FPGA Central

On 23 Nov, 02:59, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:

> Iceland currently generates about 25% of its energy needs from
> geothermal, so it seems that this is a proven technology.

The problem with geothermal sources is that they only work
in geographic areas where the eart's crust is thin, and the
hot materials are easily accessible. Once you need to drill
very deep to get to the heat, or transport the energy over
long distances, the economy breaks down.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:

> On 23 Nov, 02:59, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>
> > Iceland currently generates about 25% of its energy needs from
> > geothermal, so it seems that this is a proven technology.
>
> The problem with geothermal sources is that they only work
> in geographic areas where the eart's crust is thin, and the
> hot materials are easily accessible. Once you need to drill
> very deep to get to the heat, or transport the energy over
> long distances, the economy breaks down.

Well Iceland is one, and apparently Australia is another.

Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

On 11/21/2009 9:46 AM, Jerry Avins wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On 11/20/2009 8:02 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>> On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>>>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>>>>>> dumping them NOW.
>>>>> Orly?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
>>>>> b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
>>>>> c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
>>>>> (compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip
>>>>> mining).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>>> have backfired.
>>>
>>> What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
>>> them? Where are the headers?
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>> The originating organization has evidently confirmed that they're
>> legitimate:
>>
>> http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...a-is-real.html
>>
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
>
> That is solid. Now I need to read what was actually said.
>
> Jerry

There are a number of blogs like this popping up:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...etxt-file.html

I've seen several example of this, all taking bits here and there and
commenting, but the context is tough to sort out from just the blogs.
Many of the blogs like this are skeptics or just opportunists who may
not be objective or, like this guy, admittedly not even tech-savvy
enough to know what's bad or what's not.

I'm hoping somebody is really taking some quality time on this stuff and
sorting through it. As it is the initial glimpses don't look good at all.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

This is just a fight between the anti-environmentalists
and the global warming fanatacists, and I am neither.

And shame on any of my fellow environmentalists/liberals who have been
tricked by their opponents into making proof of anthropogenic
global warming a political precondition for doing anything about pollution.


Steve

Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:

>What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>worry about energy again.

There's a slight problem with fusion: it's dirty. For a given
power output, it has five times the neutron fluence of fission.

Steve

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:47:40 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:

> Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>>channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>>wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>>worry about energy again.
>
> There's a slight problem with fusion: it's dirty. For a given power
> output, it has five times the neutron fluence of fission.

The trick is to keep it about 150 million kilometers away from the point
of use...

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:
(snip)

> There's a slight problem with fusion: it's dirty. For a given
> power output, it has five times the neutron fluence of fission.

Well, what matters most is where the neutrons go.

The worst part of fission waste is the intermediate life fission
products, especially ones similar to important body elements.
Short life products go away fairly soon. Long life ones aren't
so radioactive.

-- glen

spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:

> Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>>channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>>wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>>worry about energy again.
>
> There's a slight problem with fusion: it's dirty. For a given
> power output, it has five times the neutron fluence of fission.

Carbon shielding? Lead? This would seem an easy problem to solve, at
least to the ignorant.
--
Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
Digital Signal Labs % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
mailto://yates@ieee.org % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO

Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote:

>spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) writes:

>> There's a slight problem with fusion: it's dirty. For a given
>> power output, it has five times the neutron fluence of fission.

>Carbon shielding? Lead? This would seem an easy problem to solve, at
>least to the ignorant.

It's by no means easy. It means that reactor core components
exhibit radiation fatigue that much faster, and when they
are replaced they become high-level waste -- five times as
much of it.

Fusion advocates downplay this, because of the "fusion = clean"
mindset, but it's a serious problem.

Steve

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:

>> There's a slight problem with fusion: it's dirty. For a given
>> power output, it has five times the neutron fluence of fission.

>Well, what matters most is where the neutrons go.
>
>The worst part of fission waste is the intermediate life fission
>products, especially ones similar to important body elements.
>Short life products go away fairly soon. Long life ones aren't
>so radioactive.

As I've said in past such discussions, I'm in favor of expanding
nuclear power generation under the strict condition that all radioactive
substances generated be permanently entombed in secure facilities
that can be watched and monitored indefinitely.

However nuclear power operators will never agree with this; they
like to sell and otherwise proliferate their nuclear waste and
by-products, or for what they can't sell they like to pursue a "dump
and forget" disposal strategy. So, until this mindset changes,
I oppose expanding nuclear power.

