Comments by "mpetersen6" (@mpetersen6) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

Earth is the Center of the Universe. The Observable Universe that is.
34
Call me old fashioned. Call me a reactionary. Call me whatever you want. But if you get to call me those things l get an opinion too. 1) I am completely against encouraging minors to begin tranisitioning early. 2) I am completely of the opinion that any transitioning up to and including surgery should not be done without comprehensive medical and psychological evaluation. 3) Any individual opting for this must be made thoroughly knowledgeable of sny medical and or psychological risks of said procedures and treatments. As well as signing off on multiple approval documents that are notarized. 4) The primary focus of any psychological or psychiatric therapy for any individual should focus on seeing if the individual can maintain their birth gender while still maintaining a healthy mental state. One other thing that needs to be understood by everyone. No matter how many hormone treatments an individual undergoes. No matter how many surgeries an individual undergoes said individual is still genetically be the gender they were born as. All they will ever be is an imitation of the gender they are assuming. Perhaps in the future medical science will allow an individual to fully transition from one gender to another. But if medical science ever reaches that point curing diseases and healing injuries will be childs play. PS, i am completely opposed to allowing transgender athletes from competing in competitive sports in the gender they are transitioning too assuming. Most males if they are transitioning and have already been engaged in competitive sports are going to have an unfair advantage in physical strength and speed. I refuse to see womens sports be thrown under the bus just to cater to a small minority of individuals.
19
For all the hype about battery banks etc I find I am more in favor of mechanical storage systems. One reason is they are already developed. These break down into two types. The first is flywheels. I'm sure there is room for improving efficiency but they are a currently (no pun intended) available technology. The second is gravity batteries. Today this mostly means pumped hydro. But pumped hydro isn't going to work in all locations. Either because of the topography. Or simply because the excess water might not be available. Another type of gravity battery is simply a large mass turning a generator as it falls. And no I do not mean that idiotic idea they were demonstrating in Switzerland. Instead have a tower enclosing 4 vertical shafts. In the shafts you have a box containing say 500 metric tons of sand. 1 million kg. That's around 1600kg per cubic meter. 625 cubic meters of sand. In a box 8.5 meters on a side. Build your tower whatever height you want. Install your motor/generator set not at the top of the shaft as in an elevator installation. But at or bear ground level. It just makes servicing easier. OK, you now you have four shafts grouped together in a square 20 to 30 meters on a side. If you build this in an urban center wrap the tower with office space, shops, apartments, what ever. These offer rental income. Is it elegant? Maybe not. But at say 50% efficiency I could live with that. Hell, even at 25% it looks attractive. How much energy would be stored in 500 metric tons raised to a height of 100 meters. The only other potential battery system I can see that is possible to put into widespread use is some sort of Thermal Battery. For home or individual apartment energy storage one idea that sounds good provided it works out is the iron/air battery. It offers the possibility of an individual battery about the size of a standard washing machine being able to provide power for up to 60 hours.
11
@KevinBalch-dt8ot I remember in the 1970s or early Jerry Pournelle said nuclear proved to be a great way to generate electricity. However proved to be an even greater way to employ lawyers. It's the time factor that proved to be the biggest factor in increasing plant costs. Time spent in court.
3
The best way to reduce demand is through increased efficiency. Telling or forcing people to reduce their standard of living can cause a certain amount of pushback. Plus this is a problem we need to solve. Energy usage in developing countries is going to increase. Or do we tell those people. Sorry its eternal poverty for you.
3
@31ofranz The only reliable ways to decrease a societies energy usage in all forms is either through 1) an absolute dictatorship or 2) population reduction. There are ways we should be reducing our energy usage. Number one is efficiency. But there is only so much to gain there in terms of electricity use. And as more and more EVs get registered electricity needs will go up. If a region has rolling brownouts or blackouts now. It doesn't take a genius to understand what happens when you add EVs into the mix. The other major energy field where we can see reduced energy usage is in structure heating and or cooling. Any one who owns their own home or has rental property where they are paying the bill even if the renters covers covers the cost. They are foolish if they don't do more to weatherize their homes. Personally I think building codes should be changed to require new construction to be built to such standards that heating and cooling costs are reduced.
3
I can accept the multiverse. A new universe spawning off of everyday or cusp events? No. What is this? Multi Person Solipsism? Classical reference.
2
@RaphaelBraun The energy required for mining and processing materials. One figure I've seen is for a 1000 lbs battery pack for an EV you need to process about 500,000 lbs of raw materials.
