Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » Re: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417722 is a reply to message #417715] Mon, 14 November 2022 17:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:41:48 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:33:08 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>>> >
>>>> > see the chart entitled "Earth Surface Temperature given steady 2.3%
>>>> > energy growth.
>>>> >
>>>> > "even a dream source like fusion makes for unbearable conditions in a
>>>> > few hundred years if growth continues".
>>>>
>>>> Larry Niven's solution - move the planet further from the sun.
>>>
>>> How does that help?
>>
>> Solar radiation is a large part of the planet's energy balance,
>> reduce that to offset the waste energy from industrial processes etc.
>>
>
> There are easier ways to reduce the impact of solar radiation. Some guys at
> MIT are proposing balloon-like sunshades in orbit. The one thing this has
> going for it is that it’s relatively easier than other proposals to reverse
> if (when?) things go unexpectedly wrong.

Have you (or they) calculated just how big those sunshades must be to
have any significant effect on the TSI (Total Solar Insolation)?

And what orbit will they be in? Orbiting L1? Orbiting the earth (e.g.
Molniya, Halo)? Solar orbit?

L1 would require fairly large sunshield, I would expect, as it will be
orbiting the lagrange point itself, not earth.

Molniya, if oriented in the solar ecliptic, probably wouldn't help much.

A solar orbit sunward of the earth would not be synchronous with the earth.

Ok, looks like the proposal mentioned is:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0608163103

Which has a swarm at L1 attempting to block 1.8% of the solar flux.

The sunshade itself is between 3.4 and 9.4 million square kilometers in size
the screen material alone weighing in at between 10 and 250 tons depending
on the distance from earth.

And the choice of size, material and orientation are important:

"In general, the total mass is reduced for sunshades with low
areal density, but very low densities can be orbited near the
L1 point only if they have very low reflectivity to minimize
radiation pressure."

A solar sail, in other words.

And this MIT student wanted (13 years ago) to spend USD500,000,000,000 to try it
on a small scale.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/1-018j-ecology-i-the-earth-syste m-fall-2009/resources/mit1_018jf09_sw_paper1/
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417726 is a reply to message #417680] Mon, 14 November 2022 23:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-11-14, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:11:48 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:33:08 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>>
>>> see the chart entitled "Earth Surface Temperature given steady 2.3%
>>> energy growth.
>>>
>>> "even a dream source like fusion makes for unbearable conditions in a
>>> few hundred years if growth continues".
>>
>> Larry Niven's solution - move the planet further from the sun. Also
>> useful for when the sun goes red giant on us.
>
> But, Niven always assumed a near-limitless supply of no-environmental-impact
> energy in his megaengineering solutions.
>
> The Puppeteers moved their planets into a sunless Kepler Rosette using the
> Outsider's reactionless drive, and an unspecified power source.
>
> The Girls moved Earth by using (IIRC) Jupiter as a gravitational tractor,
> moving that planet with a great reaction motor that syphoned off the
> planet's gasses into a fusion reaction.
>
> The Pak Ringworld Engineers tore apart an entire solar system to build the
> Ringworld.
>
> All energy-costly projects, and Niven didn't explore the details or
> aftereffects of that energy expenditure.

Yes, but think of the employment it'll create. Get enough people chanting
"Jobs, jobs, jobs!" and they'll forget all the practical considerations.

Then there's Dyson spheres...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417729 is a reply to message #417701] Tue, 15 November 2022 05:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 14/11/2022 18:19, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> On 2022-11-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Well forget all the theory. In the end what happens is what happens.
>>> All that is happening now is that governments are desperately trying to
>>> control a global society that they cannot control, and their biggest
>>> worry is that people will rumble to their incompetence stop believing
>>> in their necessaity and stop doing what they are told.
>>> We will ether develop nuclear power and stabilise populations or we will
>>> regress to a Green imagined stone age. Where the 0.1% who survive go
>>> back to a hippy style hunter gatherer lifestyle and a life expectancy of
>>> 25 years.
>>
>> Although, given the fantasies people seem to enjoy, there will probably
>> be a brief Mad Max phase along the way.
>
> Of course, the 'Green imagined stone age' is NP's fantasy. Nobody
> wishes to regress to the 1850s, much less the stone age. There are
> a number of conservatives who wish to regress to the 1950's, but that's
> a different kettle of fish.

Net zero was last achieved about 10,000 years ago

You may think its fantasy, the greens who promnote it may think its
fantas, but that is where their 'solutions' will take us.
Just sayin'

--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417730 is a reply to message #417711] Tue, 15 November 2022 05:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 14/11/2022 20:04, gareth evans wrote:
> Where there are large organisations virtue signalling
> that they are, or will become, net zero carbon emitters,
> how will they prevent their thousands of employees
> from breatheing out?
>
>
>
Fantastic you tube video on "Vranyo"

A Russian term that means systemic bullshit by everyone because it
pays, and the truth does not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik


If Russia didn't invent climate change and renewable energy, it was sure
modelled on the KGB propaganda system


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417731 is a reply to message #417713] Tue, 15 November 2022 05:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 14/11/2022 20:51, Peter Flass wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>>> > Energy is not the limiting factor in these times, nuclear power
>>>> > guarantees massive amounts for thousands of years.
>>>>
>>>> What do you plan on doing with the waste heat? That's the heat
>>>> of generation and the heat of use (most energy when used is
>>>> dissipated as heat).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting question. A lot of, or maybe most of, the electricity generated
>>> gets lost as heat during transmission. Room-temperature superconductors at
>>> a reasonable cost would allow us to drop a lot of current generating
>>> capacity and still keep up with projected demand. It should be possible to
>>> eliminate other sources of heat generation - electric cars vs. gas-powered
>>> - for example.
>>
>> The electric car motors produce waste heat. Then there is the heat
>> of friction (atmosphere and tires). All work produces heat. Even LED
>> light bulbs generate heat (albeit less than an incandescent). Metabolization
>> of food produces heat.
>>
>
> Less than IC engines, I expect. i
>
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>
>> see the chart entitled "Earth Surface Temperature given steady 2.3% energy growth.
>>
>> "even a dream source like fusion makes for unbearable conditions in a few hundred
>> years if growth continues".
>>
>
> Why not just use all that excess energy to air condition the earth? ;-)
>

Scott has missed the point.


The earth is not infinite, and no exponential growth can continue long term.
The issue here is to then look at one narrow area and say 'that one
factor is the limiting factor'
There is a hypothesis from I think biology and ecology that shows that
populations are limited by many different factors, and at any given time
one will predominate.

Take Ireland. Before the potato it was limited by poverty and
starvation. Then the potato allowed exponential population growth until
the crop failed, and then it was once again poverty starvation and mass
emigration to the USA.

"Limits to growth" has been criticised for being wrong in various
details, but the main thrust is true.

It is not clear what will in the end limit global population, but right
now there is no need for it to be access to primary energy.

Because we can use massive nuclear energy, and it is not impossible to
dissipate extra energy to space, and even if we don't, we can accomodate
a lot more temperature rise before it becomes a real problem.
Concentrating on the mythical carbon dioxide, as an excuse for draconian
reduction on living standards is to my mind unneccessary.
We have far bigger problems.



