View Single Post
Old 03-06-2019, 07:10 PM   #5320 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
freebeard's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 19,721
Thanks: 5,532
Thanked 6,478 Times in 5,209 Posts
Originally Posted by aerohead
The question is,if this current demand is reduced,while still providing the same effects,and we replaced the current 'prime movers' for electrical production, with a substitute,do we need as much available power as currently required?
It's a simple question.
Ignore everything else for the moment,and just concentrate on this one thought: If the demand is reduced,and you're going to replace the source of the supply with something else,do you need to provide as much capacity as before?
This avoids the problem that the rhetorical lists have. One good reason is better than lots of reasons. Lots of reasons is a red flag.

Reduce demand and increase technological iteration. That might get us out of a bind.

Think of all the things we don't do now for lack of energy.

*The telluric currents aren't attributed with any coupling with the climate.
*There are specific mechanisms associated with clouds in the literature.
I don't have that with me.I don't recall any mention of an 'iris' effect.I'll try for Saturday with the data.
The Iris Hypothesis is a recent proposal. Telluric currents are associated with earthquakes and volcanoes.

Originally Posted by redpoint5
Breeder reactors don't use water and they can use the nearly unlimited supply of depleted uranium left over from the cold war, naval power reactors and commercial enrichment.
Mark Schneider said that water is the problem. It's under pressure and under heat it disassociates the hydrogen. Molten salt or lead don't.

The Earth's Geocorona extends beyond the moon.

"Hello wonderful person...."
Conclussion: a realization that smacks you upside the head

"Anything is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough" --AvE

Last edited by freebeard; 03-06-2019 at 07:22 PM..