Steve

Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:
(snip on radioactive waste)

> As I've said in past such discussions, I'm in favor of expanding
> nuclear power generation under the strict condition that all radioactive
> substances generated be permanently entombed in secure facilities
> that can be watched and monitored indefinitely.

> However nuclear power operators will never agree with this; they
> like to sell and otherwise proliferate their nuclear waste and
> by-products, or for what they can't sell they like to pursue a "dump
> and forget" disposal strategy. So, until this mindset changes,
> I oppose expanding nuclear power.

Coal power plant operators have the same thoughts, and produce
much more waste. Coal power plants put more radioactivity
into the atmosphere than is legal for nuclear plants.
(Mostly K40.) Should coal plants be similarly restricted?

-- glen

brent wrote:
> On Nov 20, 10:54 pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> writes:
>>> On Nov 20, 9:35 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>>> have backfired.
>>> I have known with every bone in my body that if these people truly
>>> believed what they say about global warming that they all would be
>>> screaming at the toop of their lungs for nuclear energy. It is the
>>> only viable energy source that could truly reduce green house gas.
>>> And yet, never a peep from people like Al Gore about the need to
>>> convert to nuclear - NOW.
>>> In my mind , the complete ignoring of the only viable solution to the
>>> problem they keep proclaiming makes them all frauds. The whole global
>>> warming thing is a fraud.
>> Nuclear is not a long-term viable solution. We still haven't come
>> anywhere close to a good long-term solution for nuclear waste.
>>
>> What we SHOULD be doing (and should HAVE been doing for 40 years) is
>> channeling more funding into fusion (say, 1/10th the amount we've fed
>> wars in the last 40 years?). Once we crack that nut, no one will ever
>> worry about energy again.
>> --
>> Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
>> Digital Signal Labs % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
>> mailto://ya...@ieee.org % http://www.digitalsignallabs.com% 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
>
> Nuclear may not be a long term viable solution. However, Solar,
> ethanol, and wind are no solution - either short term or long term.
> So, if the planet is going to self destruct

It's not the planet that's at stake! _We_ are "the lords of the last days".


>if something drastic is
> not done - use the best stop gap method - nuclear.
> (I am not really advocating this myself - but it is the most logical
> conclusion for a person who thinks we are truly on the brink to come
> to)
>
> And yet, not a peep about nuclear from any of the global warming
> folks. .. Not a peep.

On 11/24/2009 3:17 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On 11/21/2009 9:46 AM, Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2009 8:02 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 21, 3:28 pm, Erik de Castro Lopo <er...@mega-nerd.com> wrote:
>>>>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>>>>>>> dumping them NOW.
>>>>>> Orly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are other reasons to look at alternative engery sources, like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) Energy indepenence from the middle east.
>>>>>> b) Possibility of Peak Oil.
>>>>>> c) Alternative energy sources may be less harmful to the environment
>>>>>> (compare solar/wind/geothermal to say Canadian oil shale strip
>>>>>> mining).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree but it doesn't help matters here. Their scaremongering tactics
>>>>> have backfired.
>>>>
>>>> What confirms the emails? Have any of the supposed authors acknowledged
>>>> them? Where are the headers?
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> The originating organization has evidently confirmed that they're
>>> legitimate:
>>>
>>> http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...a-is-real.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
>>
>> That is solid. Now I need to read what was actually said.
>>
>> Jerry
>
> There are a number of blogs like this popping up:
>
> http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...etxt-file.html
>
>
> I've seen several example of this, all taking bits here and there and
> commenting, but the context is tough to sort out from just the blogs.
> Many of the blogs like this are skeptics or just opportunists who may
> not be objective or, like this guy, admittedly not even tech-savvy
> enough to know what's bad or what's not.
>
> I'm hoping somebody is really taking some quality time on this stuff and
> sorting through it. As it is the initial glimpses don't look good at all.
>

Richard Lindzen of MIT weighs in:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...917025400.html



--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

>Richard Lindzen of MIT weighs in:
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...917025400.html

The WSJ has for many years veered far to the right of anything
like objective reporting.

This article, like anything from the rightwing on the topic,
embodies the unstated assumption that global warming must be definitively
proven before any policies putting more controls on pollution be put
into effect.

Don't buy it! Don't let them control the debate.

Steve

On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.