--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417732 is a reply to message #417720] Tue, 15 November 2022 06:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 14/11/2022 21:46, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Energy is not the limiting factor in these times, nuclear power
>>>> >> guarantees massive amounts for thousands of years.
>>>> >
>>>> > What do you plan on doing with the waste heat? That's the heat
>>>> > of generation and the heat of use (most energy when used is
>>>> > dissipated as heat).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question. A lot of, or maybe most of, the electricity generated
>>>> gets lost as heat during transmission. Room-temperature superconductors at
>>>> a reasonable cost would allow us to drop a lot of current generating
>>>> capacity and still keep up with projected demand. It should be possible to
>>>> eliminate other sources of heat generation - electric cars vs. gas-powered
>>>> - for example.
>>>
>>> The electric car motors produce waste heat. Then there is the heat
>>> of friction (atmosphere and tires). All work produces heat. Even LED
>>> light bulbs generate heat (albeit less than an incandescent). Metabolization
>>> of food produces heat.
>>>
>>
>> Less than IC engines, I expect.
>
> Doesn't really matter. Energy is energy and every unit used yields
> waste heat.
>
> Now that said, it's far more likely that we'll overshoot
> other resources (like water, food, copper, fertilizers) long before
> the waste heat becomes a problem if the growth rate continues.
> We already have a serious shortage of Helium.
>
> At rest, a human produces about 100w of power, and a lot is wasted,
> primarily as heat.
>
Think its nearer 50W, but your point is well made, and taken

> So with 7 billion humans on the planet, that's almost a terawatt.
>
> With 70 billion (absurd, to be sure), that's 10 terawatts. Today
> the entire planet uses about 15 terawatts from all sources

All the math doesn't add up.
To solve the debt crisis we need population expansions beyond the limit
of the earth to support.
WE have to inevitably stabilise populations, or nature, with another
pandemic, or crop failure , or pollution, or water shortages, or
societal breakdown and mass warfare, will do it for us.

Putin is ahead of the game, but doesn't know it.

No Western government knows what it's doing. They are all micromanaging
the small aspects of the picture, no one has the courage to face up to
the big picture, and if they do, they wouldn't get elected if they told
the truth.
The lemmings will fall off the cliff.





--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417733 is a reply to message #417714] Tue, 15 November 2022 06:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 14/11/2022 20:51, Peter Flass wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2022 17:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-14, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well forget all the theory. In the end what happens is what happens.
>>>> All that is happening now is that governments are desperately trying to
>>>> control a global society that they cannot control, and their biggest
>>>> worry is that people will rumble to their incompetence stop believing
>>>> in their necessaity and stop doing what they are told.
>>>> We will ether develop nuclear power and stabilise populations or we will
>>>> regress to a Green imagined stone age. Where the 0.1% who survive go
>>>> back to a hippy style hunter gatherer lifestyle and a life expectancy of
>>>> 25 years.
>>>
>>> Although, given the fantasies people seem to enjoy, there will probably
>>> be a brief Mad Max phase along the way.
>>>
>> I think looking at Ukraine, that's here already...
>>
>
> Mad Vlad?
>
Pretty much.

One thing people forget about brutal WWI style warfare, is that it pulls
a huge number of young breedable males and females out of the population.

If enforcing compulsory homosexuality doesn't work, have a war.



The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417734 is a reply to message #417715] Tue, 15 November 2022 06:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 14/11/2022 20:51, Peter Flass wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:41:48 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:33:08 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
>>>> >
>>>> > see the chart entitled "Earth Surface Temperature given steady 2.3%
>>>> > energy growth.
>>>> >
>>>> > "even a dream source like fusion makes for unbearable conditions in a
>>>> > few hundred years if growth continues".
>>>>
>>>> Larry Niven's solution - move the planet further from the sun.
>>>
>>> How does that help?
>>
>> Solar radiation is a large part of the planet's energy balance,
>> reduce that to offset the waste energy from industrial processes etc.
>>
>
> There are easier ways to reduce the impact of solar radiation. Some guys at
> MIT are proposing balloon-like sunshades in orbit. The one thing this has
> going for it is that it’s relatively easier than other proposals to reverse
> if (when?) things go unexpectedly wrong.
>
Exactly


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417738 is a reply to message #417719] Tue, 15 November 2022 10:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Andy Walker

On 14/11/2022 21:33, greymaus wrote:
> If the Western Allies had joined with the USSR in opposing the German
> aims in Czechslovakia..
> Lots of people would still be alive.

Hmm. More than 80 years later? In addition, anyone born more
recently [a very large majority of the world's current population] has
cause to be grateful for the actual sequence of events up to the moment
of conception.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Morel
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417744 is a reply to message #417738] Tue, 15 November 2022 11:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

On 2022-11-15, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 21:33, greymaus wrote:
>> If the Western Allies had joined with the USSR in opposing the German
>> aims in Czechslovakia..
>> Lots of people would still be alive.
>
> Hmm. More than 80 years later? In addition, anyone born more
> recently [a very large majority of the world's current population] has
> cause to be grateful for the actual sequence of events up to the moment
> of conception.
>

Good point. It reminds me of the story of the Persian Army crossing the
Hellespont, and the Shah of the time remarking that in one hundred
years, they would be all dead, even if there was no battle.

I know several people well over 80, that are still running businesses.
The horsetrainer Kevin Prendergast is still active, and has over 20
horses in active training for the coming flat season. Passed 90 last
year.


--
greymausg@mail.com

Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the stench of an Influencer.
Where is our money gone, Dude?
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417745 is a reply to message #417720] Tue, 15 November 2022 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:46:53 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Energy is not the limiting factor in these times, nuclear power
>>>> >> guarantees massive amounts for thousands of years.
>>>> >
>>>> > What do you plan on doing with the waste heat? That's the heat
>>>> > of generation and the heat of use (most energy when used is
>>>> > dissipated as heat).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question. A lot of, or maybe most of, the electricity generated
>>>> gets lost as heat during transmission. Room-temperature superconductors at
>>>> a reasonable cost would allow us to drop a lot of current generating
>>>> capacity and still keep up with projected demand. It should be possible to
>>>> eliminate other sources of heat generation - electric cars vs. gas-powered
>>>> - for example.
>>>
>>> The electric car motors produce waste heat. Then there is the heat
>>> of friction (atmosphere and tires). All work produces heat. Even LED
>>> light bulbs generate heat (albeit less than an incandescent). Metabolization
>>> of food produces heat.
>>>
>>
>> Less than IC engines, I expect.
>
> Doesn't really matter. Energy is energy and every unit used yields
> waste heat.
>
> Now that said, it's far more likely that we'll overshoot
> other resources (like water, food, copper, fertilizers) long before
> the waste heat becomes a problem if the growth rate continues.
> We already have a serious shortage of Helium.
>
> At rest, a human produces about 100w of power, and a lot is wasted,
> primarily as heat.
>
> So with 7 billion humans on the planet, that's almost a terawatt.

We passed 8 billion just a few days ago.
--
Jim
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417796 is a reply to message #417645] Thu, 17 November 2022 03:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charles Richmond is currently offline  Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 11/13/2022 4:31 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2022 19:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-12, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 11:12:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > That is typical leftists patronising bullshit.
>>>> > The true working classes - the few that are left - believe that all
>>>> > newspapers print shit, the government is definitely out to shag them
>>>> > shitless, and the establishment, from school teachers to police and to
>>>> > politicians, are absolutely on someone else's side and are there to make
>>>> > their lives a misery.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, I've heard with my own ears people, some relatives, who believe
>>>> everything they read in tabloids.
>>>
>>> Brother's headed that way now I guess.
>>> He just read something made his face turn blue.
>>> I ain't got nothing 'gainst the press;
>>> They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true.
>>> -- Joe Jackson: Sunday Papers
>>>
>>
>> If you don't read the papes you are uninformed
>> If you do read the papers you are misinformed
>>
>> Mark Twain
>>
>>
>> I think the Internet and such exchanges as we are engaged in here are
>> slowly eroding public trust in *anything* that a paid for organisation
>> promotes as truth or reality.
>>
>> My conclusions derive from no one source - they are a result of a
>> lifetimes experience. The higher the stakes the bigger the lie.
>>
>> $3.8 trillion spent on 'renewable energy'
>> 0.2% change in carbon emissions
>>
>> Cui Bono?
>>
>
> Everything government does involves a lot of graft, logrolling, and insider
> deals. Usually something gets done with what’s left, although not always.
>

"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."

