http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... p+Stories)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/ ... 2Z20131021
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Well, cheap and effective Polywell fusion plants might do it. (And as soon as anybody shows it can be done, you can bet that China will figure out how to do it cheaply, patents or no patents.)Schneibster wrote:They're both sure to build hundreds of coal-fired electric plants. There's not a darn thing anyone can do to stop them.
I'm actually an advocate of technologies that produce fuel by extracting it from the atmosphere, using sunlight. So far there are a handful of technologies: an algae that stores diesel instead of fats or sugars; an E. Coli that excretes gasoline; two different catalysts, one a carbon nanotube structure and the other a heavy metal (maybe a rare earth, I don't remember the details) that both make anything from mixed hexanes up to mazut using sunlight and gray water, and I just saw one last week that makes free hydrogen from raw human sewage, and processes the sewage as well.JoeStrout wrote:Well, cheap and effective Polywell fusion plants might do it. (And as soon as anybody shows it can be done, you can bet that China will figure out how to do it cheaply, patents or no patents.)Schneibster wrote:They're both sure to build hundreds of coal-fired electric plants. There's not a darn thing anyone can do to stop them.
However, barring some game-changing breakthrough like that, I agree, we're going to see a lot more CO2 from China and India (and elsewhere) this century.
What weather are you referring to?choff wrote:Now, now, weather isn't climate.
Never said they were. What they are is global warming gas generators.choff wrote:They're not climate either.
Actually that's a misunderstanding. Coal contains some radioactive elements, but very small quantities because of the enormous time it's been undisturbed underground. What happens is that the radioactive elements get into the flue gas and get concentrated. But even so it's not much. You're at enormously more risk of respiratory and cardiac illnesses because of the air quality.choff wrote:Of interest, long ago on site we had some discussion that coal deposits occur near radioactive mineral deposits. That burning coal actually produces measurable radioactive fallout, and that this could cause cancers just as much as the soot.
That would surprise me. Also, it's radon that's found collecting in basements, not argon.choff wrote:There was also some discussion that coal ash was used in concrete and that Argon from basement cracks actually came from the concrete as well as the ground beneath.
It's a waste to use coal for that when you can make it from air for cheaper.choff wrote:This has since peaked my interest in the Kerrick process and more recent oil from coal techniques.
It would be nice but they're being really, really, really slow. I think there's a big hitch and they're not telling us.choff wrote:I'll be more than happy to see coal, oil and fission replaced by the Polywell, irregardless of whether climate change is real or not.
Bah. "Lets pollute it some more. That'll fix it." That will be popular, not.choff wrote:Just to put my tinfoil hat on for a minute, I've also been looking at websites that say Bill Gates is in charge of a geo engineering project involving chemtrails.
Microsoft has the best marketing, not even close to the best technology.choff wrote:Would you trust the guy who gave us Windows ME to geoengineer the planet.
That would be a No. Some would use much stronger language.choff wrote:Would you trust the guy who gave us Windows ME to geoengineer the planet.
choff wrote:Would you trust the guy who gave us Windows ME to geoengineer the planet.
A blue screen of death in this instance takes on an entirely different meaning.choff wrote:Would you trust the guy who gave us Windows ME to geoengineer the planet.