Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "TED" channel.

  1. David McFarland My arguments aren't about any specific reactor or generation of reactors and you know that. You keep trying to erect that strawman, but that isn't my claim. I claim that every reactor so far has bankrupted its owner operators and cost more for power than any renewable ever has. I see the high powered technology and technical expertise to run them and the exotic materials to build them as far too costly compared to renewables, prices for which are dropping like a rock, and when prices for nuclear can only seem to rise and rise and cost overruns are swept under the rug with bankruptcies and bail outs. We don't need nuclear. The sun and wind provides several orders of magnitude more energy than our current consumption, if we use it, and it will free us from centralized greedy corporate empires based on enriching a plutocratic class at everyone's expense.
    1
  2. Well, I do, I'm a physicist, and I KNOW it's not safe!
    1
  3. Modern wind turbines feather their props to adapt to any wind speed.
    1
  4. Golden Bird Correction. Electrolysis breaks water into H2 and O2. And it is extremely wasteful of electricity. Batteries are more efficient storage.
    1
  5. Golden Bird Yeah. Hydrolysis is when water breaks ionic salts into their ions.
    1
  6. Golden Bird Same thing. The correct terminology is hydrolysis.
    1
  7.  @wrongway1100  Do you mean Custer? Moron.
    1
  8. Christopher Willis But "exteralities" is not even a word. And you're probably lying, this information is public and cannot BE refuted.
    1
  9. Christopher Willis No, wind doesn't use more cement. They are using deep shaft earth anchors with only a minimal footing these days. They found that was faster to build than all that concrete work. And in any case, renewables are cheaper per kW-hr.
    1
  10. Abdulai Bah Yup.
    1
  11. Logan Mainord Another liar who says he knows the future, especially with Trump!
    1
  12. Thomas Milburn How many solar accidents have there been? Hmmm?
    1
  13. David McFarland Nonsense. You'd have to include truck accidents delivering them.
    1
  14. Christopher Willis Yes, as regards absolute mortality. But as regards potential damage to the environment of the required mining and accidents and spills rendering miles of land uninhabitable, renewables beats nuclear significantly. I know the modern reactors are safe, but that's what they said about earlier reactors. If instead of lead in the water, Flint Michigan had found a low level of radiation? In areas where mine tailings and refinement waste is stored this is a possibility for the future. Not so with renewables. There are no solar or wind "accidents" or toxicity questions. And solar and wind are both considerably cheaper per Watt generated.
    1
  15. Christopher Willis Whatever some sick Chinese profiteers do is irrelevant, although such rumors appear to be unfounded. But modern solar cell makers have factories that are totally closed systems, they are regarded as the cleanest of all other industries. Most are a total cleanroom environment, and only the tiniest amounts of dopants are used, in fact dopant is conserved religiously. Other chemicals are contained and not released unless neutralized and benign. The only "widespread and damaging" for solar and wind is in the NIMBY/BANANA imagination. NIMBY= Not in my back yard BANANA= Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
    1
  16. Christopher Willis But much much less and much more benign for solar and wind. And the Chinese pollution rumors, near as I can tell, as studying China is one of my pursuits, are both dated from their plastics industries a couple decades back, and don't apply to their solar plants.
    1
  17. That's the delusion of the denier, that "gee, these little energies are incapable by themselves, but we can give them a seat at the kids' table and they can plug a few holes". Actually wind by itself could meet all our energy needs, and solar all by itself can easily do it, and tidal and wave power is tens of times greater than we need, and geothermal is monstrous as well, but let's not admit that to anybody, or we might lose our investments in fossil fuels. What an asshole.
    1
  18. It depends on the terrain more than the latitude. In the far north it can be clear weeks on end, and above the arctic circle you can have continuous sun for half a year. Whereas at some 40 lat. degree coastlines it is socked in lots of the day for months. At high latitudes you point the panel at the sun, and you only have the shallow shot through the atmosphere to worry about, but that isn't totally limiting. If you need twice as many panels, so what?
    1
  19. Is that what stoners call people who know better and want to control their lives? How quaint.
    1
  20. Thanks for that. YT's syntactic rules are a mystery. Here's one: wikipedia. org see: Luminous_efficacy and see: #Examples_2 which is the listing for "Light-emitting diode" "Theoretical limit". It speaks of 260.0 to 300.0 lumens/Watt. Thanks, good to keep us all honest.
    1
  21. They're getting more efficient as we speak and some of the low yield are coming down the fastest. Remember, Germany has worse sun than Seattle, and they're doing it. And desert plants can feed an improved grid. Solar will have a plurality in 20 years, and a monopoly in 40. - A Physicist
    1
  22. Is this Hans Rosling's daughter?
    1
  23. 3) We now know that just using glass and masonry we can build homes that heat themselves! People didn't know that then, they spent months chopping firewood!! They used to throw their feces out the window in England, but since we now know it's valuable chemically, for fertilizer and chemicals, we save it and treat it and re-use it.
    1
  24. You just want to smoke it. Many biofuel stocks are superior to hemp. Why do ignorant stoners always pipe up with this hemp crap.