....and...

"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey
cage."

both are H.L. Mencken quotes.

--

Charles Richmond


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417797 is a reply to message #417646] Thu, 17 November 2022 03:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charles Richmond is currently offline  Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 11/13/2022 4:31 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Internet and such exchanges as we are engaged in here are
>>> slowly eroding public trust in *anything* that a paid for organisation
>>> promotes as truth or reality.
>>
>> Good. Maybe then they'll redevelop the ability to judge things
>> for themselves.
>>
>>> My conclusions derive from no one source - they are a result of a
>>> lifetimes experience. The higher the stakes the bigger the lie.
>>>
>>> $3.8 trillion spent on 'renewable energy'
>>> 0.2% change in carbon emissions
>>>
>>> Cui Bono?
>>
>> I no longer care about all these climate change squabbles.
>> Not only have we lost the battle, we've eagerly surrendered.
>> Population growth will outstrip any attempts at conservation -
>> and since population growth is sacred to the Powers That Be,
>> it's just a matter of time before we hit the Malthusian crash.
>> Enjoy yourselves while you can.
>>
>> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
>> -- Edward Abbey
>>
>
> Companies all say “we’ve got to do something about this, but they don’t
> want that “something” to affect their business. Something will eventually
> force everyone’s hand. It’s already nearly impossible to get flood
> insurance in coastal Florida. How long before the state starts to add up
> the cost of “beach replenishment” and decides to cut its losses?
>

Do you think that if the US could convince Spain the Fountain of Youth
had been located in Florida... do you think that Spain would take
Florida back (without too large a cash bribe)???

--

Charles Richmond


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417805 is a reply to message #417797] Thu, 17 November 2022 13:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-11-17, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 4:31 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Companies all say “we’ve got to do something about this, but they don’t
>> want that “something” to affect their business. Something will eventually
>> force everyone’s hand. It’s already nearly impossible to get flood
>> insurance in coastal Florida. How long before the state starts to add up
>> the cost of “beach replenishment” and decides to cut its losses?
>
> Do you think that if the US could convince Spain the Fountain of Youth
> had been located in Florida... do you think that Spain would take
> Florida back (without too large a cash bribe)???

Only if they can remove Mar-a-Lago (or at least its contents) first.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417811 is a reply to message #417797] Thu, 17 November 2022 19:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2022 4:31 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-13, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the Internet and such exchanges as we are engaged in here are
>>>> slowly eroding public trust in *anything* that a paid for organisation
>>>> promotes as truth or reality.
>>>
>>> Good. Maybe then they'll redevelop the ability to judge things
>>> for themselves.
>>>
>>>> My conclusions derive from no one source - they are a result of a
>>>> lifetimes experience. The higher the stakes the bigger the lie.
>>>>
>>>> $3.8 trillion spent on 'renewable energy'
>>>> 0.2% change in carbon emissions
>>>>
>>>> Cui Bono?
>>>
>>> I no longer care about all these climate change squabbles.
>>> Not only have we lost the battle, we've eagerly surrendered.
>>> Population growth will outstrip any attempts at conservation -
>>> and since population growth is sacred to the Powers That Be,
>>> it's just a matter of time before we hit the Malthusian crash.
>>> Enjoy yourselves while you can.
>>>
>>> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
>>> -- Edward Abbey
>>>
>>
>> Companies all say “we’ve got to do something about this, but they don’t
>> want that “something” to affect their business. Something will eventually
>> force everyone’s hand. It’s already nearly impossible to get flood
>> insurance in coastal Florida. How long before the state starts to add up
>> the cost of “beach replenishment” and decides to cut its losses?
>>
>
> Do you think that if the US could convince Spain the Fountain of Youth
> had been located in Florida... do you think that Spain would take
> Florida back (without too large a cash bribe)???
>

I think the Spanish are too smart to fall for that.

--
Pete
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417969 is a reply to message #417696] Tue, 29 November 2022 18:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alan Bowler is currently offline  Alan Bowler
Messages: 185
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-11-14 12:58 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> My point - and I dont see the relevance of the article you linked to -
> is that Its pretty damned easy to get rid of heat to space.
> As the earth knows full well how to do by using thermal convection to
> carry heat high into the upper atmosphere well above any CO2 where it
> gets dumped to space at night.

Our problem is that for 2 centuries we have been increasing a shield
to block heat from getting to the heat space heat sink.

Yes the earth has been increasingly using convection to get that
trapped heat high up. This stronger convection is taking the form
of hurricanes and other disaster causing weather activity.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417976 is a reply to message #417969] Wed, 30 November 2022 04:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 29/11/2022 23:52, Alan Bowler wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 12:58 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> My point - and I dont see the relevance of the article you linked to -
>> is that Its pretty damned easy to get rid of heat to space.
>> As the earth knows full well how to do by using thermal convection to
>> carry heat high into the upper atmosphere well above any CO2 where it
>> gets dumped to space at night.
>
> Our problem is that for 2 centuries we have been increasing a shield
> to block heat from getting to the heat space heat sink.
>
> Yes the earth has been increasingly using convection to get that
> trapped heat high up. This stronger convection is taking the form
> of hurricanes and other disaster causing weather activity.
>
>
Nice theory, completely not supported by the facts

There are less hurricanes than ever

The fact is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is small, and is rendered
even less by negative feedback.

If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
never have evolved as it has.

Convection is and always has been about 50% of the way the earths
surface loses heat.

It only needs to change my a minuscule amount to compensate for any CO2.
Since its effect is broadly incomputable, the models do not models it -
simply throw in a 'fudge factor'


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417977 is a reply to message #417976] Wed, 30 November 2022 05:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
> never have evolved as it has.

Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.

We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps. Global warming,
or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
alarming. Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
not work, there's time and resources available to get something that will
work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global warming
and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple provable facts
won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417978 is a reply to message #417977] Wed, 30 November 2022 06:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: greymaus

On 2022-11-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
>> never have evolved as it has.
>
> Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.
>
> We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
> nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
> alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
> then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps. Global warming,
> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
> alarming. Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that will
> work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global warming
> and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple provable facts
> won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>


Agreed. being driven to our local great Wen (Dublin) , we had to wait through two
traffic jams to even get onto the motorway. 1.89 euros a liter. Crazy.
Every house has two or three autos outside.

--
greymausg@mail.com

Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the stench of an Influencer.
Where is our money gone, Dude?
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417980 is a reply to message #417977] Wed, 30 November 2022 11:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 30/11/2022 10:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
>> never have evolved as it has.
>
> Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.
>
> We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
> nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
> alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
> then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps.

Mostly agreed.

> Global warming,
> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
> alarming.

Does it?
I am 72 years old. There is nothing I haven't seen in that life in terms
of floods droughts hurricanes coastal erosion and steady sea level rise
that was any better than today.
We used to call it 'weather'. Now its called GLOBAL WARMING ARRRGGGHH!
and all the little ArtStudents wet their knickers because being unable
to analyse data, or do basic arithmetic, they *believe what they are told*.


> Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that will
> work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global warming
> and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple provable facts
> won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>

No, you are in fact wrong.
I will state the established facts that the data shows and they lead to
obvious conclusions.

