>
>> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
>> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
>> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
>> for Trump.)

Fortunately, or unfortunately, as the effects of global warming become
more and more apparent, the tide is turning more toward doing something
about it. Again, not fast enough for me, but it is moving.

> Conservative Americans are a small proportional of world population, but
> they are a serious PITA for any kind of progress. There are subgroups
> of them who fully understand that humans are a big influence on global
> warming, pollution, war, epidemics, and everything else bad in the world
> - but they /want/ that, because bringing on the end of the world is a
> step towards "rapture" and the "second coming".

That group is a truly tiny proportion. The people who don't want to
address the problem because it will cost them money or restrict their
freedom are a bigger problem. But fortunately, as I said above, that
proportion is shrinking.

>
>>
>> I think that the reason some are driven to deny the obvious science of
>> the greenhouse effect is clear:
>>
>> - people who aren't climate scientists don't know for sure that a
>> global warming catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
>> ways (although now we're starting to see the evidence...)
>>
>
> The evidence for global climate change has been clear for a good while
> now, and it is getting clearer at an increasing rate. At this stage,
> the question is not if a catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
> habits - but if the catastrophe can be avoided if we /do/ change.
>
>> - but they do know for sure that if we drastically cut our energy use,
>> two things will happen:
>>
>> 1) the economy will be throttled, and lots of people will be thrown
>> out of work, and
>>
>> 2) America's industrial base will be weakened, and therefore its
>> ability to defend itself against the totalitarian powers (Russia and
>> China).
>
> When you say "they know for sure", I take you mean these anti-science
> conservatives are convinced that they know this. You don't mean to
> imply that these are facts.
>
>>
>> So the way to win over this segment of the population is to have a
>> *positive* plan for going carbon free, one that promises unlimited
>> supplies of energy.
>>
>
> Yes, that sounds good.
>
>> And we've got that. We've got a proven technology that can be used
>> to produce just about as much electricity as anyone could want for
>> hundreds of years. Nuclear power. With reprocessing (and, hence,
>> breeder reactors).
>>
>
> Agreed. In particular, you want higher temperature molten salt reactors
> that make far more efficient use of their fuels and are safer (you can't
> get meltdowns in a system that is molten already), and you want thorium
> as the fuel since it is plentiful, safe, is not suitable for weapons,
> and is found in nice countries.

There are several alternative nuclear power plant technologies, Each
has its proponents. Clearly, none of them has won out. Development
continues on many of them, even supported by the US government.

>
>> Of course, some people think that nuclear reactors are unsafe.
>> As they tend to be liberals, though, that could just be sold as
>> another way to "own the libs", so I think it can be managed.
>>
>
> That won't work in the USA - not at all. You have to have a solution
> that both sides of your ridiculous political rift can agree upon.
> Otherwise you'll have one president starting to build new nuclear power
> plants, then four or eight years later the next one will tear them down
> just as they are ready to go online.

While I agree that our current political situation is very harmful, if
that were the cause of lack of progress in nuclear power, you would
expect lots of new nuclear plants in other countries. Not only isn't
that happening, but some European countries are shutting theirs down.

>
>> Also, it's claimed that nuclear power is expensive. Some of that
>> is because nuclear power projects often get hindered by
>> attempts to block them.

Agreed. But the key word is "some". By their nature, current nuclear
plants are more expensive to build than other technologies.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 08/10/2021 17:22, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> <
>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>
>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>
>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA".  Most of the west is happy to
>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>
>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them.  The
>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>
> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out".  See
> Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if the
> Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>

These can be looked at in /many/ ways. Perhaps it is best not to go
there in this thread - suffice to say that the views held by Americans
who were brought up on American history lessons are not the same as the
views held by Europeans brought up on European history lessons. It
doesn't matter what you have learned about history - if you think you
have learned the whole objective truth, you are wrong.

>
>> Currently,
>> China is the favourite enemy of the USA.  I don't mean that China does
>> /not/ pose a threat, economic, diplomatic and military, to the USA or
>> other countries - merely that the USA exaggerates it for its own
>> purposes.
>
> Or, conversely, Europe downplays it for its own purposes.  It's a matter
> of perspective.
>

I wasn't trying to suggest that Europe is right here, merely that the
USA is wrong!

>>
>> The rest of the west is caught up in the USA's chest-beating.  They have
>> to side with the USA, while at the same time trying to be more
>> cooperative trade partners with China, because that's what makes most
>> economic sense.
>
> Yes, at least in the short term.
>
>
>

What democracy has ever thought in terms other than the short term? A
government or ruler can do little else, when they are judged every few
years by people who typically have very little idea of the big picture.