Keep the politics out of this. For me, who wrote a
PhD thesis based on computational models representing
some physical system (albeit not related to meteorology),
the key statement in the article is:

"the failure of these [computational] models to account for
this natural internal variability [of the climatic system]."

In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
They will not be, until they are able to accurately
represent the variable factors like El Nino, on the scale
of decades, and the water cycle (evaperation -> percipetation)
on the day-to-day scale.

The argument has nothing to do with politics. It has to
do with scientific craftmanship. Computational models are
just that - models. There are no guarantees they have
any relation, whatsoever, with reality.

Rune

Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.

>Keep the politics out of this.

Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
injecting politics into. Don't blame me.

>In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.

"Aren't good enough" for what purpose? What standard of
proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
more pollution controls? Ultimately this is a political
decision, isn't it?

>The argument has nothing to do with politics.

Sure it does.

Steve

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:39:33 -0800, HardySpicer wrote:

> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...3/climategate-
the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
>
>
> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
> dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming
-- drivel snipped --
> But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
> credibility which is never likely to recover.

Per the article in this week's "Economist" the global warming denialists
did their best to cherry-pick the worst sounding bits they could find --
by and large the science may have been sloppy in places, but the only
grand conspiracy is in the minds of (or perhaps among) the denialists.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> writes:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:39:33 -0800, HardySpicer wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...3/climategate-
> the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>>
>>
>>
>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>> dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming
> -- drivel snipped --
>> But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
>> credibility which is never likely to recover.
>
> Per the article in this week's "Economist" the global warming denialists
> did their best to cherry-pick the worst sounding bits they could find --
> by and large the science may have been sloppy in places, but the only
> grand conspiracy is in the minds of (or perhaps among) the denialists.

I believe you bring up a good point. As yet I haven't seen a fair
evaluation of all the evidence, scientific oversights, etc., i.e.,
one void of an agenda.
--
Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
Digital Signal Labs % and those who hesitate
mailto://yates@ieee.org % got no one..."
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO

Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
(snip)

> Keep the politics out of this. For me, who wrote a
> PhD thesis based on computational models representing
> some physical system (albeit not related to meteorology),
> the key statement in the article is:

> "the failure of these [computational] models to account for
> this natural internal variability [of the climatic system]."

You don't need the complete climate model to figure out what
some parts of it are doing. The CO2 equilibrium between
the atmosphere and the ocean isn't so easy, either.
Even so, it is known that the equilibbration time between the
atmosphere and the ocean is around 1000 years. Still unknown
is the effect of increased CO2 (and decreased pH) of the ocean.

> In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
> They will not be, until they are able to accurately
> represent the variable factors like El Nino, on the scale
> of decades, and the water cycle (evaperation -> percipetation)
> on the day-to-day scale.

For climate models for weather forcasting you need many of
those variables. When planning a weekend trip, I want to know
what to expect over the next few days, but don't care about
the next 1000 years.

If we (the political establishment) decide that we don't need
society to last more than another 50 years or so then we don't need
to worry about climate. There are still people figuring out how
to keep nuclear waste safe for 10,000 years. Unless big changes
are made very soon, there is a 100% probability that there won't
be anyone around in 10,000 years to care about nuclear waste.

> The argument has nothing to do with politics. It has to
> do with scientific craftmanship. Computational models are
> just that - models. There are no guarantees they have
> any relation, whatsoever, with reality.

The will to do something about the results of the model is
entirely political. So is the will to do something about
population growth, which is the real problem.

-- glen

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>If we (the political establishment) decide that we don't need
>society to last more than another 50 years or so then we don't need
>to worry about climate. There are still people figuring out how
>to keep nuclear waste safe for 10,000 years. Unless big changes
>are made very soon, there is a 100% probability that there won't
>be anyone around in 10,000 years to care about nuclear waste.

I'm not sure about that time-frame, but in about a half million
years, there is supposedly a high-velocity star that will pass within a
light year of us, ejecting thousands of Oort objects into the inner
solar system, some of which will strike earth and liquefy its
crust.

So we don't even need to wait the 8 billion years before the
Sun goes Red Giant.

Steve

On 1 Des, 20:40, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
> >Keep the politics out of this.
>
> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.

I am generally considered a bit beyond half-mad: It
doesn't matter where a statement is made, not even
who makes it. What matters is the statement.

The guy who wrote the piece knew what he was talking about.

> >In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>
> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *

To understand the climate. If the models don't describe
the essentials of the process under study, they are
useless.