þ Very few engineers are in politics, as poilticians are overwhelmingly
of the ArtStudent™ class - addicted to narratives, governing by opinion
polls and telling whatever story satisfies the pseudo intellectuals who
think they are 'informed'

þ Global Warming is such a narrative.

þ The reality of the world fossil energy industry is that it is a tight
market. And prone to supply shocks because most of the people with oil
and gas are not our friends. And they are raking it in.

þ Our very civilisation depends on an excess of free energy over what we
as humans and our animals can produce. If that;s not fossil, it has to
bne something else

þ Renewable energy analysed overall, meets its design criteria which is
to generate a large virtue signal and an even larger profit. It is not
however designed to generate reliable electricity. It is not designed to
generate cheap electricity. It is not designed to lower overall carbon
emissions. It is *incapable* of doing these things.

þ Left to the market, ex of government interference, the only power
source that is cheap, reliable, and in massively abundant supply, is
nuclear power. It can be plugged into and leverage the existing grids
perfectly.

þ Left to the market, this would lower primary energy prices to the
point where renewable operators would go out of business, and oil rich
states would see their earnings crash.

þ Therefore it must not be left to the market. Hence the false narrative
of renewable energy. Which promises an alternative to nuclear that
actually is no alternative, because it hasn't resulted in one iota of
reduction in global CO2 production. Not that anyone who is anyone cares,
because they know their beach front properties are safe from sea level
rises, and there will always be aviation fuel for private jets.

Its all designed to reduce society to what is essentially communism,.
The state takes all the production, of mainly useless goods and
materials, and leases back to you what they think you need to have.

What you want to have, or what you really need to have, is your problem,
not theirs. You need them, they don't need you.

Your smart meter will leave you shivering in the dark, on a bicycle,
eating insects and algae while the Party Apparatchiks drive their diesel
cars down the Zil lanes to state banquets featuring whole roast oxen.


--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417981 is a reply to message #417980] Wed, 30 November 2022 11:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Harry Vaderchi is currently offline  Harry Vaderchi
Messages: 719
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:01:45 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/11/2022 10:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
>>> never have evolved as it has.
>>
>> Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.
>>
>> We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
>> nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
>> alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
>> then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps.
>
> Mostly agreed.
>
>> Global warming,
>> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
>> alarming.
>
> Does it?
> I am 72 years old. There is nothing I haven't seen in that life in terms

[]

You've seen population growth and fuel use increase hugely. Should be a
Clue.

> No, you are in fact wrong.
> I will state the established facts that the data shows and they lead to
> obvious conclusions.

Argument requires actual science.
[]

FU to colm, so they can deal with this off-topic discussion as they
see fit.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417982 is a reply to message #417980] Wed, 30 November 2022 11:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:01:45 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/11/2022 10:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

>> Global warming,
>> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
>> alarming.
>
> Does it?
> I am 72 years old. There is nothing I haven't seen in that life in terms
> of floods droughts hurricanes coastal erosion and steady sea level rise
> that was any better than today.

Well not to thee and me - but to TPTB who hold the purse strings.
We count for nothing :)

>> Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
>> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that
>> will work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global
>> warming and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple
>> provable facts won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>>
>
> No, you are in fact wrong.
> I will state the established facts that the data shows and they lead to
> obvious conclusions.

Renewable may be a complete dead end - but TPTB are committed to
going somewhere other than fossil and so if it is they will be forced to do
something else.

BTW nuclear power doesn't solve the problem *either*. Nuclear
reactors are far too unresponsive to handle the dynamic loads so they need
to be backed up with a lot of battery storage just like renewables (not so
much of it to be fair but still quite a lot).

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417983 is a reply to message #417977] Wed, 30 November 2022 12:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-11-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
>> never have evolved as it has.
>
> Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.
>
> We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
> nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
> alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
> then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps. Global warming,
> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
> alarming. Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that will
> work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global warming
> and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple provable facts
> won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).

It doesn't really matter anyway. Population growth will swallow up the
savings generated by any other measures. If shortages and pollution
don't get us, mass psychosis will (it's already well on the way).

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
that voluntarily does this to himself.
-- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417985 is a reply to message #417983] Wed, 30 November 2022 13:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2022-11-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
>>> never have evolved as it has.
>>
>> Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.
>>
>> We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
>> nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
>> alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
>> then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps. Global warming,
>> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
>> alarming. Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
>> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that will
>> work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global warming
>> and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple provable facts
>> won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>
> It doesn't really matter anyway. Population growth will swallow up the
> savings generated by any other measures. If shortages and pollution
> don't get us, mass psychosis will (it's already well on the way).
>
> Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
> too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
> that voluntarily does this to himself.
> -- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-industrial-age/
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417997 is a reply to message #417985] Thu, 01 December 2022 00:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2022-11-30, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2022-11-30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:47 +0000
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the climate were as unstable as the alarmists conjecture, life would
>>>> never have evolved as it has.
>>>
>>> Yes, yes, but please stop rocking the boat.
>>>
>>> We need to get off fossil fuels for obvious reasons (running out,
>>> nasty combustion products ...) but it seems those are not sufficiently
>>> alarming to get anyone to do anything until the stuff actually runs out and
>>> then panic will set in aong with fighting over the scraps. Global warming,
>>> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
>>> alarming. Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
>>> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that will
>>> work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global warming
>>> and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple provable facts
>>> won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>>
>> It doesn't really matter anyway. Population growth will swallow up the
>> savings generated by any other measures. If shortages and pollution
>> don't get us, mass psychosis will (it's already well on the way).
>>
>> Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
>> too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
>> that voluntarily does this to himself.
>> -- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-industrial-age/

Beautiful. Thanks for the link.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #417999 is a reply to message #417985] Thu, 01 December 2022 02:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:01:47 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-industrial-age/

What a pile of twaddle!

------------
Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you
have to use energy—lots of it—to concentrate energy.
------------

Er no! Simple counter example - a curved mirror uses no energy to
concentrate as much energy as you like. Besides which concentrating
intermittent energy is not the problem *storing* it is.

We have the energy storage problem solved - but only just. There
are commercially available grid scale flow batteries with long lived
electrodes and energy capacities in the 50-100 Wh/l range - one of them
uses a very cheap and abundant electrolyte - ferric chloride - and has
indefinite electrode life (needless to say it's at the low end of storage
capacity by volume - nothing's perfect).

Using these (and taking the low end) we could store enough
electricity to power Ireland's national grid for a week with 10,000
swimming pool sized (25m x 20m x 2m = 50MWh) tanks of electrolyte and enough
electrode assemblies. Something better would be nice but this is good
enough to get the job done, even with doubling it to allow for switching to
electric transport. Ireland currently runs nearly 40% renewables, building
that out to 200% is perhaps a similar scale job to filling all those tanks.

Another way to look at the tankage requirements - 4000 litres (four
IBCs) and a 15Kw electrode assembly (about the size of an IBC) would be
enough to run my house for eight days - that could be tucked away in a
garage, shed or basement. Cover the roof in PV panels and I could go off
grid at current power consumption easily. Money and the little detail that
nobody makes a flow battery that small stops me for now.

It will take a long time, if the alarmists are right we lack the
time but is that a reason not to try ? Besides it's happening for
commercial reasons and there's huge political will to see the job through.

So no we are not looking at the end of the industrial age, just the
end of the age of oil. Note that I've completely ignored the possibilities
of safe nuclear fission, falling launch costs making solar power satellites
feasible (Musk keeps talking about $50/kilo - he can miss by an order of
magnitude and they're still feasible) and of course fusion which is ten
years away.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418000 is a reply to message #417999] Thu, 01 December 2022 05:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:01:47 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-industrial-age/
>
> What a pile of twaddle!
>
> ------------
> Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you
> have to use energy—lots of it—to concentrate energy.
> ------------
>
> Er no! Simple counter example - a curved mirror uses no energy to
> concentrate as much energy as you like. Besides which concentrating
> intermittent energy is not the problem *storing* it is.

