But Zeph it was not OT just the opposite. 5-9 were on point. I just did not understand your point.
Oh and ShaneD. This planet will not give a fly'n fluttie in 1 million years what we do, life will still survive (even if we look like bugeyed monsters) radiation nor asteroid can stop all life on this planet. It would only set back the singularity a bit 
Why this sounds like a joke only our species will be gone.
Overall, fish may benefit from global warming. Coral is dying off but those fish are going to have a lot more real estate. Such as Florida.
That is hitting below the belt, and who said I live in Florida..oh yeah, that damn profile. Got to do something about that. 
Yes, trust me, I do worry. That is why I am here, as are us all. Amazing, considering I will be dead anywhere from now, and 30 years from now.
I was an early GW warrior. Pissed off a lot of people in my passion. Then came to the realization that human nature will not change, and there was nothing I could do to help, other than fly my airplane efficiently to make a difference, For which I was awarded among the 12 best -of 11,000, AA pilots for fuel efficiency. Made me proud, but all it got was me a free lunch...really. Saved swimming pools of jet fuel per year, and my reward was a $5 meal, and a great thank you speech. But get this, I was the curse of my union brothers...go figure!
Oh, and my degree was in Ichthyology...well Marine Biology, but there was no program for that at the time, so I do know something about the topic.
"I was the curse of my Union brothers"
What, for making them look bad, or because they knew you were flying with an absolute minimum fuel load?
But seriously, is there an optimum altitude/AoA, or just a case of flying slowly?
IMO renewables are both economically both environmentally unsustainable, just the fear from nuclear power and dependence on East Asia and Russian fossil fuels makes it palatable for rich economies like the Germany (which can afford even the import of soyabean biofuels from Argentina). For example it's too easy to ignore, that all biofuels exhaust minerals in soil and they're only sustainable with sufficient production of fertilizers. If these hidden expenses aren't considered (because the soil is produced with deforestation instead of fertilizing), then the renewables may look economically feasible, but this is just an illusion. These hard numbers arise, once we start to think about more extensive replacement of fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy. It's dangerous to believe, that current fall of oil prices is the result of introduction of renewables instead of economical crisis and opening the market for shale gas from USA and tar sands from Canada. The renewables in Germany can profit only because this country is surrounded with fossil electricity producers (Poland and Czechia), which balance its grid. If the Germany should invest into its own energy storage facilities, then its energy from renewables would immediately become economically infeasible. For example APS pays for solar electricity from solar plants in Arizona 14 cents per kWh, despite the U.S. average retail price per kilowatthour is 10 cents and its production still cannot be regulated....
IMO renewables are both economically both environmentally unsustainable, just the fear from nuclear power and dependence on East Asia and Russian fossil fuels makes it palatable for rich economies like the Germany (which can afford even the import of soyabean biofuels from Argentina
If you buy an US Diesel car with blue motion then with one tank refill you possibly burn a one year ration of Corn (bio fuel) that a man in Africa will miss. Further on, for cleaning the waste gases you add fertilizer that the poor African guy will miss too.
Just to say craziness has no limits...
I have pro-climate pro-nuke sources who disagree with the renewable success, with arguments that looks good. I follow the grid storage problems and I know the problems, and the tricks.
I'm afraid that like on many subject today, the three positions are partially motivated beliefs, at least two of them, groupthink based, if not all 3.
Anyway LENR will solve the problem, so it is not an interesting debate.
We have to work on finding answers to LENR questions, through supporting experimental efforts of whoever is competent and goodwilling...
It seems USA is reacting to Trump like a body to flu... fever but also reaction and behavioral adaptation...
LENR supporters should be antifragile, exploiting the holes that disorder have allowed to appear.
For best and worst Trump destroyed some equilibrium and consensus established for best and worst.
I've heard that Rick Perry was a clown supporting cold fusion, but I've seen no reference to him supporting LENR.
If you buy an US Diesel car with blue motion then with one tank refill you possibly burn a one year ration of Corn (bio fuel) that a man in Africa will miss.