(I don't mean other forms of government are better - a despot may be
able to work in the longer term, but that doesn't mean doing a better
job. Communist five year plans and ten year plans were not unmitigated
successes!)

On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 10/8/2021 4:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 06:33, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>>>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>>>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>>>> onto the grid ??
>>>
>>> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
>>> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
>>>
>>
>> It is not just storage.  There is transport, distribution, updates to
>> infrastructure, replacement of existing devices (like cars), raw
>> materials and production of replacements, etc.
> Most of those are just money, e.g. we know how to make electric cars,
> update the grid, etc.  Storage is still the big technolgical problem.
>

We don't know how to make reliable or sustainable electric cars. We can
make petrol cars that last twenty years, but some electric cars seem to
suffer endless problems, and many get scraped after small impacts
because it costs too much to fix battery packs. (The statistics on dead
electric cars are depressing.)

We don't know how to make electric car batteries that are efficient,
light, safe, and quick to charge. In particular, we don't know how to
make usable car batteries that are remotely sustainable or
environmentally friendly to produce.

We can make hydrogen production, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen storage,
hydrogen transport, hydrogen distribution - we have all the technology
for making a hydrogen fuel based transport system except for one issue.
We don't know how to make good hydrogen fuel cell catalysts out of
something that won't run out long before there is a significant fleet of
hydrogen vehicles.

We don't know how to make electric vehicles that can be maintained and
repaired without highly specialised parts, equipment and training -
making them useless for less well developed countries and areas.
(That's becoming a problem for petrol and diesel cars too.)

I'd agree that money is a large factor here, but it is not the only
challenge.

>
>> And then there is the
>> /real/ big issue - which country controls the resources.  Big, powerful
>> countries like the USA, Russia and China would rather destroy the planet
>> with overheating than accept African desserts covered with solar panels
>> as the powerhouse of the world.
>
> I don't see anyone in the US objecting to solar panels in Africa.  And,
> yes, the US is number one or two in greenhouse gas emissions, partially
> due to its economic development history.  But we are starting to deal
> with it, albeit more slowly than many of us, including me, would like. I
> don't know anything about Russia's or China's position on that issue.
>

There is a (perfectly understandable) view that countries want to be
mostly self-sufficient for their power. We've had enough wars over oil,
and enough weaker countries taken over by stronger countries for their
fuel resources. We've had enough corruption, greed and inhumanity all
along the way. We don't want to repeat it all over new power sources.

>
>> There /is/ scope to get enough power from solar power in deserts, or
>> wind power from mountainous areas, Antarctica, jet streams, etc.  But it
>> is in the wrong places.  And there is not enough of the raw materials
>> currently needed - lithium, rare earth metals, quality silicon, etc., -
>> to make it work.
>>
>>> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
>>> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
>>> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
>>> for Trump.)
>
> Fortunately, or unfortunately, as the effects of global warming become
> more and more apparent, the tide is turning more toward doing something
> about it.  Again, not fast enough for me, but it is moving.
>

Too little, too late - but it's better than nothing at all.

>
>> Conservative Americans are a small proportional of world population, but
>> they are a serious PITA for any kind of progress.  There are subgroups
>> of them who fully understand that humans are a big influence on global
>> warming, pollution, war, epidemics, and everything else bad in the world
>> - but they /want/ that, because bringing on the end of the world is a
>> step towards "rapture" and the "second coming".
>
> That group is a truly tiny proportion.  The people who don't want to
> address the problem because it will cost them money or restrict their
> freedom are a bigger problem.  But fortunately, as I said above, that
> proportion is shrinking.
>

I hope you are right.

The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?

>
>>
>>>
>>> I think that the reason some are driven to deny the obvious science of
>>> the greenhouse effect is clear:
>>>
>>> - people who aren't climate scientists don't know for sure that a
>>> global warming catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
>>> ways (although now we're starting to see the evidence...)
>>>
>>
>> The evidence for global climate change has been clear for a good while
>> now, and it is getting clearer at an increasing rate.  At this stage,
>> the question is not if a catastrophe will happen if we don't change our
>> habits - but if the catastrophe can be avoided if we /do/ change.
>>
>>> - but they do know for sure that if we drastically cut our energy use,
>>> two things will happen:
>>>
>>> 1) the economy will be throttled, and lots of people will be thrown
>>> out of work, and
>>>
>>> 2) America's industrial base will be weakened, and therefore its
>>> ability to defend itself against the totalitarian powers (Russia and
>>> China).
>>
>> When you say "they know for sure", I take you mean these anti-science
>> conservatives are convinced that they know this.  You don't mean to
>> imply that these are facts.
>>
>>>
>>> So the way to win over this segment of the population is to have a
>>> *positive* plan for going carbon free, one that promises unlimited
>>> supplies of energy.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that sounds good.
>>
>>> And we've got that. We've got a proven technology that can be used
>>> to produce just about as much electricity as anyone could want for
>>> hundreds of years. Nuclear power. With reprocessing (and, hence,
>>> breeder reactors).
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.  In particular, you want higher temperature molten salt reactors
>> that make far more efficient use of their fuels and are safer (you can't
>> get meltdowns in a system that is molten already), and you want thorium
>> as the fuel since it is plentiful, safe, is not suitable for weapons,
>> and is found in nice countries.
>
> There are several alternative nuclear power plant technologies,  Each
> has its proponents.  Clearly, none of them has won out.  Development
> continues on many of them, even supported by the US government.
>