Umm. That mirror does not get built my magic, It takes ENERGY, just as
building a dam to concentrate water takes energy, or building a solar
ore wind park takes energy.

All construction reverses entropy locally, and te expense of increasing
it elsewhere,

>
> We have the energy storage problem solved - but only just. There
> are commercially available grid scale flow batteries with long lived
> electrodes and energy capacities in the 50-100 Wh/l range - one of them
> uses a very cheap and abundant electrolyte - ferric chloride - and has
> indefinite electrode life (needless to say it's at the low end of storage
> capacity by volume - nothing's perfect).
>
Total rubbish.

Please do the sums of just how much energy is required to be stored.


> Using these (and taking the low end) we could store enough
> electricity to power Ireland's national grid for a week with 10,000
> swimming pool sized (25m x 20m x 2m = 50MWh) tanks of electrolyte and enough
> electrode assemblies. Something better would be nice but this is good
> enough to get the job done, even with doubling it to allow for switching to
> electric transport. Ireland currently runs nearly 40% renewables, building
> that out to 200% is perhaps a similar scale job to filling all those tanks.
>
> Another way to look at the tankage requirements - 4000 litres (four
> IBCs) and a 15Kw electrode assembly (about the size of an IBC) would be
> enough to run my house for eight days - that could be tucked away in a
> garage, shed or basement. Cover the roof in PV panels and I could go off
> grid at current power consumption easily. Money and the little detail that
> nobody makes a flow battery that small stops me for now.
>
> It will take a long time, if the alarmists are right we lack the
> time but is that a reason not to try ? Besides it's happening for
> commercial reasons and there's huge political will to see the job through.
>
> So no we are not looking at the end of the industrial age, just the
> end of the age of oil. Note that I've completely ignored the possibilities
> of safe nuclear fission, falling launch costs making solar power satellites
> feasible (Musk keeps talking about $50/kilo - he can miss by an order of
> magnitude and they're still feasible) and of course fusion which is ten
> years away.
>
The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.

The only question is how much damage renewable energy and the politics
of moral superiority will do to society and civilisation before we
realise it, and whether there will be enough educated people and fossil
energy left to build it.

The great reset is going to be the total replacement of a global
political elite who have totally fucked up the civilisation and good
living that technologists and engineers gave them

For the first time in living memory, the West is experiencing declining
standards of living.

No amount of climate change renewable bullshit is going to compensate
for that.

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418001 is a reply to message #417982] Thu, 01 December 2022 05:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 30/11/2022 16:47, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:01:45 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2022 10:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>>> Global warming,
>>> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
>>> alarming.
>>
>> Does it?
>> I am 72 years old. There is nothing I haven't seen in that life in terms
>> of floods droughts hurricanes coastal erosion and steady sea level rise
>> that was any better than today.
>
> Well not to thee and me - but to TPTB who hold the purse strings.
> We count for nothing :)
>
>>> Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
>>> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that
>>> will work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global
>>> warming and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple
>>> provable facts won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>>>
>>
>> No, you are in fact wrong.
>> I will state the established facts that the data shows and they lead to
>> obvious conclusions.
>
> Renewable may be a complete dead end - but TPTB are committed to
> going somewhere other than fossil and so if it is they will be forced to do
> something else.
>
Well we obviously cannot carry in indefinitely with a finite resource
that isnt being replenished as fast as it is being used. If we want to
stay out of the second stone age.

> BTW nuclear power doesn't solve the problem *either*. Nuclear
> reactors are far too unresponsive to handle the dynamic loads so they need
> to be backed up with a lot of battery storage just like renewables (not so
> much of it to be fair but still quite a lot).
>

That is just dross. And completely untrue.

First of all the battery backup so called is not to store long term
energy, it is to replace the energy stored in the spinning mass of
thermal steam turbines, which is the main *frequency* stabiliser on the
grid. Nuclear reactors use spinning steam turbines, so batteries are not
required.

If you remove intermittent renewable energy from the grid, the demand
curve that the nuclear power sees is highly predictable and the curve is
slow and smooth,.
Nuclear reactors are capable of up to 75% modulation of output power
over about an hours period. That isn't much worse than a coal power
plant, which used to comprise ALL of (the UK) grid once upon a time. No
batteries then.

The reason they do not get used like this except in France, is that a
nuclear reactor is all capital cost. The fuel is cheap as chips, so it
doesn't matter how low the market price of electricity goes, extracting
the last dollar out of the Capex can still be done, whereas coal and gas
shut down when they cant cover the fuel costs.


On a shorter timescale, you can store thermal energy by using either a
bigger boiler or as in the Natrium reactor a massive bank of molten
salt, which can be tapped to rapidly meet peak demand. And of course you
dont need much hydro to cover very short term peaks. UK has a pumped
storage plant that will do about 2GW for about 2 hours, and that is used
at peak evening timines to cover demand.

But the key is removing all intermittent 'renewable' generators off the
grid. The demand created by consumers fluctuates enough without making
it ten times worse, by adding redundant wind and solar power.

Since you need to have enough nuclear power to cover the times when
there is no wind and no solar, like yesterday In NW Europe, why bother
with all the expense and complication of adding intermittency and the
expensive additional kit needed to make it work reliably?

We don't build computers out of valves (tubes) either, any more, not
even for the sake of 'diversity'

In short a 90% all nuclear grid, with dispatchable reactors, large
boilers and some Natrium molten salt heat banks plus a modicum of
hydroelectricity is fully capable of meeting all demands *provided that
all intermittent renewables are banned from the grid*.

And THAT is why the same people that tell you that you mustn't burn
coal, frack gas or deny the rights of mediaeval windmills to despoil
your landscape also have worked to impede any building of nuclear power
whatsoever, and that is why the EU law doesnt specify carbon reduction
as a goal, but only imposes a 'renewable obligation' on the nations it
comprises.

Because everyone who stops and thinks for a moment after they have
acquainted themselves with the facts, realises that once you let the
nuclear cat out of the bag, there is no reason to ever install a single
solar panel or any windmill onto the grid, ever again, and indeed it
would be sensible to pay them to shut down permanently

They are not the solution, they are the problem



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418003 is a reply to message #417999] Thu, 01 December 2022 10:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:01:47 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-industrial-age/
>
> What a pile of twaddle!
>
> ------------
> Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you
> have to use energy—lots of it—to concentrate energy.
> ------------
>
> Er no! Simple counter example - a curved mirror uses no energy to
> concentrate as much energy as you like. Besides which concentrating
> intermittent energy is not the problem *storing* it is.

Actually, your example isn't scalable. To add to the above (which
I had posted without comment), you might want to also look at:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-ma trix/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can- it-be/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

And putting it all together:
https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418007 is a reply to message #418000] Thu, 01 December 2022 14:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Spencer is currently offline  Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> ------------
>> Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you
>> have to use energy -- lots of it -- to concentrate energy.
>> ------------
>>
>> Er no! Simple counter example - a curved mirror uses no energy to
>> concentrate as much energy as you like. Besides which concentrating
>> intermittent energy is not the problem *storing* it is.
>
> Umm. That mirror does not get built my magic, It takes ENERGY, just as
> building a dam to concentrate water takes energy, or building a solar
> ore wind park takes energy.
>
> All construction reverses entropy locally, and the expense of increasing
> it elsewhere,

Wasn't there an experiment, decades ago, to smelt aluminum in a pod on
a tower using heat from a huge array of mirrors that tracked the sun?