> What standard of
> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> more pollution controls? *

There are several good reasons why various pollution
controls should be implemented. The climate is *not*
one of them.

The past few days news reports indicate that "3rd-world
contries" claim some $100 billions from "industrialized
countries" for "climate damage compensations."

The world economy is about to be screwed seriously up
during the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. Why? because
of these computer models that don't work.

Rune

Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 1 Des, 20:40, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Rune Allnor *<all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> >> Don't buy it! *Don't let them control the debate.
>> >Keep the politics out of this.
>>
>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
>> injecting politics into. *Don't blame me.

>I am generally considered a bit beyond half-mad: It
>doesn't matter where a statement is made, not even
>who makes it. What matters is the statement.

The right wing wants us all to think such pieces about climate
are above politics. Again, don't fall for it.

>> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? *
>
>To understand the climate. If the models don't describe
>the essentials of the process under study, they are
>useless.

>> What standard of
>> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
>> more pollution controls? *

>There are several good reasons why various pollution
>controls should be implemented. The climate is *not*
>one of them.

If the odds of AGW are one in a thousand, is not that reason
enough to control the relevant pollution sources?

>The past few days news reports indicate that "3rd-world
>contries" claim some $100 billions from "industrialized
>countries" for "climate damage compensations."
>
>The world economy is about to be screwed seriously up
>during the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. Why? because
>of these computer models that don't work.

You have no proof that stricter pollution controls will
negatively impact the economy.

The U.S. is experiencing more prosperity than 40 years ago,
despite having less than one-third the oil intensity it did then,
and a large number of new environmental controls.

Only narrow special interests benefit from the near-total
lack of emissions controls that the WSJ is promoting.

Again, I'm not swallowing it, and I will speak out when
I see the polluters trying to steer the debate under
the guise of science.

Steve

On 12/1/2009 12:40 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Rune Allnor<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Des, 19:21, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>> Don't buy it! Don't let them control the debate.
>
>> Keep the politics out of this.
>
> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
> injecting politics into. Don't blame me.

I strongly disagree. That seems akin to me of the logical fallacy of
"poisoning the well": The WSJ is conservative, therefore this article
must be right wing and therefore unreliable!

Prof. Lindzen is a well-respected researcher at MIT and has been in the
"skeptical" camp for a long time. Perhaps WSJ is one of the few venues
where he can publish. I suggest people assess the content of the
article rather than any perceived reputation of the publisher.

It is apparent that "unbiased" sources are nearly nonexistent these
days, so what one must do is look at info from various sources and
decide on the information for oneself. Usually that means taking info
from both sides of the debate, something few are willing to do any more.

>> In plain English: The climate models aren't good enough.
>
> "Aren't good enough" for what purpose? What standard of
> proof is needed to make a political decision to implement
> more pollution controls? Ultimately this is a political
> decision, isn't it?
>
>> The argument has nothing to do with politics.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> Steve


--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

On 12/1/2009 12:48 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:39:33 -0800, HardySpicer wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...3/climategate-
> the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>>
>>
>> If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start
>> dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming
> -- drivel snipped --
>> But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s
>> credibility which is never likely to recover.
>
> Per the article in this week's "Economist" the global warming denialists
> did their best to cherry-pick the worst sounding bits they could find --
> by and large the science may have been sloppy in places, but the only
> grand conspiracy is in the minds of (or perhaps among) the denialists.
>

I think it's important to separate the general global warming debate
from the anthropogenic global warming debate. They're very different.

--
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.abineau.com

Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 12/1/2009 12:40 PM, Steve Pope wrote:

>> Um, sorry, posting links to Wall Street Journal articles is
>> injecting politics into. Don't blame me.

>I strongly disagree. That seems akin to me of the logical fallacy of
>"poisoning the well": The WSJ is conservative, therefore this article
>must be right wing and therefore unreliable!

No. The politics here is that of driving the debate, to get
people to think that polluters by default should proceed unimpeded
unless some unreasonable bar be met regarding proof of global
warming. The WSJ pieces is 100% politics aimed at this end.

>Prof. Lindzen is a well-respected researcher at MIT and has been in the
>"skeptical" camp for a long time. Perhaps WSJ is one of the few venues
>where he can publish. I suggest people assess the content of the
>article rather than any perceived reputation of the publisher.

I respect your opinion but disagree with your perception of
what is going on.

Steve