Well, the corn all comes from the U.S., and there are not many food shortages in the peaceful places in Africa these days. Many of those countries are starting to export food. But fundamentally you are right. One large tank of ethanol derived from corn does take approximately 1 year of food. It is a travesty.
What is worse, according to Pimentel & Pimentel (Cornell), it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than you get out of it. It is an energy sink! See "Food, Energy and Society" p. 265.
From Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican…-to-tax-carbon-emissions/
Well whoda thunk it!!!
QuoteRepublicans Offer to Tax Carbon Emissions
Ironically even the alarmists admit already, that carbon tax scheme doesn't work. So why the conservatives act like socialists by now?
Zeph, most of the articles from that search suggest a tax would work with a few tweaks, and the two more critical pages are based on the work of "well-funded" thinktanks. One of which is headed by Bjorn Lomborg, a man described by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, as being "scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but not guilty (of the same) due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question".
Ironically even the alarmists admit already, that carbon tax scheme doesn't work. So why the conservatives act like socialists by now?
The carbon tax and most of the global warming movement is not about saving the planet but controlling human civilization. An end to capitalism, an end to personal freedom, and an end to national sovereignty: these are just a few of the goals of the billionaires and power elites behind the carbon tax and other initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. The vast majority of ordinary common liberals (those not in positions of power and massive wealth) have been brainwashed to not even care about the rights, liberties, and freedoms they would be losing. Instead, bashing individuals like Trump who dare stand up for the sovereignty of their own nations makes them feel special and elevated above the "redneck fascists" they love to mock.
The reason conservatives are acting like socialists is simple: THEY ARE SOCIALISTS!
They always have been, they are now, and they probably always will be. For a long time a large portion of the Republican Party have simply been liberal socialists in disguise -- accepting funds and being ordered around by the same billionaire power elites that give people like Hillary Clinton their marching orders. For example, the hideous and monstrous George Soros, whom I consider to be one of the most evil men to have ever walked on this Earth. Most of the Republicans attacking President Trump -- and many that are now trying to cozy up to him -- are simply socialists in disguise. They have taken advantage of the mostly brain dead electorate who are fairly easily, in most circumstances, fooled by any Republican that will satisfactorily nail a few talking points.
I fear for Trump. Even though he is not perfect and I disagree with him on some issues, he at least cares about this nation and is willing to do what he thinks is right. However, he is surrounded by wolves in disguise as Republicans that are trying to manipulate him. If he falls for a climate tax plan, then that will be a clear and obvious signal that he has been completely manipulated and is being controlled by the socialists around him.
Zeph, most of the articles from that search suggest a tax would work with a few tweaks, and the two more critical pages are based on the work of "well-funded" thinktanks. One of which is headed by Bjorn Lomborg, a man described by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, as being "scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but not guilty (of the same) due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question".
A carbon tax would work very well to harm industry, weaken the economy, strip away national sovereignty, and advance globalism. Those are the only ways it would function well. There is no rational reason for a carbon tax other than to advance the dream of a socialist global government as supporting by countless socialist liberals around the world. If Trump is truly supportive of putting the United States first, he needs to totally oppose such a plan and refuse to allow a carbon tax to even be considered.
Since when did science and obvious technological improvements get so Political?
Technology is always political. Basically, technology can be used -- especially paradigm shifting technologies -- to reduce the power, influence, and control of government. For example, when high powered Ni-H technology starts to spread across the globe in a major way, there will be many very concerned politicians and members of the wealthy ruling class. Imagine how compact, portable, long lasting, and power dense LENR generators could give more options to everyone! Groups of like minded individuals could more easily start their own independent communities, travel would become far less expensive with the energy cost taken out of the equation, decentralized power would make it more difficult for corrupt governments to order cities blacked out, colonizing the solar system could finally become practical, and the list goes on! Moreover, such an energy technology would totally negate any currently existing false illusions about the need for carbon taxes or related environmental regulations -- making George Soros and hundreds more of his elite ilk very unhappy!