How did that work out?


--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418009 is a reply to message #418000] Thu, 01 December 2022 16:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:01:47 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.ecosophia.net/the-end-of-the-industrial-age/
>>
>> What a pile of twaddle!
>>
>> ------------
>> Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you
>> have to use energy—lots of it—to concentrate energy.
>> ------------
>>
>> Er no! Simple counter example - a curved mirror uses no energy to
>> concentrate as much energy as you like. Besides which concentrating
>> intermittent energy is not the problem *storing* it is.
>
> Umm. That mirror does not get built my magic, It takes ENERGY, just as
> building a dam to concentrate water takes energy, or building a solar
> ore wind park takes energy.
>
> All construction reverses entropy locally, and te expense of increasing
> it elsewhere,
>
>>
>> We have the energy storage problem solved - but only just. There
>> are commercially available grid scale flow batteries with long lived
>> electrodes and energy capacities in the 50-100 Wh/l range - one of them
>> uses a very cheap and abundant electrolyte - ferric chloride - and has
>> indefinite electrode life (needless to say it's at the low end of storage
>> capacity by volume - nothing's perfect).
>>
> Total rubbish.
>
> Please do the sums of just how much energy is required to be stored.
>
>
>> Using these (and taking the low end) we could store enough
>> electricity to power Ireland's national grid for a week with 10,000
>> swimming pool sized (25m x 20m x 2m = 50MWh) tanks of electrolyte and enough
>> electrode assemblies. Something better would be nice but this is good
>> enough to get the job done, even with doubling it to allow for switching to
>> electric transport. Ireland currently runs nearly 40% renewables, building
>> that out to 200% is perhaps a similar scale job to filling all those tanks.
>>
>> Another way to look at the tankage requirements - 4000 litres (four
>> IBCs) and a 15Kw electrode assembly (about the size of an IBC) would be
>> enough to run my house for eight days - that could be tucked away in a
>> garage, shed or basement. Cover the roof in PV panels and I could go off
>> grid at current power consumption easily. Money and the little detail that
>> nobody makes a flow battery that small stops me for now.
>>
>> It will take a long time, if the alarmists are right we lack the
>> time but is that a reason not to try ? Besides it's happening for
>> commercial reasons and there's huge political will to see the job through.
>>
>> So no we are not looking at the end of the industrial age, just the
>> end of the age of oil. Note that I've completely ignored the possibilities
>> of safe nuclear fission, falling launch costs making solar power satellites
>> feasible (Musk keeps talking about $50/kilo - he can miss by an order of
>> magnitude and they're still feasible) and of course fusion which is ten
>> years away.
>>
> The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
> without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
> of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.
>
> The only question is how much damage renewable energy and the politics
> of moral superiority will do to society and civilisation before we
> realise it, and whether there will be enough educated people and fossil
> energy left to build it.
>
> The great reset is going to be the total replacement of a global
> political elite who have totally fucked up the civilisation and good
> living that technologists and engineers gave them
>
> For the first time in living memory, the West is experiencing declining
> standards of living.

It feels like we’re living at the end of the Roman Empire. the only
question is how black the coming dark age will be and how long it will
last.

>
> No amount of climate change renewable bullshit is going to compensate
> for that.
>



--
Pete
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418010 is a reply to message #418001] Thu, 01 December 2022 16:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/11/2022 16:47, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:01:45 +0000
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/11/2022 10:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>>> Global warming,
>>>> or climate change as we should now call it, seems to be sufficiently
>>>> alarming.
>>>
>>> Does it?
>>> I am 72 years old. There is nothing I haven't seen in that life in terms
>>> of floods droughts hurricanes coastal erosion and steady sea level rise
>>> that was any better than today.
>>
>> Well not to thee and me - but to TPTB who hold the purse strings.
>> We count for nothing :)
>>
>>>> Never mind if people are running around trying things that may
>>>> not work, there's time and resources available to get something that
>>>> will work before it's needed. But only if TPTB remain scared of global
>>>> warming and keep the pressure up, because common sense and simple
>>>> provable facts won't do (which is a sad commentary on human nature).
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you are in fact wrong.
>>> I will state the established facts that the data shows and they lead to
>>> obvious conclusions.
>>
>> Renewable may be a complete dead end - but TPTB are committed to
>> going somewhere other than fossil and so if it is they will be forced to do
>> something else.
>>
> Well we obviously cannot carry in indefinitely with a finite resource
> that isnt being replenished as fast as it is being used. If we want to
> stay out of the second stone age.
>
>> BTW nuclear power doesn't solve the problem *either*. Nuclear
>> reactors are far too unresponsive to handle the dynamic loads so they need
>> to be backed up with a lot of battery storage just like renewables (not so
>> much of it to be fair but still quite a lot).
>>
>
> That is just dross. And completely untrue.
>
> First of all the battery backup so called is not to store long term
> energy, it is to replace the energy stored in the spinning mass of
> thermal steam turbines, which is the main *frequency* stabiliser on the
> grid. Nuclear reactors use spinning steam turbines, so batteries are not
> required.
>
> If you remove intermittent renewable energy from the grid, the demand
> curve that the nuclear power sees is highly predictable and the curve is
> slow and smooth,.
> Nuclear reactors are capable of up to 75% modulation of output power
> over about an hours period. That isn't much worse than a coal power
> plant, which used to comprise ALL of (the UK) grid once upon a time. No
> batteries then.

No computers either, the adjustments had to be made by guess,

>
> The reason they do not get used like this except in France, is that a
> nuclear reactor is all capital cost. The fuel is cheap as chips, so it
> doesn't matter how low the market price of electricity goes, extracting
> the last dollar out of the Capex can still be done, whereas coal and gas
> shut down when they cant cover the fuel costs.
>
>
> On a shorter timescale, you can store thermal energy by using either a
> bigger boiler or as in the Natrium reactor a massive bank of molten
> salt, which can be tapped to rapidly meet peak demand. And of course you
> dont need much hydro to cover very short term peaks. UK has a pumped
> storage plant that will do about 2GW for about 2 hours, and that is used
> at peak evening timines to cover demand.
>
> But the key is removing all intermittent 'renewable' generators off the
> grid. The demand created by consumers fluctuates enough without making
> it ten times worse, by adding redundant wind and solar power.
>
> Since you need to have enough nuclear power to cover the times when
> there is no wind and no solar, like yesterday In NW Europe, why bother
> with all the expense and complication of adding intermittency and the
> expensive additional kit needed to make it work reliably?
>
> We don't build computers out of valves (tubes) either, any more, not
> even for the sake of 'diversity'
>
> In short a 90% all nuclear grid, with dispatchable reactors, large
> boilers and some Natrium molten salt heat banks plus a modicum of
> hydroelectricity is fully capable of meeting all demands *provided that
> all intermittent renewables are banned from the grid*.
>
> And THAT is why the same people that tell you that you mustn't burn
> coal, frack gas or deny the rights of mediaeval windmills to despoil
> your landscape also have worked to impede any building of nuclear power
> whatsoever, and that is why the EU law doesnt specify carbon reduction
> as a goal, but only imposes a 'renewable obligation' on the nations it
> comprises.
>
> Because everyone who stops and thinks for a moment after they have
> acquainted themselves with the facts, realises that once you let the
> nuclear cat out of the bag, there is no reason to ever install a single
> solar panel or any windmill onto the grid, ever again, and indeed it
> would be sensible to pay them to shut down permanently
>
> They are not the solution, they are the problem
>

Amen!