2
@hubbsllc Worth doing? Hell, I dont know. Can we realistically build enough actual battery storage facilities along with all of the batteries that would be required to replace all of the current ICE powered cars and trucks. Is society willing to accept the mining that might be needed to supply all the rare earth materials required. If we go full on renewables are we going to be willing to devote the required space to the Solaror wind farms needed. I suspect that if you proposed a very large Solar facility in the deserts of the American Southwest there would be some group willing to file lawsuits to stop it. In reality we do not suffer from a lack of available energy sources. I would prefer to see us move away from fossil fuels as it becomes feasible.
2
Probably come out as "Feed Me!!"
2
Personally l think we are closer to practical fusion today than 20 years ago. By 20 years anyways. In reality some of the reactor designs today are far better than 20 years ago. Why? Material Science and the efforts being put into developing products that can actually use some of the research into higher temperature Superconductors. This means smaller magnets as in the MIT design that use less power while generating stronger magnetic fields. But the only way fusion willbe a game changer is if reactors that can produce usable power is if they are small enough to be economically buildable. PS It is my opinion that some national fusion efforts are more focused on generating research papers than generating electricity.
1
@Skyl3t0n Well, my ego isn't quite big enough to claim to be THE center of the Universe.
1
Nuclear was far more efficient at employing lawyers.
1
Another that I have seen used (1) is "the rubber sciences" 1) Used by Dr Jerry Pournelle. MS Socialogy, PhD Political Science. This was in the 70s.
1
I'm going to throw out why aren't we using more geothermal. Pretty much inexhaustable on a geologic timeline. Also in terms of Solar what about Ocean Thermal facilities that use the temperature differential between surface and deeper water to generate power. If we don't use them for onshore power what about using it for desalination plants?
1
Pick-up trucks with bumper stickers (1). Or V-8 and V-12 Mercedes, M Series BMWs or high output Porsches going flat out on the Autobahn. 1) And i do think that there are far too many people driving full size pick-ups that have zero use for them.
1
The biggest hurdle small reactors would have is regulatory. At least in the US. Imagine 50 different states having different regulations and then municipalities getting into n on the act.
1
String Theory has been unified into the Ball of String Theory 😖
1
Pumped hydro is great in the right setting. In reality is nothing but a hydro electric facility were you fill it during low demand hours. But you need the right topography (and the water). In some settings it might require enclosed basins. In areas along sea coasts or even large inland bodies of water water is not an issue. I think the idea of gravity batteries has merit. And that's what pumped hydro is. A gravity battery. While the idea of massive banks of chemical batteries sounds elegant. To me it sounds like an environmental disaster from the production and recycling standpoint. Plus what would the operating life be? Myself I would rather see a brute force approach using simple technologies. Using standardized designs would allow a gravity battery employing large masses. Say 500 metric tons of sand. Doing so would mean we could build these basically on an assembly line using modular components. 500 metric tons of sand is a cube roughly 8.55 meters on a side (1). Sand is cheap (any readily available mass could used). Steel is relatively cheap. Enclose the box containing the sand in basically an elevator shaft. Group four shafts together. Install the lifting motor and generators at ground level. It makes servicing easier. The four shafts form a square say 20 meters on a side. If built in or near an urban area wrap the exterior with office space, shops or living space. This provides an extra revenue source. Is this the most efficient thing we could do. Maybe not. But what would the potential operating life of such a system be.
1
@hubbsllc The main point I was driving at (poorly) was if we were to use gravity batteries include them into structures we are already building. Or could be building.
1
I'll get behind H2 when its used in fusion plants. We can use it right now in Solar applications.
1
Admitting you fudged the numbers does wonders for your credibility.
1
For a solid mass driven gravity battery it would make far more sense to use a moderate to higher density material in large box in an enclosed shaft. 500 metric tons of sand would fit in a cube roughly 8.55 meters on a side. The idea with all the individual blocks is idiotic. Sand is 1520 to 1680 kg per cubic meter. Install your gravity batteries in the interior of urban high rises. Say four per building. Wrap the exterior with office space, shops and residential. You get an extra income stream from the exterior space. The lifting and generating machinery you install at or near ground level. It makes servicing easier.
1
Subway tunnels? I doubt it. Current tunneling tech works pretty well. Even if tomorrow we went 100% renewables (1) the oil industry is not going to go away. Too useful or other things. Coal isn't going to completely disappear either. Not unless we have a way to completely replace coke in the steel making process. But if we can get most of the transportation and all of the energy segment out of the equation then CO2 output should be manageable. 1) One segment of transportation that is going to be hard to get away from hydrocarbons completely is aviation. H2 takes too much volume for fuel tanks and electric 777s. Yah, right. But one segment of aviation we can replace is short haul flights with High Speed Rail. HSR might have slower trip times but less time involved in arriving at the airport etc. But even then I don't think you can replace all short haul flights with HSR. In some cases the traffic density simply isn't there.
1
The point of the Universe is 47. And male nipples have a purpose. Erogenous Zones
1