Search results for query: *

I can easily install 4 solar panels on Earth for less cost than you can install 1 in space.

Understood. That is why I only asked to consider what the "fair market value" of such an insurance would be, even if it is not available. For the sake of our comparison, all we need to consider is an estimate of the fair market value.

Would you get your mind out of the gutter, please? We have discussed multiple ways that people could use to humanely restrain the growth of population. You simply ignore it all, and claim there is no option but to go into the gutter. Nobody here is suggesting that we turn the worst tyrants in...

Suppose that we had leveled off at 4 billion people, which is the population we had in 1974. In what sense would that have forced the scientific discovery rate per capita to be lower? In the 60's and 70's many women stayed home or did menial jobs because that is what society expected. Suppose...

Maybe it is. Maybe it can. There are still a lot of questions about how we would do high-temperature industrial heating without high carbon emissions. The ovens and furnaces are integrally tied in to the process. So we need to research the processes with new energy sources, and then rebuild all...

Do you have a source to verify your claim that modern nuclear reactors can be easily throttled to quickly match the instantaneous demand for electricity? Do you have a source to verify your claim that modern nuclear reactors don't need a source of emergency cooling water? Or are you just going...

I agree. In 1968, when The Population Bomb was written, we had 3.5 billion people. We could have chosen to level off near 4 billion. We would be in a far better position now if we had done that. Today, it may well be too late.

No, I did not say power companies must pay all possible damages they might cause in the comparison above. All I asked is each solution "must pay up front all the fair market price of an insurance plan or government program to cover any damages it might cause". So if your solution has one chance...

OK, so if there is half the population science investment might be cut by more than half. It wasn't until 1974 that population reached half of the population it is today. I contend that, even with a much lower population, we still had significant advances in science and technology before 1974.

Oh, so when S&P Global Ratings and Moody's downgrades the credit rating of a company, that's not a sign it is doing poorly?

With that, I think we can wrap this up. Sorry you didn't think my attempt at humor was funny. (There was a laughing smile face at the end of the portion you quoted above.) I hope your future is filled with many economical, safe, environmentally-friendly nuclear reactors. Sadly, I think that...

If you can design a nuclear power plant that can safely make electricity for 10% of the price of an existing coal plant, you would be a very rich man. I dare you to do it. Fine. please write up your design for a cheap nuclear facility that includes a steel and concrete box full of hot nuclear...

LOL! I have talked endlessly about the high cost of energy storage when using wind and solar. I mention it specifically in the opening post. Wind and solar can be competitive when it comes to using them for a small portion of our overall electricity. But if we tried to run the whole grid off...

Your link talks about using molten salt in heat treating and annealing of steel, not in making steel from iron ore. So it doesn't apply to the question I asked. Your link says nothing about getting to the temperature, heat transfer rates, and process conditions needed to make steel from iron...

You suspect wrong. I write: I also posted a link saying it comes out to $0.44 per gallon to capture the carbon from that gas. ( https://iidb.org/threads/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what.27921/page-48#post-1163541 ). That's based largely on estimates with unproven technology. I think it...

Ah, nuclear power is expensive if we assure minimal damage to the environment. But so are other forms of energy. Which is exactly the problem: We have the option of getting energy unsustainably, in which we destroy the planet in the process. And we have the option of doing it sustainably*, in...

I disagree. The reactor itself that makes the steam is much different in a nuclear plant. Once you have steam, yes, the technologies are similar. The expense comes in safely getting that nuclear material to make steam.

Can you explain to me how you would use molten salt as a medium to make steel from iron ore using nuclear energy?

Arithmetic is only as good as the data from which you get your numbers. Again, what is your evidence that, with reasonable changes in regulations, nuclear will cost an order of magnitude less?

I suppose, instead of giving wind and solar the benefit of the doubt, I could have said what I really thought. ;) Anyway, this thread is quite long, and this topic is far too big to throw unto this thread. See this new thread...