--
Pete
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418011 is a reply to message #418007] Thu, 01 December 2022 16:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> ------------
>>> Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you
>>> have to use energy -- lots of it -- to concentrate energy.
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> Er no! Simple counter example - a curved mirror uses no energy to
>>> concentrate as much energy as you like. Besides which concentrating
>>> intermittent energy is not the problem *storing* it is.
>>
>> Umm. That mirror does not get built my magic, It takes ENERGY, just as
>> building a dam to concentrate water takes energy, or building a solar
>> ore wind park takes energy.
>>
>> All construction reverses entropy locally, and the expense of increasing
>> it elsewhere,
>
> Wasn't there an experiment, decades ago, to smelt aluminum in a pod on
> a tower using heat from a huge array of mirrors that tracked the sun?
>
> How did that work out?
>
>

Don’t know, but there are solar power rigs that use mirrors and a tub of
molten salt.

--
Pete
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418013 is a reply to message #418009] Thu, 01 December 2022 16:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

>>>
>> The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
>> without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
>> of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.

Actually, that's not as simple as you make it out to be.

The current worldwide electrical consumption (2020) is 23 trillion watts.
The average nuclear power plant is 1 billion watts. Note that
consumption increases by approximately 2.3% annually, so you need to plan
the fleet buildout such that you have what you need when you need it
(i.e. demand grows by over 500Gw annually).

So we need to build something like 30,000 nuclear power plants to replace the
current fossil (and renewable) energy sources. Which costs
a whole shitload of money, uses a whole bunch of specialized
and rare materials and takes a long time, even if permitting
processes were streamlined.

And while I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy, the current
reactor designs are less than optimal and 30,000 times the current
nuclear high- and low-level waste stream (yes, I favor reprocessing)
will have to be dealt with as well; more cost and more energy.

Not to mention producing the fuel pellets; whether based on U235
or Pu. Note that U235 is 0.7% of natural uranium, so mining
must produce 100x the amount of natural uranium by refining
1000x the amount of pitchblend (or far more if extracted from
e.g. seawater).

Now thorium-cycle reactors are interesting, and thorium is more
abundant and requires less processing to produce fuel and the
fuel cycle produces a more tractable waste stream; however
there are no current operational thorium-based commercial power
plants, so the entire infrastructure from mining, refining into
fuel, and post-usage processing and disposal will need to be developed from
scratch.

All of this takes enormous amounts of energy (from renewable
or fossil sources), which either requires new fossil
resources, or limits the energy available for all other
usage (with corresponding supply-side scarcity driving
consumption cost increases).
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418015 is a reply to message #417999] Thu, 01 December 2022 17:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
not is currently offline  not
Messages: 73
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
Member
In comp.os.linux.misc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 18:01:47 GMT
>
> We have the energy storage problem solved - but only just. There
> are commercially available grid scale flow batteries with long lived
> electrodes and energy capacities in the 50-100 Wh/l range - one of them
> uses a very cheap and abundant electrolyte - ferric chloride - and has
> indefinite electrode life (needless to say it's at the low end of storage
> capacity by volume - nothing's perfect).
>
> Using these (and taking the low end) we could store enough
> electricity to power Ireland's national grid for a week with 10,000
> swimming pool sized (25m x 20m x 2m = 50MWh) tanks of electrolyte and enough
> electrode assemblies. Something better would be nice but this is good
> enough to get the job done, even with doubling it to allow for switching to
> electric transport. Ireland currently runs nearly 40% renewables, building
> that out to 200% is perhaps a similar scale job to filling all those tanks.
>
> Another way to look at the tankage requirements - 4000 litres (four
> IBCs) and a 15Kw electrode assembly (about the size of an IBC) would be
> enough to run my house for eight days - that could be tucked away in a
> garage, shed or basement. Cover the roof in PV panels and I could go off
> grid at current power consumption easily. Money and the little detail that
> nobody makes a flow battery that small stops me for now.

Cool! I can get ferric chloride and IBCs easily enough, I've
already got some of both. Only trouble is that I've got the ferric
chloride for corroding copper, so what do I use for the electrode
which won't corrode away?

Oh well, I eventually found this Wikipedia page which seems to be
what your talking about, and indeed the corrosion issue does seem
to be a complicating factor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_redox_flow_battery

But if there's a "build your own giant battery" webpage that I'm
missing, let me know. Not that I'm optimistic, if it were that
easy they would have likely used it in the early 20th century,
because some DC power systems required large batteries back then
too.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418016 is a reply to message #418013] Thu, 01 December 2022 17:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
D.J. is currently offline  D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 21:45:47 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
>>> without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
>>> of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.
>
> Actually, that's not as simple as you make it out to be.
>
> The current worldwide electrical consumption (2020) is 23 trillion watts.
> The average nuclear power plant is 1 billion watts. Note that
> consumption increases by approximately 2.3% annually, so you need to plan
> the fleet buildout such that you have what you need when you need it
> (i.e. demand grows by over 500Gw annually).
>
> So we need to build something like 30,000 nuclear power plants to replace the
> current fossil (and renewable) energy sources. Which costs
> a whole shitload of money, uses a whole bunch of specialized
> and rare materials and takes a long time, even if permitting
> processes were streamlined.
>
> And while I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy, the current
> reactor designs are less than optimal and 30,000 times the current
> nuclear high- and low-level waste stream (yes, I favor reprocessing)
> will have to be dealt with as well; more cost and more energy.
>
> Not to mention producing the fuel pellets; whether based on U235
> or Pu. Note that U235 is 0.7% of natural uranium, so mining
> must produce 100x the amount of natural uranium by refining
> 1000x the amount of pitchblend (or far more if extracted from
> e.g. seawater).
>
> Now thorium-cycle reactors are interesting, and thorium is more
> abundant and requires less processing to produce fuel and the
> fuel cycle produces a more tractable waste stream; however
> there are no current operational thorium-based commercial power
> plants, so the entire infrastructure from mining, refining into
> fuel, and post-usage processing and disposal will need to be developed from
> scratch.
>
> All of this takes enormous amounts of energy (from renewable
> or fossil sources), which either requires new fossil
> resources, or limits the energy available for all other
> usage (with corresponding supply-side scarcity driving
> consumption cost increases).

Oh dear, you posted facts into this discussion. But I'm sure one
poster will claim you are mistaken because of something that has
nothing to do with what you said.
--
Jim
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418017 is a reply to message #418016] Thu, 01 December 2022 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scott is currently offline  scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 21:45:47 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>>> >
>>>> The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
>>>> without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
>>>> of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.
>>
>> Actually, that's not as simple as you make it out to be.
>>
>> The current worldwide electrical consumption (2020) is 23 trillion watts.
>> The average nuclear power plant is 1 billion watts. Note that
>> consumption increases by approximately 2.3% annually, so you need to plan
>> the fleet buildout such that you have what you need when you need it
>> (i.e. demand grows by over 500Gw annually).
>>
>> So we need to build something like 30,000 nuclear power plants to replace the
>> current fossil (and renewable) energy sources. Which costs
>> a whole shitload of money, uses a whole bunch of specialized
>> and rare materials and takes a long time, even if permitting
>> processes were streamlined.
>>
>> And while I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy, the current
>> reactor designs are less than optimal and 30,000 times the current
>> nuclear high- and low-level waste stream (yes, I favor reprocessing)
>> will have to be dealt with as well; more cost and more energy.
>>
>> Not to mention producing the fuel pellets; whether based on U235
>> or Pu. Note that U235 is 0.7% of natural uranium, so mining
>> must produce 100x the amount of natural uranium by refining
>> 1000x the amount of pitchblend (or far more if extracted from
>> e.g. seawater).
>>
>> Now thorium-cycle reactors are interesting, and thorium is more
>> abundant and requires less processing to produce fuel and the
>> fuel cycle produces a more tractable waste stream; however
>> there are no current operational thorium-based commercial power
>> plants, so the entire infrastructure from mining, refining into
>> fuel, and post-usage processing and disposal will need to be developed from
>> scratch.
>>
>> All of this takes enormous amounts of energy (from renewable
>> or fossil sources), which either requires new fossil
>> resources, or limits the energy available for all other
>> usage (with corresponding supply-side scarcity driving
>> consumption cost increases).
>
> Oh dear, you posted facts into this discussion. But I'm sure one
> poster will claim you are mistaken because of something that has
> nothing to do with what you said.


