Re: Creationists Don't Like Other Sciences, Either

In message <45bfb847.33761015@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Luminoso 
<luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:01:22 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:20:58 GMT, luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Luminoso)
>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:29:07 -0600, Jim Lovejoy <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dick C <foo.dickcr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>news:Xns98BF5808B4854dickcrcomcastnet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> Luminoso wrote in talk.origins
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <45b13034.8694484@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Luminoso
>>>>>>><luminoso@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>>>>>>>On 19 Jan 2007 10:07:50 -0800, riplin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Luminoso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    With the ice coming
>>>>>>>>>>    out of the equation there would be a (relatively) rapid
>>>>>>>>>>    temperature increase until the new equilibrium point
>>>>>>>>>>    is reached.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The then is: what is that point, and can we survive it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about surviving, but with trillions of dollars of economic
>>>>>>>losses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Pulling the plug on carbon-based fuels would also result in
>>>>>>    trillions lost ... and a far more rapid ****ft towards Chinese
>>>>>>    industrial domination, since China won't stop using such fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>> What? Do you think that we are all going to get up tomorrow and just
>>>>> stop using fossil based fuels? Stop driving our cars, stop
generating
>>>>> electricity, stop manufacturing our goods? Stop heating our homes?
>>>>> That is not going to happen, and nobody except the  most demented
>>>>> extremists would even consider that. What needs to be done is to
>>>>> invest in research and development of alternative fuels. And that
>>>>> investment will pay off massively, even without global warming.
Simply
>>>>> because we are running out of fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>>I think you are simultaneously overstating the depletion of fossil
fuels,
>>>>and understating the case for looking for viable alternatives to
fossil
>>>>fuels.
>>>>
>>>>Even if we were nowhere near the point of "peak oil" for instance, the
fact
>>>>that so much of the worlds oil production is in the hands of unstable
and
>>>>potentially hostile governments such as in the Middle East, Nigeria,
>>>>Venezuala, Mexico, Canada, and Texas, would make a rational government
>>>>strive to reduce our dependency on oil.
>>>
>>>   I agree, it's a good idea - for political/economic reasons
>>>   even if GW isn't in the equation at all. Alas the big question
>>>   remains - "WHAT alternatives ?".
>>>
>>>   There's nuclear, but I've heard that most of the rich uranium
>>>   ore has already been mined.
>>
>>Nuclear is our current best alternative because it can generate the
>>power to do other things.
>>
>>>
>>>   Hydrogen ? Gotta put more energy IN than you get OUT ... and
>>>   where will that energy come from ?
>>
>>Nuclear.
>>>
>>>   Windmills ? Come ON now ! Besides, complaints about windmill
>>>   farms are already on the rise - look ugly,
>>
>>Many people don't think so.
>>
>>> kill birds,
>>
>>True, but not as common as some would have you think.
>>
>>> make
>>>   weird subsonic noises.
>>
>>To some that is part of their beauty.
>>
>>> Those mills don't grow from seeds
>>>   either ... you've gotta smelt steel and aluminum and copper
>>>   and pound it into shape. Where's the power for THAT come from ?
>>
>>Nuclear.
>>
>>>
>>>   Hydroelectric ? Try to build a new hydroelectric dam in the USA
>>>   and watch the environmentalists kick your idea into the dirt
>>>   because it damages the ecology for some bug or worm of flower.
>>>   You need a BIG lake to go along with any hydro project. Oh
>>>   yea, concrete requires huge amounts of energy to produce.
>>>   Where will THAT come from ?
>>
>>Nuclear.
>>
>>>
>>>   Solar ? Come ON now ! While it sounds good in theory, just
>>>   surf the net and PRICE some of those panels. You'd spend 20
>>>   years making up the price difference between that and power
>>>   created by your local coal-spewing powerplant.
>>
>>For more realistic figures please read
>>http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_new.html
>>
>>>   are still a fairly "high-tech" item requiring very close
>>>   manufacturing tolerances and complex detailed processes.
>>>   It doesn't scale well ... ie the price doesn't go down much
>>>   even if you gear up to produce a hundred times more. The
>>>   BEST cells are 41% efficient - not bad - but those are
>>>   exotic cells SO expensive that they're only suitable for
>>>   spacecraft. The kind YOU buy ... expect 10-15% on a good
>>>   sunny day. Notice how neither price or efficiency has
>>>   changed much in a decade ...
>>
>>Photovoltaic solar energy is far from being the only form.
>>>
>>>   Tides ? Waves ? Again the eco-nuts will attack like angry
>>>   seagulls. Also, the mechanical aspects of the technology
>>>   are very iffy. Generators would take a real pounding and
>>>   you've got to get the electricy and/or hydrogen out of
>>>   any offshore generators. Surf can get BAD.
>>
>>But it is doable. With wind power it can represent 20-30% of the UK's
>>needs.
>>
>>[snip the rest, I'm just to lazy to reply]
>
>
>   You seem really keen on the 'nuclear option'.
>
>   Within bounds, I tend to agree. Except for very
>   localized contamination that's pretty easy to
>   deal with, nuclear is a 'clean' energy source.
>
>   However, the old-style reactors MUST be taken
>   off line, especially any graphite-moderated
>   designs similar to the Chernoybl reactor.
>
>   The best thing in nuclear energy is the "pebble bed"
>   reactor design. Last time I checked the "pebbles"
>   (carbide-ceramic spheres containing uranium and
>   moderator) were just about ready for prime time.
>   The PB design is "inherently safe". If the cooling
>   water disappears the spheres may get white hot but
>   the ceramic won't melt. If terrorists manage to
>   blast the core the spheres un-pack, scatter, and
>   the reaction dies out.
>
>   Handling and trans****ting used spheres is MUCH
>   safer than dealing with corroded metallic fuel
>   rods plus the "used" spheres still can be re-
>   processed and a fair amount of fissile material
>   recovered and recycled. Old weapons-grade plutonium
>   could also be used, and thus "burnt up", although
>   that may be a security problem.
>
>   An additional bonus ... since the design is
>   intrinsically safe, most of the multi-level
>   redundancy and safety features used in current
>   reactors can be eliminated. This makes the
>   plant much cheaper to build and maintain.
>
>   And the waste ? Not really a problem. Store it
>   ABOVE GROUND, where it's inspectable and won't
>   be leeching into groundwater, inside the
>   perimeters of large MILITARY bases. Automatic
>   security at no extra cost.
>
>   As for the other 'alternative' energy sources I
>   mentioned, solar-thermal and tapping river flows
>   seem to be the best, cheapest and most do-able.
>
I have recently read (from different sources) that the energy demands of 
both Australia and the USA could be met by geothermal power.
-- 
alias Ernest Major