Originally Posted by Copperfield

You sound like a man who has invented a new system where cartels and monopolies are disallowed. So let's hear it.

We can't seem to kill them, so the best we can do is hobble them. Sometimes we do that better; other times, worse. But letting them run free is worse still, and that's the new GOP plan.

Even a pitiful something is better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You said it was just "there" and implied that it would be a simple process of signing a treaty before we just go get it.

I simply pointed out that there is nothing "simple" about it. I'm not a pessimist, rather a realist.

OK, Mr Realist, but others are moving ahead. Feel free to pout on the sidelines.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The point is that climate has changed independent of carbon.

Your "point" is a red herring! It doesn't matter what caused previous climate shifts, the current shift IS due to fossil fuel use.

BTW: Carbon dioxide played a key role in all of those other climate shifts as well. It just may not have always been the initiating factor each time.

WE know the sacrifices. Energy prices will skyrocket. Even the president gets that.

So what should we do about it? Energy prices were going to skyrocket anyway as more of the globe shifts towards First World consumption patterns. Climate change is simply an early warning that we need to plan for some big changes in the energy market.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, Mr Realist, but others are moving ahead. Feel free to pout on the sidelines.

I'm not pouting. I genuinely hope that fusion research makes a game changing discovery soon. I want someone to work out a way to make solar panels as easy to install as wallpaper. I'm on the side of science research and policy initiatives to foster solutions!

But, I'm not going to pretend that everything is easily within reach or just around the corner because I want them to be! Take a look at my birth year in my moniker if you want to know why!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

They are anathema because they do not work. Get real. Do you drive a Chevy volt?

Do you ride a horse?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Heat has something to do with temperature. Don't be a pedantic jerk.

Maybe the fact that I understand the difference between the two and all you know is that they have "something" to do with each other should give you pause to consider your other "scientific" claims.

Originally Posted by B Butler

1) Heat is one form of energy. One might meditate on the equation associated with specific heat.

2) I'm not sure if he can help it.

Knowing the difference between heat and temperature when discussing climate change is not being pedantic.

Do mechanics refer to engine parts as doohickeys and thingamabobs? Do they say intake manifold when they mean exhaust manifold? Would you trust a mechanic who told you your whatchamacallit is broken?

Of course, if your response was about the "jerk" part rather than the "pedantic" part, then this response might serve to bolster your statement.

Originally Posted by B Butler

World's fish to get smaller as oceans warm

I'm not saying that this is the major cause of the smaller fish already being observed, but as we were talking about fish sizes a few days ago, I thought I'd throw this up. For discussion purposes...

interesting read. They used two models based on continued high carbon emission rates.

Basically their model predicts that maximum size for an individual fish would be reduced by 10% because of increased oxygen demand (ectotherms) and decreased oxygen supply (oxygen solubility). From a fisheries catch perspective, maximum size for fish in general would be reduced a further 10% because of predicted shifts in species distrubtions latitudinally.

I was already familiar with the physiological response to warmer water from my own experience. Hadn't really thought how redistribution would affect fisheries catch sizes though.

As the authors admit. This is highly simplified and ignores a whole host of other factors that could change the results (natural selection and food web dynamics). Both of those factors have been shown to potentially produce large shifts in maximum sizes.

Still, as a starting point and as a general guideline for further research, it was interesting.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

That's a mighty big "if" in the current political climate.

Obviously, the companies bulding these things (modular reactors) think they have a market for them. We know that the cost of conventional reactors is extremely high, so they may be successful. NG is slowing the demand, though

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

25% of our current demand or 25% of the projected demand? 25% of current demand only covers the projected increase in demand over the next few decades. That wouldn't be enough to take a single current coal plant offline at all. We would continue to emit carbon at our current rate!

Our current demand is about 30% pure waste and roughly 15% avoidable waste. Just attacking the pue waste would allow us to cover demand tofor a long time ... long enough to get fusion on the grid. In the meantime, we can decommission old dirrty coal plants and replace them with better options: fision or NG are the logical choices.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

And how long before it is scalable enough to make an impact? Like I said, fusion is not relevant to our current energy dilemma.