Yes - I don't think we need to consider the technical details here.

>
>>
>>> Of course, some people think that nuclear reactors are unsafe.
>>> As they tend to be liberals, though, that could just be sold as
>>> another way to "own the libs", so I think it can be managed.
>>>
>>
>> That won't work in the USA - not at all.  You have to have a solution
>> that both sides of your ridiculous political rift can agree upon.
>> Otherwise you'll have one president starting to build new nuclear power
>> plants, then four or eight years later the next one will tear them down
>> just as they are ready to go online.
>
>
> While I agree that our current political situation is very harmful, if
> that were the cause of lack of progress in nuclear power, you would
> expect lots of new nuclear plants in other countries.  Not only isn't
> that happening, but some European countries are shutting theirs down.
>

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> > That group is a truly tiny proportion. The people who don't want to
> > address the problem because it will cost them money or restrict their
> > freedom are a bigger problem. But fortunately, as I said above, that
> > proportion is shrinking.
> >
> I hope you are right.
>
> The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
> harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
> examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
> stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
> education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
> getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
> politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
> majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
> change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?
<
There is the problem of that second amendment thing:: first one has to
pass the amendment to amend the 2nd amendment, then 2/3rds of the
states have to ratify. Right now there is no chance of even getting 25 states
to ratify, let alone 34.
<
Secondly, right now the supreme court will not allow, and this will continue
to be the case for another 30 years.
<
So, even though 70%-odd want stricter/better gun laws--it is not realistic
to assume anything in this direction will happen for decades.
> >

> >
> >
> > While I agree that our current political situation is very harmful, if
> > that were the cause of lack of progress in nuclear power, you would
> > expect lots of new nuclear plants in other countries. Not only isn't
> > that happening, but some European countries are shutting theirs down.
> >
> A lot of European politicians are totally spineless when it comes to
> nuclear power - the USA does not have a monopoly on political problems
> or navel-gazing policies. Some countries /are/ making progress in
> nuclear power - India and China, in particular.
<
A bit more than a decade ago the world thought the Japanese had Nuclear
power under good control.......
>
> We suffer from a great deal of misunderstanding and short-sightedness in
> terms of the environment. The majority of environmental activists are
> concerned with here and now - they want to shut down coal-fired power
> stations in their own country, even though it means importing
> electricity generated elsewhere by dirtier coal. They want to ban
> petrol cars on their streets, regardless of the environmental harm done
> in mining the lithium to run the electric cars. They want to eat
> "organic" food, without a care that it means running rivers dry for the
> extra water needed compared to using non-organic farming methods.
<
If people were simply content to live in 1950, all of our problems would vanish.
But they are not content, and they have the votes to slow/prevent/hinder/.....
>
> I have been gladdened by some of the statements from one of our
> traditionally extreme environmental groups here in Norway. There is a
> new copper mine underway in the north of the country, and the plan is to
> dump the waste rock in the fjord - as you can imagine, there have been
> endless protests about it. But this group have said they think it is a
> great idea, and a big boon for the environment - because the world needs
> that copper if they are going to reduce fossil fuels. And the
> alternative to controlled and monitored mining in Norway is corrupt and
> uncontrolled mining in an African jungle where forests get burned down,
> water supplies polluted, and warlords and corrupt politicians pocket the
> profit. Mining in Norway is not good in itself, but far better than the
> alternatives.
<
Without big finds of copper ore, the EV world cannot materialize.