There's a vast amount of information available in the web, for
those who aren't familiar with nuclear engineering.

From just this page alone:

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

one can see the difficulties in producing enough fuel for
30,000 reactors.
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418020 is a reply to message #418015] Thu, 01 December 2022 18:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2 Dec 2022 08:01:56 +1000
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

> Cool! I can get ferric chloride and IBCs easily enough, I've
> already got some of both. Only trouble is that I've got the ferric
> chloride for corroding copper, so what do I use for the electrode
> which won't corrode away?

Yes what you can't get easily is a reliable electrode assembly
because that design is patented by a company that makes grid scale flow
batteries and doesn't make small ones.

> Oh well, I eventually found this Wikipedia page which seems to be
> what your talking about, and indeed the corrosion issue does seem
> to be a complicating factor:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_redox_flow_battery

Yes it is the complicating factor - but there is one company with
a patented long life electrode design for the iron redox flow battery.
They build grid scale batteries only the small ones come in 40 foot
containers for the big ones they quote capacity per acre.

> But if there's a "build your own giant battery" webpage that I'm
> missing,

There is not, but if you're running a national grid there are
places you can buy giant batteries.

> let me know. Not that I'm optimistic, if it were that
> easy they would have likely used it in the early 20th century,
> because some DC power systems required large batteries back then
> too.

It isn't that easy, but there are two commercial grid scale flow
batteries on sale and in use today one iron based the other vanadium based.
No doubt there will be more in due course.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418025 is a reply to message #418017] Thu, 01 December 2022 22:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dan Espen is currently offline  Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 21:45:47 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> > The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
>>>> > without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
>>>> > of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's not as simple as you make it out to be.
>>>
>>> The current worldwide electrical consumption (2020) is 23 trillion watts.
>>> The average nuclear power plant is 1 billion watts. Note that
>>> consumption increases by approximately 2.3% annually, so you need to plan
>>> the fleet buildout such that you have what you need when you need it
>>> (i.e. demand grows by over 500Gw annually).
>>>
>>> So we need to build something like 30,000 nuclear power plants to replace the
>>> current fossil (and renewable) energy sources. Which costs
>>> a whole shitload of money, uses a whole bunch of specialized
>>> and rare materials and takes a long time, even if permitting
>>> processes were streamlined.
>>>
>>> And while I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy, the current
>>> reactor designs are less than optimal and 30,000 times the current
>>> nuclear high- and low-level waste stream (yes, I favor reprocessing)
>>> will have to be dealt with as well; more cost and more energy.
>>>
>>> Not to mention producing the fuel pellets; whether based on U235
>>> or Pu. Note that U235 is 0.7% of natural uranium, so mining
>>> must produce 100x the amount of natural uranium by refining
>>> 1000x the amount of pitchblend (or far more if extracted from
>>> e.g. seawater).
>>>
>>> Now thorium-cycle reactors are interesting, and thorium is more
>>> abundant and requires less processing to produce fuel and the
>>> fuel cycle produces a more tractable waste stream; however
>>> there are no current operational thorium-based commercial power
>>> plants, so the entire infrastructure from mining, refining into
>>> fuel, and post-usage processing and disposal will need to be developed from
>>> scratch.
>>>
>>> All of this takes enormous amounts of energy (from renewable
>>> or fossil sources), which either requires new fossil
>>> resources, or limits the energy available for all other
>>> usage (with corresponding supply-side scarcity driving
>>> consumption cost increases).
>>
>> Oh dear, you posted facts into this discussion. But I'm sure one
>> poster will claim you are mistaken because of something that has
>> nothing to do with what you said.
>
>
> There's a vast amount of information available in the web, for
> those who aren't familiar with nuclear engineering.
>
> From just this page alone:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining
>
> one can see the difficulties in producing enough fuel for
> 30,000 reactors.

We've had 2 reactors create pretty large un-inhabitable zones.

We need to increase safety by a couple orders of magnitude.

--
Dan Espen
Re: self-documenting APL, not COBOL and tricks [message #418027 is a reply to message #418013] Fri, 02 December 2022 04:12 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
The Natural Philosoph is currently offline  The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 01/12/2022 21:45, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2022 07:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> The only cost effective solution we have currently that actually works
>>> without adding so much extra kit that all the carbon and cost benefits
>>> of 'free fuel' are entirely negated, is nuclear power.
>
> Actually, that's not as simple as you make it out to be.
>
> The current worldwide electrical consumption (2020) is 23 trillion watts.
> The average nuclear power plant is 1 billion watts. Note that
> consumption increases by approximately 2.3% annually, so you need to plan
> the fleet buildout such that you have what you need when you need it
> (i.e. demand grows by over 500Gw annually).
>
> So we need to build something like 30,000 nuclear power plants to replace the
> current fossil (and renewable) energy sources. Which costs
> a whole shitload of money, uses a whole bunch of specialized
> and rare materials and takes a long time, even if permitting
> processes were streamlined.
>
> And while I've always been a supporter of nuclear energy, the current
> reactor designs are less than optimal and 30,000 times the current
> nuclear high- and low-level waste stream (yes, I favor reprocessing)
> will have to be dealt with as well; more cost and more energy.
>
> Not to mention producing the fuel pellets; whether based on U235
> or Pu. Note that U235 is 0.7% of natural uranium, so mining
> must produce 100x the amount of natural uranium by refining
> 1000x the amount of pitchblend (or far more if extracted from
> e.g. seawater).
>
> Now thorium-cycle reactors are interesting, and thorium is more
> abundant and requires less processing to produce fuel and the
> fuel cycle produces a more tractable waste stream; however
> there are no current operational thorium-based commercial power
> plants, so the entire infrastructure from mining, refining into
> fuel, and post-usage processing and disposal will need to be developed from
> scratch.
>
> All of this takes enormous amounts of energy (from renewable
> or fossil sources), which either requires new fossil
> resources, or limits the energy available for all other
> usage (with corresponding supply-side scarcity driving
> consumption cost increases).

The material and fuel costs of a reactor are extremely low. That tells
you it neither uses a lot of materials nor fossil fuel in its
construction, compared with say wind.

The US has spent IIRC $7tn on renewable energy with no significatnt
reduction in fossil fuel usage.

The point is, we have two alternatives - unsustainable renewables.
because renewable energy cannot build windmills, or sustainable nuclear
power. Oh and by the way of the 0.7% U235 worries you, run U238 through
a breeder reactor and get yourself a load of plutonium, You can do
similar with thorium We dont bother right now, because uranium is dirt
cheap.

Nuclear power may not be ideal, but it remains the only solution to
maintaining technological civilisation. Once to realise that the EROEI
of windmills makes then unsustainable without fossil fuel.


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"
Pages (21): [ «    6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: R.I.P. Terry Davis - TempleOS and Holy C
Next Topic: Satan's Digital Butthole - R.I.P. Mr. P.J. O'Rourke
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 16:06:30 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.08675 seconds