The projected on-grid date is 2035-2040. Allowing for optimism, make that 2045 of even 2050. WHen this takes hold, it will be the end of energy limitations. Hopefully, that won't mean increased waste.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

I think a low-carbon energy system would also be capable of returning huge on initial costs as well. But, look what kind of crisis it took to create that WWII industrial juggernaut. Will climate change be the issue that begins the regeneracy or is it the crisis event at the end of the turning?

If the crops stop growing or something equally dramtic, it will happen fast. If not, it will be gradual but eventually must be addressed. I think the change is now becoming obvious, even to the troglodytes. Maybe that makes addresseing easier. Maybe not.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

Conservation, while important, is at best a way to extend our current energy system. The problem is that our current energy system is already too much for the climate to absorb. Conservation must be combined with alternative technology that significantly reduces emissions.

Unused energyis always best. That we haven't gone all-in on this is, frankly, stupid.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

Ironic choice for an analogy. Von Neumann engines were worked out theoretically at the same time as fusion! Eighty years later Von Neumann tech is everywhere but fusion is not. That's the problem with only understanding through analogy. The details are important. The basic principles involved in controlled fusion are fundamentally much, much more difficult to achieve.

Stars make use of fusion because they are capable of harnessing the weakest fundamental force, gravity, by virtue of scale. Humans, by virtue of our own scale, can not use the same force. We must make due with electromagnetism instead of gravity. That requires that we expend a great deal of energy ourselves just to contain the fusion reaction let alone maintain it.

Fission is fundamentally self-sustaining, if set up correctly. Fusion is fundamentally self-quenching, no matter how you set it up. Controlled fission is child's play when compared to controlled fusion.

Yet no one thought the much easier problem of builidng complex and powerful computing machines was easy either ... to say nothing of the software we've developed to use that power. Fusion is still future technology, but the path is understood - much as Moore understood computing"s future after the microprocessor was launched.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Cartels and monopolies are not disallowed by libertarianism, and both create environments where extortion is possible. Of course, you are free to starve if the price of food is higher than you wish to pay.

Cartels and monopolies only survive where the government protects them unless they continue supplying the bets goods and services and the lowest price. It takes governments to save a crappy enterprise. That includes food.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Then businessmen should give up government protection of their money and property rights, given by the government and enforced by government force.

They should turn over all hiring and firing rights to workers and unions, and in fact should all become employee owned. All wages and working conditions should be made extremely fair, as decided by the workers, with no need for government oversight.

They should never pollute or cause environmental damage in any way. They should make products and services that harm no-one and nothing, and always do what they promise; and if they don't, should immediately and voluntarily give all requested refunds and compensation without any need for legal intervention.

They should forthwith give up all attempts to lobby the government to make it do their bidding.

Protecting people from force and fraud is what governments are for, why we pay taxes. You miss the point.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Abject need, especially when used for the manipulation of people, is force.

Whose need? Don't talk nonsense. Grownups take care of themselves.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What do you think we have paid to subsidize oil and gas over the 100+ years we've been extracting them? How much would that be in 2012 dollars?

It isn't 100,000 dolars a year per job. And you may be old enough to remember to oil and gas got off the floor without Uncle Sam.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You sound like a man who has invented a new system where cartels and monopolies are disallowed. So let's hear it.

I sort of made that point, but that was expliocit

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

That's a mighty big "if" in the current political climate.



25% of our current demand or 25% of the projected demand? 25% of current demand only covers the projected increase in demand over the next few decades. That wouldn't be enough to take a single current coal plant offline at all. We would continue to emit carbon at our current rate!


And how long before it is scalable enough to make an impact? Like I said, fusion is not relevant to our current energy dilemma.



I think a low-carbon energy system would also be capable of returning huge on initial costs as well. But, look what kind of crisis it took to create that WWII industrial juggernaut. Will climate change be the issue that begins the regeneracy or is it the crisis event at the end of the turning?



Conservation, while important, is at best a way to extend our current energy system. The problem is that our current energy system is already too much for the climate to absorb. Conservation must be combined with alternative technology that significantly reduces emissions.