On 10/8/2021 9:46 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 10/8/2021 4:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2021 06:33, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>>>>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>>>>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>>>>> onto the grid ??
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
>>>> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not just storage.  There is transport, distribution, updates to
>>> infrastructure, replacement of existing devices (like cars), raw
>>> materials and production of replacements, etc.
>> Most of those are just money, e.g. we know how to make electric cars,
>> update the grid, etc.  Storage is still the big technolgical problem.
>>
>
> We don't know how to make reliable or sustainable electric cars. We can
> make petrol cars that last twenty years, but some electric cars seem to
> suffer endless problems, and many get scraped after small impacts
> because it costs too much to fix battery packs. (The statistics on dead
> electric cars are depressing.)
>
> We don't know how to make electric car batteries that are efficient,
> light, safe, and quick to charge. In particular, we don't know how to
> make usable car batteries that are remotely sustainable or
> environmentally friendly to produce.
>
> We can make hydrogen production, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen storage,
> hydrogen transport, hydrogen distribution - we have all the technology
> for making a hydrogen fuel based transport system except for one issue.
> We don't know how to make good hydrogen fuel cell catalysts out of
> something that won't run out long before there is a significant fleet of
> hydrogen vehicles.
>
> We don't know how to make electric vehicles that can be maintained and
> repaired without highly specialised parts, equipment and training -
> making them useless for less well developed countries and areas.
> (That's becoming a problem for petrol and diesel cars too.)
>
> I'd agree that money is a large factor here, but it is not the only
> challenge.
>
>>
>>> And then there is the
>>> /real/ big issue - which country controls the resources.  Big, powerful
>>> countries like the USA, Russia and China would rather destroy the planet
>>> with overheating than accept African desserts covered with solar panels
>>> as the powerhouse of the world.
>>
>> I don't see anyone in the US objecting to solar panels in Africa.  And,
>> yes, the US is number one or two in greenhouse gas emissions, partially
>> due to its economic development history.  But we are starting to deal
>> with it, albeit more slowly than many of us, including me, would like. I
>> don't know anything about Russia's or China's position on that issue.
>>
>
> There is a (perfectly understandable) view that countries want to be
> mostly self-sufficient for their power. We've had enough wars over oil,
> and enough weaker countries taken over by stronger countries for their
> fuel resources. We've had enough corruption, greed and inhumanity all
> along the way. We don't want to repeat it all over new power sources.
>
>>
>>> There /is/ scope to get enough power from solar power in deserts, or
>>> wind power from mountainous areas, Antarctica, jet streams, etc.  But it
>>> is in the wrong places.  And there is not enough of the raw materials
>>> currently needed - lithium, rare earth metals, quality silicon, etc., -
>>> to make it work.
>>>
>>>> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
>>>> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
>>>> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
>>>> for Trump.)
>>
>> Fortunately, or unfortunately, as the effects of global warming become
>> more and more apparent, the tide is turning more toward doing something
>> about it.  Again, not fast enough for me, but it is moving.
>>
>
> Too little, too late - but it's better than nothing at all.
>
>>
>>> Conservative Americans are a small proportional of world population, but
>>> they are a serious PITA for any kind of progress.  There are subgroups
>>> of them who fully understand that humans are a big influence on global
>>> warming, pollution, war, epidemics, and everything else bad in the world
>>> - but they /want/ that, because bringing on the end of the world is a
>>> step towards "rapture" and the "second coming".
>>
>> That group is a truly tiny proportion.  The people who don't want to
>> address the problem because it will cost them money or restrict their
>> freedom are a bigger problem.  But fortunately, as I said above, that
>> proportion is shrinking.
>>
>
> I hope you are right.
>
> The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
> harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
> examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
> stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
> education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
> getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
> politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
> majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
> change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?

It took the Depression to give FDR the landslide he needed. Hoover in '24!