Ever heard of a technocracy?
---———----------------------------------------—--
Corrupt governments blacking out cities? My word! Is this some kind of parody?
"The elite" don't own the power companies, we all do: pension companies love the steady returns.
And how on earth does heating my house with a small LENR reactor somehow confer autonomous zone status on my property - allowing me and my fellow community of anarchists to run wild in our own weapons-crazed drug-fuelled libertarian fun parade?
QuoteEver heard of a technocracy?
I have heard of the idea. I am an ardent supporter of technological advancement, but I also believe in a small, limited government. These days many of the most vocal technology enthusiasts are liberal leaning, and their total trust of government and disregard for personal liberty is abhorrent to me.
Quote"The elite" don't own the power companies, we all do: pension companies love the steady returns.
Legal ownership isn't required for the power that be to use centralized power against the people. Why do you think "smart meters" are being pushed so hard? Remotely, worshipers of the liberal faux gods such as Soros could switch off power to the homes of political dissidents.
QuoteAnd how on earth does heating my house with a small LENR reactor somehow
confer autonomous zone status on my property - allowing me and my
fellow community of anarchists to run wild in our own weapons-crazed
drug-fuelled libertarian fun parade?
And since you brought it up, I am libertarian leaning -- although I'm very conservative personally. I want all drugs legalized, most gun laws abolished, and a whole lot of other changes to get the government out of our lives. I'm all for groups staking claims on inhospitable land away from currently established cities and starting their own independent communities. For that matter, I would love to see the United States and many other nations around the world break up into smaller countries. For example, California and Texas are two fantastic examples of states that could succeed from the union, for different reasons.
The more small countries you have, the more wars there will be. EG. The Balkans, the Middle East, 19th century Germany, Italy.
Wars have been fought for many reasons. My hope is that in our modern age if resource scarcity can become an almost non-issue (with technologies such as LENR, indoor agriculture, 3D printing, cheap water purification, etc) that there would be far fewer wars than in the past.
I'm a bit more optimistic on energy. But first the BIG BUTT. The planet earth is a living thing. We could have a nuclear winter, then a nuclear summer then get hit for the final time with a big ole space rock. But the Earth will be just fine in 500,000 years. and will be for several billion after that.
That said we continue to have wars and famine and misery in this current epoch of time. But energy we have it. Maybe it is not fairly distributed but we have it.
We have proven carbon reserves in oil for hundreds of years and coal for thousands. Back to oil for a second. The earth is 75% water and we have extracted less than 001.% from water resources, this is why we have oil seeps miles down Japan-oil-seep-25000-feet-down.
One open question does Oil come from "biogenic or "abiogenic" sources or a combination?
Anyway if biogenic why is so much concentrated in Saudi Arabia? I am aware of other large finds, but this I still do not understand. I have never heard that it was a bio hotspot, so anyone?
On Nuclear power:
While nuclear power has had a rough start and is beaucoup more expensive than we are aware of its safety will improve over time. But the fuel is in the USA alone is enough for 100,000 more years.
I can hear B.S. Rigel, but I am not saying it. It is referenced here USA-uranium-and-thorium . I showed my work you show yours?
On other sources:
Is the moon going away soon? Then we will not have the tides but we for now and well forever we do, what about the Sun? Is it low on hydrogen?
There are all sorts of forms of energy, but it also has to be practically accessible, available on demand, and power dense. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and other technologies are not the breakthrough we need. Literally, we need something the size of a car engine that produces the equivalent power of an internal combustion engine but in electricity rather than just heat/torque but for months at a time non-stop between CHEAP refuelings. So if the average car is a little more than 100HP that would mean 74.5 kilowatts of electricity. I think this is completely possible with LENR technology. After a few generations, it would be exceeded. Most importantly, a technology this energy dense could go just about anywhere. They could power homes, power vehicles, power businesses, power boats, etc.
