OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

y

ere

r this kind of technology.

y sources, less happy about paying for any extra cost that might come up al ong the way.

metre sea level rise that is now looking pretty much inevitable, one could see it as poetic justice. Since he will probably be dead before this happe ns, justice will probably be too delayed to be particularly satisfying.

NT just doesn't buy your hole-filled beliefs.

NT

veryone chooses not to. That's the reality of what people want.

propaganda for a couple of decades now - every last bit of it bought and pa id for by the fossil carbon extraction industry, out of the profits they ma ke out of making climate change even more dramatic.

be a gullible as John Larkin, if less inclined to post links to denialist web-sites (or to any kind of traceable evidence - he's as willing to rely o n his own built-in misinformation as krw).

another evidence-free koolaid post there

Probably a worse rate per mile than an airplane.

A big blundering wind-blown mass like that doesn't crash as dramatically as an airplane. It's a slow-motion disaster. But it wrecks the airship pretty well.

Are any airships economically successful? Only the Goodyear blimp?

Hot-air balloons do kill a lot of people.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Let's see... 10 meter rise at 2 mm per year. There must be a mathematical solution to that.

Unless we have another ice age first; that would mess up the math.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

olar power stations with big tanks of molten nitrate salts have been built

- essentially as prototypes - and are generating power. Your idea of viabil ity seems to be that if something hasn't already dominated the industry, it hasn't shown itself to be viable.

then? Zero. Here it would not replace a single watt of conventional generat ion. So loads more generating plant & the endless stream of activity that g oes to support it, AND more grid capacity.

rging. If you don't know why you're in much the same camp as Bill.

So you think it best to charge cars when the grid is already at its max cap acity, and thus will need a huge upgrade. And at the times when the most ve hicle are busy driving. And using one of the most expensive sources of powe r. OK.

Reminds me why I said little first time round.

NT

o

ate

ting

box,

has terrified people, but in reality it's not hard to not make the same mis takes twice - the Hindenberg was a crude and ill researched machine by toda y's standards. And the hard truth is all other types of air transport have the same horrible results as the Hindenberg at times.

AIUI only non-hydrogen types are now permitted. Hydrogen lifted ships would cost a fraction of the price.

NT

It might be useful to express that in deaths per passenger*kilometer, and compare it to the rate for modern airplanes.

Jeroen Belleman

hen any need for subsidy is over.

the power they generate essentially competitive with fossil fuel burning po wer stations. It's not as dispatchable. If we upped the volume produced by a factor of 100 - which is what would be required to let them generate enou gh power to supply all our needs, the unit cost per cell would be reduced b y a factor of four.

it of dispatchable back-up generation.

in manufacturing scale have had precisely this effect.

ny around 2000, and again in China more recently - but the investment was r ecovered rapidly.

big for venture capitalists. Governments are a bit too susceptible to the influence of people who are making a lot of money digging up fossil carbon to be all that interested in making a large investment that will cut the fo ssil fuel cash flow.

own research. What do you mean they're not?

le energy generation on a scale that could slow down global warming.

sums of money into it. One could say that of many things.

Note that the adjective is gargantuan, form Rabelais' giant Gargantua.

Germany and China both spent substantial sums of money to fund successive t en-fold expansions in solar-cell manufacturing capacity. Both dominated the market for a few year afterwards, recovering the investment, as their manu facturers could make money selling units at half the price of their competi tors, and the market expanded because more people could make money out of c heaper solar cells.

The next step is going to require even more substantial capital investment, but the market clearly exists.

The step after that - boosting solar cell capacity to cover the remaining 9

0% of world energy production - is more interesting.

is going to wipe out valuable real estate on a scale that beggars the inve stment that might stop it, but the market doesn't bother looking all that f ar ahead.

t he does know is all that he - or anybody else - needs to know.

You may like to think that, but your own contact with reality is clearly li mited, and your capacity for argument is down there with krw's - everything that you posted here could be paraphrased as "I don't agree but can't be b othered saying why", if one ignores the rude bits, which are a predictable part of the right-wit nitwit output.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ady

t

there

ey

t e

for this kind of technology.

rgy sources, less happy about paying for any extra cost that might come up along the way.

10 metre sea level rise that is now looking pretty much inevitable, one cou ld see it as poetic justice. Since he will probably be dead before this hap pens, justice will probably be too delayed to be particularly satisfying.

NT is happy to buy the whole denialist snake oil line, but suddenly gets sc eptical when it comes to scientifically established reality.

The denialist snake oil does leave him free to imagine that the future is j ust going to be replay of the past - where right-wingers do like to concent rate their attentions.

NT isn't actually up to pointing out the holes in my arguments - he works o n the principle that since he doesn't like the conclusions there has to be a hole in the connecting logic, but he's perfectly incapable of identifying even one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

everyone chooses not to. That's the reality of what people want.

l propaganda for a couple of decades now - every last bit of it bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry, out of the profits they make out of making climate change even more dramatic.

to be a gullible as John Larkin, if less inclined to post links to denialis t web-sites (or to any kind of traceable evidence - he's as willing to rely on his own built-in misinformation as krw).