On 10/08/21 18:38, Ivan Godard wrote:
> On 10/8/2021 9:46 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2021 4:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2021 06:33, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 6:21:49 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone given a thought to where all the electricity is going to
>>>>>> come from once we transition completely away from carbon based
>>>>>> energy sources (excepting for airplanes) and dump all those EV cars
>>>>>> onto the grid ??
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. It is claimed that new energy storage technologies will make it
>>>>> possible to meet our power needs from wind and solar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not just storage. There is transport, distribution, updates to
>>>> infrastructure, replacement of existing devices (like cars), raw
>>>> materials and production of replacements, etc.
>>> Most of those are just money, e.g. we know how to make electric cars,
>>> update the grid, etc. Storage is still the big technolgical problem.
>>>
>>
>> We don't know how to make reliable or sustainable electric cars. We can
>> make petrol cars that last twenty years, but some electric cars seem to
>> suffer endless problems, and many get scraped after small impacts
>> because it costs too much to fix battery packs. (The statistics on dead
>> electric cars are depressing.)
>>
>> We don't know how to make electric car batteries that are efficient,
>> light, safe, and quick to charge. In particular, we don't know how to
>> make usable car batteries that are remotely sustainable or
>> environmentally friendly to produce.
>>
>> We can make hydrogen production, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen storage,
>> hydrogen transport, hydrogen distribution - we have all the technology
>> for making a hydrogen fuel based transport system except for one issue.
>> We don't know how to make good hydrogen fuel cell catalysts out of
>> something that won't run out long before there is a significant fleet of
>> hydrogen vehicles.
>>
>> We don't know how to make electric vehicles that can be maintained and
>> repaired without highly specialised parts, equipment and training -
>> making them useless for less well developed countries and areas.
>> (That's becoming a problem for petrol and diesel cars too.)
>>
>> I'd agree that money is a large factor here, but it is not the only
>> challenge.
>>
>>>
>>>> And then there is the
>>>> /real/ big issue - which country controls the resources. Big, powerful
>>>> countries like the USA, Russia and China would rather destroy the
>>>> planet
>>>> with overheating than accept African desserts covered with solar panels
>>>> as the powerhouse of the world.
>>>
>>> I don't see anyone in the US objecting to solar panels in Africa. And,
>>> yes, the US is number one or two in greenhouse gas emissions, partially
>>> due to its economic development history. But we are starting to deal
>>> with it, albeit more slowly than many of us, including me, would like. I
>>> don't know anything about Russia's or China's position on that issue.
>>>
>>
>> There is a (perfectly understandable) view that countries want to be
>> mostly self-sufficient for their power. We've had enough wars over oil,
>> and enough weaker countries taken over by stronger countries for their
>> fuel resources. We've had enough corruption, greed and inhumanity all
>> along the way. We don't want to repeat it all over new power sources.
>>
>>>
>>>> There /is/ scope to get enough power from solar power in deserts, or
>>>> wind power from mountainous areas, Antarctica, jet streams, etc.
>>>> But it
>>>> is in the wrong places. And there is not enough of the raw materials
>>>> currently needed - lithium, rare earth metals, quality silicon, etc., -
>>>> to make it work.
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, though, I think that if we _really_ want to stop global
>>>>> warming, we need to have a solution that's acceptable to... more
>>>>> conservative Americans. (Including some who still wouldn't vote
>>>>> for Trump.)
>>>
>>> Fortunately, or unfortunately, as the effects of global warming become
>>> more and more apparent, the tide is turning more toward doing something
>>> about it. Again, not fast enough for me, but it is moving.
>>>
>>
>> Too little, too late - but it's better than nothing at all.
>>
>>>
>>>> Conservative Americans are a small proportional of world population,
>>>> but
>>>> they are a serious PITA for any kind of progress. There are subgroups
>>>> of them who fully understand that humans are a big influence on global
>>>> warming, pollution, war, epidemics, and everything else bad in the
>>>> world
>>>> - but they /want/ that, because bringing on the end of the world is a
>>>> step towards "rapture" and the "second coming".
>>>
>>> That group is a truly tiny proportion. The people who don't want to
>>> address the problem because it will cost them money or restrict their
>>> freedom are a bigger problem. But fortunately, as I said above, that
>>> proportion is shrinking.
>>>
>>
>> I hope you are right.
>>
>> The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
>> harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
>> examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
>> stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
>> education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
>> getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
>> politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
>> majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
>> change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?
>
> It took the Depression to give FDR the landslide he needed. Hoover in '24!
>

I've been monitoring the climate change issue for over a decade, and
it's not so clear cut as those with an agenda would claim. Climate
change ?, yes, but no evidence for a climate emergency. We have decades
to sort this out and humanity will fix it just as they always have in
the past, through advances in the sciences and the political will to
push the R&D. Instead, most of the western world running round like
headless chickens, while the likes of China and India carry on business
as usual and are unlikely to change.

The we have Guardian readers wavng arms about, talking wind farms and
battery storage, in complete ignorance of science and engineering
reality. Madness indeed...