Ironic choice for an analogy. Von Neumann engines were worked out theoretically at the same time as fusion! Eighty years later Von Neumann tech is everywhere but fusion is not. That's the problem with only understanding through analogy. The details are important. The basic principles involved in controlled fusion are fundamentally much, much more difficult to achieve.

Stars make use of fusion because they are capable of harnessing the weakest fundamental force, gravity, by virtue of scale. Humans, by virtue of our own scale, can not use the same force. We must make due with electromagnetism instead of gravity. That requires that we expend a great deal of energy ourselves just to contain the fusion reaction let alone maintain it.

Fission is fundamentally self-sustaining, if set up correctly. Fusion is fundamentally self-quenching, no matter how you set it up. Controlled fission is child's play when compared to controlled fusion.

We were an industrial juggernaut before World War II, and if low carbon energy can return a profit, lets find out without government subsidies.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It isn't 100,000 dolars a year per job. And you may be old enough to remember to oil and gas got off the floor without Uncle Sam.

Actually, oil and gas have been subsidized from the beginning. Here's one that went on for decades: depletion allowances. Typica tax benefits were 27% of extracted product was excluded from taxation, so oil comapies made-out lke bandits whenever petroleum prices rose. Oh yeah, they still do.

Prior to that, most of the subsidies came in the form of near-zero extraction fees on public land. Such contracts still exist today, and Mitt Romney seems to favor more.

Let's admit it; you have to love Exxon-Mobile.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Cartels and monopolies only survive where the government protects them unless they continue supplying the bets goods and services and the lowest price. It takes governments to save a crappy enterprise. That includes food.

No, cartels and monopolies exist where they can. They are the default state. In a competitive environment, do you stop competing when you have 20% of a market, or do you continue until something forces you to stop?

And spare me the argument that they only exist, where they do, because they are great at what they do. This is so obviously false, I have to assume you put this out there as troll bait. But is not, then look at the standard practice of business unconstrained. If I can, and there typically is one competitor in this situation, I'll undersell everyone to capture market share, consolidate in my space, drive out or buy out any stragglers ... and raise prices because I can. If I have a good enough strangle hold, I'll drop quality, too.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It isn't 100,000 dolars a year per job. And you may be old enough to remember to oil and gas got off the floor without Uncle Sam.

Nope, Rockefeller's boom was largely enabled by the subsidized railroads he controlled. Or maybe it was the subsidized national banks that kept giving his shell corporations cheap loans.

Oh well, behind every great monopolist is a cheap politician ready to sell out.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, cartels and monopolies exist where they can. They are the default state. In a competitive environment, do you stop competing when you have 20% of a market, or do you continue until something forces you to stop?

They are not the default state I would suggest that you listen to what Murray Rothbard has to say about them. Come to think of it here is a set of lectures from a course he taught on twentieth-century American economic history. Both J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller spent much of the late-nineteenth century trying to do that and they failed miserably.

Here is an interesting little coincidence that you might want to research. For some strange reason many Morgan and Rockefeller people show up in progressive organizations at that time. If the progressive agenda was so inimical to the interests big business then why did they support it and why did progressives first gain political power in the Republican party. Curiously the Republican party then, as now, was seen as being on the side of big business.

I very much doubt that you will check any of these things out since it will disturb your world view too much.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Yes, and while we here in the Midwest haven't noticed that much difference except for the radially warm March we had this year which brought out the leaves and blossoms a month ahead of schedule, one could look to the desert southwest for proof. A few days ago when I was browsing the weather archives for Phoenix, a half-century ago their 100 degree temps were pretty much over by mid-September, with nights falling into the 60's. Now you don't see that happening until mid-October. It was still 104 for the high there yesterday.

Albuquerque had a high of 87 degrees F yesterday. "Normal" for this time of year is closer to 70.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Whose need? Don't talk nonsense. Grownups take care of themselves.

People in desperation are not free. Much as I hate the garden variety of criminals, I must consider the threat "Your money or your life" from a mugger less objectionable than "Toil for me at my terms or die" ... or even "Toil for me at my terms or get a beating". The first is strong-arm robbery; the latter two are slavery.