    1
  25. I see PV's, I see wind farms. Where is this guy's working prototype? Fusion may be the distant future, but it isn't now or any time soon, and it's irresponsible to promote it when the things that will work go wanting for support. We have enough solar to last 4 billion years and solar thermal is already under 5 cents a kWhr. Wave energy is also enormous, so is wind. Together we could quadruple our energy use and these would easily meet it. Fusion is totally uncertain as to feasibility and cost.
    1
  26. Quite right, I was using a theoretical upper limit (43%) for white LEDs (blue on sapphire with yellow fluorescent) that you can see here: phys dott org news202453100 dott html
    1
  27. 2) We could have computers just burning wood, they use so little energy now!! And that would be doing it the hard way. Our homes are now insulated, people didn't used to know what that was, they were guessing! They burned oils for light that were 2% efficient at doing that, instead of 50% like an LED that lasts virtually forever.
    1
  28. He's whining. He doesn't realize yet that the only way to achieve change is to kill the rich. He's stuck inside the box.
    1
  29. The criticism of TW reactors is that while slightly less expensive than current LW reactors, the waste storage upon decommisioning is horrendous, and the cost of operation and construction is much greater than fossil fuels and even greater than solar and wind, which are now virtually equal to fossil costs or even competitive, see SciAm article "Will Solar Challenge Natural Gas". We don't need a nuclear fallback, we can make do just fine with solar and wind tidal/wave geothermal and conservation.
    1
  30. The bible is total and complete horsecrap.
    1
  31. 4) Most of the improvements in longevity come from simple public health measures born solely of knowledge, what to eat, bathing, quarantining disease instead of mysticism and terror. Most of what we have now that makes our lives easier is knowledge, and that isn't going to just go away, never has, not if people remained organized and worked together. This fellow's grasp of what "growth" is is a short-sighted Wall Street economist's view, however what was handed to us was done so by fossil fuel.
    1
  32. No thanks, stoner.
    1
  33. Simple, a liar is known when she tries to ply this old debunked bullshit on TED.
    1
  34. 6) We don't NEED to consume merely to please a wealthy shareholder that he is snatching yet another slice of what we actually work for and he didn't. We aren't believing his media anymore, this is why so-called "growth" has slowed, the Net offers better fare than his 500 channels, and more information about what's REALLY going on. Growing a garden is a lot more fun than Acapulco ever was. Being self-reliant is where the world is heading, while keeping and expanding our Internet so we know more!
    1
  35. 1) We don't have to match the way we have done things up to now. We have far better ways of doing most all those things, ways that use less energy, or less human energy, or less complexity, and most of it resides in electronics and our knowledge base, and the electronics takes a very tiny fraction of our energy consumption to maintain and improve.
    1
  36. No thanks, stoner.
    1
  37. No thanks, stoner.
    1
  38. You 1) don't need to use only your roof. The grid is going to be piping it in from wind farms and desert plants. 2) You don't need to drive 40 miles to work and back, and you don't need to leave the street lights and store lights on all night in major cities either, use smart detectors and LED pulse modulated lighting that's only on when someone is there. Super-insulate, and begin arranging our homes to be passively solar heated.
    1
  39. Or how about somebody ten years from now when gas is $15 a gallon and either has to work at home or within bicycle distance from work? What about someone who has to take off a couple days for his collective to get the hydroponic bean harvest and drying canning done? Or how about the person who has to help launder clothes because the suns out that day after days of clouds and their laundry equipment runs on solar? You need a more eclectic view of the workplace in the next thirty years.
    1
  40. Okay, but it has all of it there, and that entry *IS* 43% efficiency, which IS 260 < 294 < 300 lumens/Watt, as YOU required it be, a 43 percent fraction of 294/683 lumens/Watt, where 683 is 100%.
    1
  41. 5) We brute forced things with extravagant uses of energy in a way we stopped doing thirty or more years ago. We have gotten steadily more energy efficient by many percent per decade for the last several decades. And in that sort of thing lies actual "growth", and not in the GDP that makes chiefly makes the rich richer. We have discovered the rich don't deserve what they get, and like the Internet with a bad node in it, we are now slowly routing around them and their world pilfering ways.
    1
  42. Fucking word salad! Useless pursuit of masses of well-know garbage.
    1
  43. Raising bison, deer, and the countless other species on land planted with nut trees and food forests will yield meat and nuts, fruit, and veg and a balanced diet. It also eliminates extinctions. Cattle are the problem, that and the energy infrastructure required for them. None such is needed for bison, deer, ibex, etc. Use the world as you find it and you keep the world. Veganism is a dead end that deforests the world. Mass meat farming does the same, the goats have made the mideast a desert.
    1
  44. Yes, the estimate is less than half the roofs, actually, but it will take 20 years to make that many PV panels. We need wind and thermal solar plants as well, and most important is conservation, reducing transport miles, making vehicles MUCH lighter, and reducing exterior lighting, and solarizing and insulating homes, and installing ground source geothermal.
    1
  45. Hahahahah! Look up "hemp" on Wikipedia!! Hahahahahah!
    1
  46. It's NOT fear, it's the COST!! Nuclear of ANY kind costs 4-5 times MORE per kW-hr than renewables!! And as usual, it funnels money to rich people, and overcharges the poor and everyone to get rich! Couple that with Fukishima and it's a loser for everybody!
    1