Chris

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:58:19 PM UTC-5, chris wrote:
> On 10/08/21 18:38, Ivan Godard wrote:
> > On 10/8/2021 9:46 AM, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:

> >>
> >> I hope you are right.
> >>
> >> The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
> >> harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
> >> examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
> >> stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
> >> education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
> >> getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
> >> politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
> >> majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
> >> change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?
> >
> > It took the Depression to give FDR the landslide he needed. Hoover in '24!
> >
> I've been monitoring the climate change issue for over a decade, and
> it's not so clear cut as those with an agenda would claim. Climate
> change ?, yes, but no evidence for a climate emergency. We have decades
> to sort this out and humanity will fix it just as they always have in
> the past, through advances in the sciences and the political will to
> push the R&D. Instead, most of the western world running round like
> headless chickens, while the likes of China and India carry on business
> as usual and are unlikely to change.
>
> The we have Guardian readers wavng arms about, talking wind farms and
> battery storage, in complete ignorance of science and engineering
> reality. Madness indeed...
<
Only let those with an IQ above 120 vote !
>
> Chris

> I've been monitoring the climate change issue for over a decade,

AFAIK the climate change issue started in the 70s (when the oil
companies's own studies found it out).

> and it's not so clear cut as those with an agenda would claim.

Not sure what that means. AFAICT climate denial is mostly backed by
large corporate interests, whereas climate crisis doesn't have nearly as
much money behind it.

So what kind of agenda do "those" have, you think?

> Climate change ?, yes, but no evidence for a climate emergency.

As computer scientists, we should be well aware of the way exponential
growth of something means that the transition from "usable" to
"unusable" hits very hard.

I'm not sure how urgent the situation is, but I know that I don't want
to get anywhere near that transition.

> We have decades to sort this out

When sorting this out may imply quite fundamental changes in the way our
societies and economies work (and not just in one or two countries, but
really worldwide), I think "decades" is an extremely short amount
of time.

> and humanity will fix it just as they always have in the past,

AFAIK in cases of crisis what tends to happen is war.

It may ultimately be beneficial in terms of emissions, if it kills
a large enough fraction of the population and industry, but in the
short/medium term it's one of the worst forms of pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions.

So I'm not sure it's one of those "will fix itself". It's think it's
much more likely to be one of those unstable systems that gets even
more worse when it gets worse.

> through advances in the sciences and the political will to push the
> R&D.

AFAIK there has been virtually no case in humanity's history where
technological progress has reduced consumption of resources (any
improvement in efficiency has always resulted in matching increase in
use).

Science may still be part of the answer, but I think the answer can only
come from very conscious political decisions to mandate specific changes
(and not just to fund R&D).

> Instead, most of the western world running round like headless
> chickens,

I see a fair bit of talk, but not much in terms of concrete actions.
Definitely nothing like "running".

Stefan

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 1:57:10 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I've been monitoring the climate change issue for over a decade,
> AFAIK the climate change issue started in the 70s (when the oil
> companies's own studies found it out).
<
The most surprising thing about climate change is that nothing about the
conclusions reached have changed since the 1950's.
<
> > and it's not so clear cut as those with an agenda would claim.
> Not sure what that means. AFAICT climate denial is mostly backed by
> large corporate interests, whereas climate crisis doesn't have nearly as
> much money behind it.
>
> So what kind of agenda do "those" have, you think?
> > Climate change ?, yes, but no evidence for a climate emergency.
> As computer scientists, we should be well aware of the way exponential
> growth of something means that the transition from "usable" to
> "unusable" hits very hard.
<
If no more carbon was emitted into the atmosphere starting tomorrow,
the earth will continue to warm until at least 2300 (278 years from now).
<
The point of no return was at least 15 years ago.
>
> I'm not sure how urgent the situation is, but I know that I don't want
> to get anywhere near that transition.
> > We have decades to sort this out
<
We have closer to -2 decades to figure this out than +2 decades.
<
> When sorting this out may imply quite fundamental changes in the way our
> societies and economies work (and not just in one or two countries, but
> really worldwide), I think "decades" is an extremely short amount
> of time.
> > and humanity will fix it just as they always have in the past,
> AFAIK in cases of crisis what tends to happen is war.
<
Which, after a short period of time, reduces the population to where
that population is sustainable.
>
> It may ultimately be beneficial in terms of emissions, if it kills
> a large enough fraction of the population and industry, but in the
> short/medium term it's one of the worst forms of pollution and
> greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> So I'm not sure it's one of those "will fix itself". It's think it's
> much more likely to be one of those unstable systems that gets even
> more worse when it gets worse.
<
20 years ago I had hope, now there is none.
<
> > through advances in the sciences and the political will to push the
> > R&D.
> AFAIK there has been virtually no case in humanity's history where
> technological progress has reduced consumption of resources (any
> improvement in efficiency has always resulted in matching increase in
> use).
<
Energy use continues to increase as technological progress continues.
>
> Science may still be part of the answer, but I think the answer can only
> come from very conscious political decisions to mandate specific changes
> (and not just to fund R&D).
<
Good luck getting large populations to vote themselves into poverty.
<
> > Instead, most of the western world running round like headless
> > chickens,
> I see a fair bit of talk, but not much in terms of concrete actions.
> Definitely nothing like "running".
<
You mean concrete actions like reducing the population of the planet by 80% ??
>
>
> Stefan

Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> <
>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>
>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>
>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA".  Most of the west is happy to
>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>
>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them.  The
>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>
> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out".  See
> Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if the
> Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.

