It can't be that you can't let go so I must be kidding.
I meant that we want to transition to fusion in the long term but we need to rely on thorium, other nuclear, green, and other power technologies until we actually have fully operational fusion power infrastructure supporting all of our power use.
The prediction for possible commercial fusion power right now is 2050 but that is a rough estimate. Prototype fusion power plants may be built around 2030 to 2040 or so. The first research reactors including ITER are supposed to start their operations around 2018 or so.
You use a word to start some vitriol while ignoring the context of the word and the rest of the sentence.
I agree with you regarding thorium and nuclear reactors as these technologies are proven. However, although hopeful...I'm not nearly as optimistic about ITER as you seem to be.I meant that we want to transition to fusion in the long term but we need to rely on thorium, other nuclear, green, and other power technologies until we actually have fully operational fusion power infrastructure supporting all of our power use.
The prediction for possible commercial fusion power right now is 2050 but that is a rough estimate. Prototype fusion power plants may be built around 2030 to 2040 or so. The first research reactors including ITER are supposed to start their operations around 2018 or so.
and fusion has been around the corner forever.
However, although hopeful...I'm not nearly as optimistic about ITER as you seem to be.
Kleptocrat Brain Defect?
It's just that the technical challenges appear to be overwhelming at this point for ITER. From a political perspective it appears that the Senate wants to withdraw from ITER and the House wants to increase funding.I am hopeful although not certain about anything.
I am hopeful although not certain about anything.
It's just that the technical challenges appear to be overwhelming at this point for ITER. From a political perspective it appears that the Senate wants to withdraw from ITER and the House wants to increase funding. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/PT.5.1022
I see more hope in the local production of power both as a means of reducing the need for long distance transmission lines that will need to be built, and the national security provided by having millions of eggs spread out instead of single huge targets. I also find the notion that the sun that shines on my roof is where my power comes from an emotionally satisfying feeling. I don't like the notion of producing toxins that kill for thousands of years so I can have a warm bath today. I look at science divorced from feeling as monstrously dangerous to civilization.
His uncertainty is ridiculous. He is basically arguing that because the damage could be anywhere from really bad to utterly catastrophic that we should not act. There is no non-terrible band in his uncertainty. Therefore the way forward is clear.
This is simply another step in the steady retreat of climate denialists. In and of itself this is a good step forward though.
Yes! Tax the air people breathe and all other kinds of things gaseous-form related! That's the solution!
That's the solution! Sure!
:sneaky:
Meanwhile, natural gas-fired generation is projected to grow 3.1 percent a year through 2038, adding 348,000 MW of gas-fired capacity to the U.S. grid, according to a report released last month by Black & Veatch. Most, if not all, of that capacity will be met with CCGT technology. Natural gas-fired combined cycle plants are expected to account for 50.5 percent of U.S. power production by 2038, up from 25 percent this year, according to the report. By 2038, coal’s share of the generation pie will drop to 21 percent, down from 39 percent in 2014.
In its 2014 outlook, the Energy Information Administration said natural gas will overtake coal as the dominant source of power generation by 2035. That’s a significant change compared with EIA’s 2013 outlook, which projected coal would account for most of the nation’s power production through 2040.
http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/climate-change-skeptics-call-out-marchers-hypocrisies/
Somehow this doesnt seem too green 2me, Kreutzer tweeted.
He and other critics of the Peoples Climate March called the protesters hypocrites for wasting paper and burning fossil fuel in getting to the big event.
The hypocrisy varies from person to person, economist Kreutzer, 61, told The Post. The ones that fly in on private jets are the most hypocritical.
Powerful international partnerships with China, Brazil, and India could deal with this. They have the growing economies right now and we are yelling about what to do with the already existing pollution right now when the industry in China and particularly India are going to start releasing massive pollution. China already is and although they are now starting to lower their pollution it will take years to accomplish that.
Due to the cheap natural gas prices Combined Cycle plants will be the way most power companies and municipalities will be going for power production for some time to come.
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2014/02/a-report-on-combined-cycle-projects-in-north-america.html
What exactly does the global "partnership" deal with?
You do know it is too late to do anything about the increase of CO2. Water vapor the main green house gas has a cycle of seven to fourteen days, CO2 is in the hundreds of years. Any use of fossil fuels will only increase the amount in the atmosphere.
Rising sea level is one of the most serious consequences of global warming. In the past 50 years, sea level rose about 1.8 (plus or minus 0.3) millimeters a year. Satellite observations since 1993 indicate the pace has accelerated to about 3 millimeters per year. Whats driving the acceleration? How much and how fast will sea level rise in the future? In trying to answer these questions, scientists repeatedly tried to balance the sea level budget, and they repeatedly came up short.