-61273

oNick.pdf

are just a few of many sources that document the way the fossil carbon extr action industry has bought NT's easily influenced opinion.

The Murdoch media serve up NT's koolaid - he'd have to make an effort to fi nd out how enthusiastically he is being deluded, and intellectual effort is n't something NT can manage - there doesn't seem to be any kind of intellec t in there to manage it, for a start.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

. e

eady

at

there

hey

at

we

for this kind of technology.

ergy sources, less happy about paying for any extra cost that might come up along the way.

10 metre sea level rise that is now looking pretty much inevitable, one co uld see it as poetic justice. Since he will probably be dead before this ha ppens, justice will probably be too delayed to be particularly satisfying.

John Larkin hasn't realised that sea level rises faster when ice-sheets sta rt slipping off into the ocean in large chunks, as they did at the end of t he last ice age. There were centuries where the sea level went up by 2.5 me tres.

Admittedly, the total sea level rise was 120 metres, and the average rate w as about one metre per century, but there were a lot more ice sheets around , and each one seems to have hit the sliding-off point at a different time.

We've only got two left - the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ic e sheets - but both seem to be getting close to sliding off into the sea.

ml

Only John Larkin could be dumb enough to think that we could go into an new ice age with an atmospheric CO2 level of 400ppm.

The tipping point between ice ages and interglacials is a rather delicate b alance, and 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rather indelicate thumb on the inter-glacial side of the scale.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

solar power stations with big tanks of molten nitrate salts have been buil t - essentially as prototypes - and are generating power. Your idea of viab ility seems to be that if something hasn't already dominated the industry, it hasn't shown itself to be viable.

he

g

to

he

t then? Zero. Here it would not replace a single watt of conventional gener ation. So loads more generating plant & the endless stream of activity that goes to support it, AND more grid capacity.

harging. If you don't know why you're in much the same camp as Bill.

, e

t

f

apacity, and thus will need a huge upgrade. And at the times when the most vehicle are busy driving. And using one of the most expensive sources of po wer. OK.

Photovoltaic power generation isn't the most expensive source around, even though it's only supplying 1% of the world energy demand.

German solar cells were bought before China had tooled up to make them in t en times the volume, so the German costs are out of date, and roughly twice what they ought to be - and Germany isn't a great place to build solar far ms.

The US has some notoriously cloud-free areas rather closer to the equator.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It might be more sensible to compare it with that figure for other experimental aircraft.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

It would :)

NT

.

then any need for subsidy is over.

e the power they generate essentially competitive with fossil fuel burning power stations. It's not as dispatchable. If we upped the volume produced b y a factor of 100 - which is what would be required to let them generate en ough power to supply all our needs, the unit cost per cell would be reduced by a factor of four.

bit of dispatchable back-up generation.

es in manufacturing scale have had precisely this effect.

many around 2000, and again in China more recently - but the investment was recovered rapidly.

it big for venture capitalists. Governments are a bit too susceptible to th e influence of people who are making a lot of money digging up fossil carbo n to be all that interested in making a large investment that will cut the fossil fuel cash flow.

r own research. What do you mean they're not?

able energy generation on a scale that could slow down global warming.

n sums of money into it. One could say that of many things.

ten-fold expansions in solar-cell manufacturing capacity. Both dominated t he market for a few year afterwards, recovering the investment, as their ma nufacturers could make money selling units at half the price of their compe titors, and the market expanded because more people could make money out of cheaper solar cells.

t, but the market clearly exists.

can be said of many things Bill. If only we all had a monstrous pile of mon ey.

d/

90% of world energy production - is more interesting.

or more unrealistic

s, is going to wipe out valuable real estate on a scale that beggars the in vestment that might stop it, but the market doesn't bother looking all that far ahead.

hat he does know is all that he - or anybody else - needs to know.

limited,

ah, more of your childishness

ditto

t can't be bothered saying why",

Pretty much, there is so very much wrong in this thread it would take all d ay just to do one round of replies. Debating with someone that doesn't get it ain't that high a priority, so I'll just stick to the odd comment.

it nitwit output.

You're a bloke with an opinion riddled with holes. And you have unlimited c onfidence in it.

NT

When you actually do know what I think, let us know. Until then you play the fool.

NT

st everyone chooses not to. That's the reality of what people want.

ial propaganda for a couple of decades now - every last bit of it bought an d paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry, out of the profits the y make out of making climate change even more dramatic.

s to be a gullible as John Larkin, if less inclined to post links to denial ist web-sites (or to any kind of traceable evidence - he's as willing to re ly on his own built-in misinformation as krw).

al-61273

rtoNick.pdf

traction industry has bought NT's easily influenced opinion.

find out how enthusiastically he is being deluded, and intellectual effort isn't something NT can manage - there doesn't seem to be any kind of intell ect in there to manage it, for a start.

too childish Bill. Will you grow up ever?