Norway and the rest of NATO all depend on having the US as the big
brother in the group, that's obviously correct.

OTOH, the only time the common defense part of the NATO charter has been
used was after 9/11 when all the NATO countries came to the aid of USA.

A "funny" side effect of that was the American general who revealed the
existence of the FSK, a Norwegian elite special force that had existed
since shortly after WW2, hiding in plain sight among the "regular"
well-known special forces, like the navy underwater demolition divers.
(I believe they trace their history & inspiration back to the group that
blew up the heavy water plant in Rjukan, without firing a single shot.)

I'm a reserve officer and I had never heard a single rumour about such a
unit, which is pretty well done since every prime minister and his/her
minister of defence all had to be briefed about them, over a 50-year
time span.

BTW, FSK are experts on long-duration missions in winter/cold/high
altitude, they went into Iraq very early in the build-up to the invasion.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 10/8/2021 1:28 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:58:19 PM UTC-5, chris wrote:
>> On 10/08/21 18:38, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2021 9:46 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> I hope you are right.
>>>>
>>>> The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
>>>> harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
>>>> examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
>>>> stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
>>>> education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
>>>> getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
>>>> politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
>>>> majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
>>>> change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?
>>>
>>> It took the Depression to give FDR the landslide he needed. Hoover in '24!
>>>
>> I've been monitoring the climate change issue for over a decade, and
>> it's not so clear cut as those with an agenda would claim. Climate
>> change ?, yes, but no evidence for a climate emergency. We have decades
>> to sort this out and humanity will fix it just as they always have in
>> the past, through advances in the sciences and the political will to
>> push the R&D. Instead, most of the western world running round like
>> headless chickens, while the likes of China and India carry on business
>> as usual and are unlikely to change.
>>
>> The we have Guardian readers wavng arms about, talking wind farms and
>> battery storage, in complete ignorance of science and engineering
>> reality. Madness indeed...
> <
> Only let those with an IQ above 120 vote !

Sometimes I wonder if everyone around here thinks I am kind of an idiot
sometimes, and I still feel like one sometimes, but apparently I am in
the general area around 140 or so.

I wonder then how more normal people function, or what sort of world
they live in. I suspect whatever it is, it is possibly a little
different than my own.

Like, even for mundane things like "What religion am I?"
Well, I can give a label, but beyond this, things are not quite so simple.

It isn't easily reduced to a set of yes/no answers to whether or not I
believe certain things to be true or false, but rather like I am stuck
in a sort of winding possibility space, where several different
religions exist as locations exist within this possibility space, and I
seemingly exist on both sides of the various "theological questions you
are not allowed to ask" at the same time, seeing other possible
structures within this greater "theological possibility space" which
would possibly cause many conservatives to lose their crap if even
hinted at as possibilities, ...

Then I end up generally backing down from saying much. Most people
either wont care, and for those which might, it ends up with needless
conflict, and I am still left with the issue that the labels don't work.

So, each label is like planting a flag and being like "I am here, I will
not move from this spot", but therein lies the problem:
One can claim to be a Christian, but this doesn't feel honest;
Don't really fit in the Judaism camp either;
Being agnostic is probably more accurate but needlessly exclusive;
Not atheist either, but will admit to wandering through this space.

Agnostic fits in the sense that I will not claim to have a solid or
definitive answer, but tends to also be associated with people who bury
their heads in the sane and declare that it is unknowable, which isn't
quite right either (as opposed to someone who sort of lives the
experience of being, in a sense, within all four categories
simultaneously; and whose interpretation of some points can't be reduced
to simple yes or no answers).

Or, basically, what if one mentally navigates the theology space in a
similar way to how one might navigate the possibility space within a
programming task?... Or, at least for me, I don't move from "point A" to
"point B" in discrete steps, so much as spreading out into the space and
then converging in on an answer that looks like it has an interesting
outcome (or, in an abstract sense, almost like "sailing a boat within
the thought space").

But, at the same time, I am (probably by definition) not really able to
imagine how people smarter than myself might deal with all of this.

And, even with as smart as I may or may not be, my existence sometimes
still seems pretty much worthless and otherwise rather pathetic.

But, well, at least writing code is something I can do sorta OK.