Originally Posted by Galen

They are not the default state I would suggest that you listen to what Murray Rothbard has to say about them. Come to think of it here is a set of lectures from a course he taught on twentieth-century American economic history. Both J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller spent much of the late-nineteenth century trying to do that and they failed miserably.

Here is an interesting little coincidence that you might want to research. For some strange reason many Morgan and Rockefeller people show up in progressive organizations at that time. If the progressive agenda was so inimical to the interests big business then why did they support it and why did progressives first gain political power in the Republican party. Curiously the Republican party then, as now, was seen as being on the side of big business.

Murray Rothbard. He lacks widespread authority. Let us remember that people like J. Pierpont Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and John Davison Rockefeller, Jr. saw themselves as agents of progressive and even radical change to the unqualified benefit of humanity. Then they or their agents used brutal methods to suppress any show of working-class dissent.

Cartels are best described as "freedom for me but not for thee".

Originally Posted by Galen

They are not the default state I would suggest that you listen to what Murray Rothbard has to say about them. Come to think of it here is a set of lectures from a course he taught on twentieth-century American economic history. Both J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller spent much of the late-nineteenth century trying to do that and they failed miserably.

The Standard Oil Trust was an odd form of failure, if you ask me. And JP Morgan pretty much controlled banking, too. Remember, you don't have to control everything to set the rules.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

Here is an interesting little coincidence that you might want to research. For some strange reason many Morgan and Rockefeller people show up in progressive organizations at that time. If the progressive agenda was so inimical to the interests big business then why did they support it and why did progressives first gain political power in the Republican party. Curiously the Republican party then, as now, was seen as being on the side of big business.

Rockefeller was a religous man, as were his children and theirs. They supported progressive social causes, but not economic ones ... much like the elite of today.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

I very much doubt that you will check any of these things out since it will disturb your world view too much.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Obviously, the companies bulding these things (modular reactors) think they have a market for them. We know that the cost of conventional reactors is extremely high, so they may be successful. NG is slowing the demand, though

Designing is not building.

Our current demand is about 30% pure waste and roughly 15% avoidable waste. Just attacking the pue waste would allow us to cover demand tofor a long time ... long enough to get fusion on the grid. In the meantime, we can decommission old dirrty coal plants and replace them with better options: fision or NG are the logical choices.

Better use of our current power systems would be a great first step. But, your modular reactors have yet to be licensed in the US as far as I know.

The projected on-grid date is 2035-2040. Allowing for optimism, make that 2045 of even 2050. WHen this takes hold, it will be the end of energy limitations. Hopefully, that won't mean increased waste.

Time frame of first plant to complete switch over will be several decades at best. And, I'll believe that on-grid date when it actually happens.

If the crops stop growing or something equally dramtic, it will happen fast. If not, it will be gradual but eventually must be addressed. I think the change is now becoming obvious, even to the troglodytes. Maybe that makes addresseing easier. Maybe not.

One can hope a general consensus is forming but the hard right has been doing nothing but hardening their positions.

Unused energyis always best. That we haven't gone all-in on this is, frankly, stupid.

It's been historically easier to increase production. Not to mention that many energy municipalities had financial incentive to increase production rather than make better use of current levels.

Yet no one thought the much easier problem of builidng complex and powerful computing machines was easy either ... to say nothing of the software we've developed to use that power. Fusion is still future technology, but the path is understood - much as Moore understood computing"s future after the microprocessor was launched.

You still don't seem to understand the fallacy of your analogy. Both concepts were thought to be out of reach initially. One of them proved to be doable while the other remains out of reach eighty years later. There is a fundamental difference between the concepts. It's not as simple as we want it to happen and therefore it will.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

We were an industrial juggernaut before World War II, and if low carbon energy can return a profit, lets find out without government subsidies.

You are seriously claiming that pre-WWII American production was equivalent to post?

BTW: All of that juggernaut production was possible because of huge government energy projects like the TVA and Hoover Dam.