Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Apr 24, 2018 3:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Oct 12, 2015 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
There are only a few countries on this planet that could level out fluctuating solar or wind energy with hydro. It requires hydro plants with a large reservoir.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 13, 2015 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cleveland, OH
Since this thread is a bit off track, here is the media story that lead me to Dr. Evan's work: http://www.news.com.au/national/western ... 7555674611

Perhaps this story will be easier for some to read rather than plowing through the 10 (and counting) articles at sciencespeak.com.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2015 3:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2228
The observations on temperature and CO2 are there but my gut feeling never agreed with the associated panic. In my postings I have generally put a moderate view on both these sets of observations. It appears that mathematics has found a view in my agreement.
CO2 has always been there along with its variations. I have felt that the global greenhouse should be harvested by growing suitable crops for food and fuel. Thing to worry about are particulate matter and sulfur and other poisons. Nuclear energy can be a great help. It could even be used for underground gasification and cleaning of gas before use.
A few centimeters rise in centuries of sea level is nothing to worry about. Sea level varies by more than a meter at any place twice daily. Local availability of potable water is really crucial. All energy including nuclear can help. Geoengineering may also be required.
Peaking of fossil fuels may be a more important reason for control rather than CO2 levels. Easy oil has reduced and squeezing of rocks has begun in the US, the first source of oil.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2015 6:25 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 129
I doubt that Dr Evans' work will revolutionise the science - he postulates that blocking of outgoing infrared by increased CO2 will cause an increase in transmission via the ' water vapour pipe '. Since his degree is in electrical engineering, the comparison to feedback in electrical circuits might appeal to him, but it makes no sense to me - WV molecules will be at the same temperature as the N2 and O2 surrounding them, and if there's more of them, they'll insulate better, lower the altitude at which outgoing IR escapes to space, and so warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere - exactly what's been happening. ( For years, Drs Spenser and Christy at the University of Alabama maintained that surface measurements of higher temperatures were contradicted by satellite data, and must be wrong. Eventually another team pointed out to them that their satellites' orbital decay meant that the observations had been gradually drifting to earlier, and so cooler, times of day. Plus the polar regions, which aren't covered by the satellites, have been warming about three times as fast as the rest of the planet.)
The last three decades have each been the warmest recorded to date. Dr Evans runs a 'climate skeptic ' blog with his wife, Jo Nova ( nee Codling ), who has a B.Sc in microbiology, and used to run a children's TV show for Shell. They receive some funding from the Heritage Foundation. They predict that world temperatures should drop sharply over the next ten years. Don't put money on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2015 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 129
Update - Dr Evans has put money on it! $6,000 ( presumably Australian ) that ' warming will slow over the next two decades.' I hope he's right, but I'm pretty sure he won't be, barring major eruptions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2015 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
E Ireland wrote:
Energy storage by batteries is always going to be hopelessly economic. $100/kWh is still far too expensive

That's because you demand many months worth of storage. That's unrealistic. It might actually be necessary for a small island that could get a no wind spell in the middle of winter, but for large continents its much cheaper to just have reasonable transmission lines instead.
Again, I hope affordable nuclear happens. But betting on technology and MSR to resolve a political/PR/lobbying mess isn't going to cut it. They can always do the European style special anti nuclear taxes to keep nuclear out of the market.
The only presidential candidate that had anything to say about nuclear power was Jim Webb, democrat. 0% chance of him getting the nomination for the general election. Which Republican running for president has a clear pro nuclear message ?
Guys the problem is huge.
You need to go out to places the anti nuclear lunatics gravitate and engage. I know, unpleasant, but it has to be done.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2015 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cleveland, OH
I am hardly an apologist for Dr. Evans, and I do not believe in "assertion by credentials" but he does have six degrees and works with models, feedback loops, etc. The systems and controls mathematics are the same/similar whether it is a RLC circuit(s), spring-mass-dampener, or a variety of models (stock market, climate, etc.). Even the schematic symbols for RLC circuits and spring-mass-dampeners are similar, such as a resistor compared to a spring. As a side note, the equations/math for fluid flow and heat flow are likewise similar/same.

But back to the topic of models, this interview by The Register with Freeman Dyson shows his skepticism about the climate models, their predictions, and the effects of CO2: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11 ... interview/

Should be interesting if Evans can publish his version of a climate model where it can make falsifiable predictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 15, 2015 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 129
The clincher for the greenhouse gas case isn't the models - ( they say all models are wrong, but some are useful ) - it's the history. The ice cores especially, for the last million years; they've measured carbon and methane from gas bubbles, and the levels of the three carbon isotopes in each of them, but also ratios between O16 and O18, and between hydrogen and deuterium, for temperatures and extent of ice cover, ash for eruptions, beryllium for cosmic ray intensities, and they've done it at a dozen places in Greenland and Antarctica, plus mountain glaciers all over the world, including some which won't even exist in a few years. The CO2/temperature link is unequicocal, over about forty episodes of glaciation and melting, if you go back past the oldest Vostok cores by using sediment data from lakes as well.
Older strata give the same story, most worryingly at times where sharp rises in CO2 coincided with multi degree heating and mass extinctions, such as at the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 56 million years BP. If you go way back, 600 million years, before any life we'd recognise, you get a few times when CO2 was hundreds of times higher than today, but there were glaciers at the equator. Lord Christopher Monckton claims this invalidates GHG theory, but in fact it strengthens it. A much dimmer sun, coupled with an ice-albedo planet which reflected nearly all of that radiation, but it would seem that greenhouse gas effects could still drag it out of the icebox. Along with other evidence, it shows that states of ' punctured equilibrium ', where short term positive feedbacks can overwhelm long term negative ones, are common. The benign climate of the last eight thousand years is not set in stone. I've got a bit of time for Freeman Dyson - ' Disturbing the Universe ' is one of my favourite books - but this guy is a bit closer to the the data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_-8u86R3Yc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 30, 2015 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Oct 06, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Cleveland, OH
Well, I can agree that "the map is not the territory" i.e. the models are not reality. However, I do not agree that the proxy data that you cite (tree rings, ice cores, etc.) has enough fidelity to be a 'clincher'. Also, there is some doubt about the causality of "CO2 rises then temperatures rise" - there are some that make the case that temperature rise causes the CO2 to rise. And proxy data is not going to show which came first, it can show general trends only.

It should be fun to see how Evan's alternative model turns out; does it make similar predictions as existing models or opposite predictions or ??? If the model can take year 1900 climate data and make useful predictions of year 2000 climate (w/o "fudge factors") - then it should be considered seriously. Perhaps it can also be used to explain the proxy data that we do have, as well; but I think the Milankovitch cycles and solar output variations would need to be considered at those time scales.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group