Well, or coming up with stuff to put into scifi stories, eg:
Colonizing the Moon with domes made mostly out of Silicone and Aramid;
Various types of plasma thrusters;
More crazy stuff, like trying to use a cyclotron + linear accelerator as
an engine (to eject a plasma stream at relativistic speeds);
....

Then sitting around expecting people to be like "What the hell? That
wont work!".

In my mind, it is like one just sorta imagines the structures, and
imagines how the waves of a VHF source might propagate through the
structure and drag the ions along with it (and how the interactions
between the plasma and magnetic fields within the structure might incur
kinetic forces on the structure, ...).

Like, in these cases, the signals would be moving fast enough that
conventional electronics or coils wont work, and instead the "logic" or
"mechanics" of the device are mostly based on how the electromagnetic
wavefront would propagate through the structure.

Then ends up imagining something which kinda resembles 4 isochronous
cyclotrons (resembling octagons made out of curved sections) glued
together and feeding into a linear section which resembles a
copper+steel helix with a pair of copper rails on the outside. In their
imagination, the wave travels along the rails and through the helical
segments, dragging the plasma along in small bundles along the path of
the wave, and seeing the propagation of the wave fronts moving the ions
along in the circular paths within the cyclotron sections (and how they
would need to be in counter-rotating pairs to keep the structure from
going into a spin), ... One can also imagine various wave guides within
the structure used to help direct RF energy and modify its phase, ...

Well, and part of the structure would also need to contain some (fairly
large) neodymium magnets (mostly so that the cyclotrons can do their
thing), and some curved iron sections (which merge the fields from one
cyclotron to the next, causing the whole thing to function like a
singular circular magnetic field passing through all 4 cyclotrons).

....

But, then wonders, what would most other people imagine in this
situation?...

I am left to wonder if for many people, stuff like this falls outside of
what they can imagine (like, not so much whether or not it could be
built in reality, or "actually work", but whether they could imagine
such a structure in the first place). This thought seems almost sad in a
way...

But, in a way, someone smarter might see defects in the structure, or
realize why such a thing could never work, ...

Or, as can also be noted, people tend to remain painfully unaware about
how plainly obvious the limits in their thinking are to everyone around
them, but like, no one says anything out of trying to be respectful
(well, since this is sort of a trap for which there is no escape).

So, in my case, I can't exactly rule out this situation either.

But, like, I make no claims other than "Well, I am, basically, what I am".

....

Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
> > On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> <
> >>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
> >>> What motivation will get us out ?
> >>
> >> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
> >> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
> >> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
> >
> > Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA". Most of the west is happy to
> > work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
> > rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
> >
> > The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
> > means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them. The
> > real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
> > than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>
> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out". See
> Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if the
> Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.

If you look at actions threat was USA. In period of 1950-1990 USA
conducted several military interventions:

Korean War
Gwatemala 1954 intervention
Bay of Pig invasion
Dominican 1965 intervention
Wietnam War (with bombing of neigbours)
Grenada 1983
Panama 1990

In that period I know of 4 soviet intervention:

Soviet air force in Korean War
intervention in Hungary 1956
intervention in Czechoslovakia 1968
Afganistan War

And while USA happlily threatens and attacks other countries to this
day, soviet system collapsed after (and partially due to) Afganistan
War: important part of "soviet package" was preserving peace.
With Afganistan war this was broken and caused significant drop
in popular support for sovoer regime.

Of couse, soviet block had plans to attack "west". But realistically,
west and USA in particular always had much stronger forces.
And reality of modern war is that army which refuses to attack
looses. Soviet block could hope that in case of war western
losses would be high enough to deter attack and that apparently
worked, we had peace in Europe for long time.

In Poland, where I live we do not have much sentiment for Soviet
Union, it was percevied as foreign force exploiting Poland and
forcing Soviet interest on Poland. But now we replaced this
by USA forcing their interest on Poland. Of couse, dependence
on USA has some advantages compared to dependence on Soviet
Union. but USA policy is not so nice as USA propaganda tries
to claim.

> > Currently,
> > China is the favourite enemy of the USA. I don't mean that China does
> > /not/ pose a threat, economic, diplomatic and military, to the USA or
> > other countries - merely that the USA exaggerates it for its own purposes.
>
> Or, conversely, Europe downplays it for its own purposes. It's a matter
> of perspective.

I read recent article about increase of China naval forces. According
to ariticle China is a threat because now US Navy no longer is stronger
in sees surrounding China. In other words, USA can no longer
realistically threaten China with naval intervention on China shores,
so China is a threat to USA. This kind of logic is ludicrous to
unbiased observer, but apparently USA policy is/was based on it...

--
Waldek Hebisch