Starship Asterisk*

GaryR wrote:What I don't understand about the spent fuel rods is why they are stored at all instead of being used to generate more power if the rods are still "hot".

BMAONE23 wrote:I have to agree with you about the Nuclear Power and clean energy. The only real problem with Nuclear power is how the spent fuel rods are stored and cooled. Currently they are placed in spent fuel ponds that are kept cool by continually pumping water through them that is pumped by power produced on site. As long as the power plant continues to operate, the rod cooling system has power to function. If something happens to the plant and power stops, the fuel rods will heat up like what happened in Japan.
Nuclear power is very cost effective though with an average of 11.4 cents/KWH ($114/MWH) and a maximum cost of $121/MWH with a capacity factor of 90%
Geothermal is also very cost effective with an average of 10.17 cents/KWH ($101.7/MWH) and a maximum cost of $115.7/MWH and a capacity factor of 92%
Wind power is also fairly cost effective with an average of 9.7 cents/KWH ($97/mwh) and a maximum cost of $115/MWH but has a capacity factor of 34%
Solar Photovoltaic has an average cost of 21 cents/KWH ($210.7/MWH) and a maximum cost of $323.9/MWH but has a capacity factor of 25%
Solar Thermal has an average cost of 31 cents/KWH ($311.8/MWH) and a maximum cost of $641.6/MWH but has a capacity factor of 18%
The least expensive is Natural Gas with Advanced Combined Cycle with an average cost of 6.3 cents/KWH and a capacity factor of 87%

The "Clean Technologies" of Solar and Wind are too costly without Subsidies and not available on cloudy/stormy days or nights

The "Clean Technologies" of Solar and Wind are too costly without Subsidies and not available on cloudy/stormy days or nights

BMAONE23 wrote:
Neufer,
I have to ask, What would you suggest we do as a society to eliminate our Evil Carbon Producing Energy Sources that wouldn't either
1) Bankrupt our governments
2) To avoid 1 above Overburden the populace via heavily increased Taxation
3) Eliminate 80% of the population
4) Convert the world to communism to eliminate the monitary system

Another option???

neufer wrote:(snip)
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations:

• 1) eight are declining,
  2) three are stable,
  3) one is increasing, and
  4) seven have insufficient data>>

Jasev wrote:Any amature astronomer can clearly see this photo shows sun from the lower left

BMAONE23 wrote:

neufer wrote:

mikef wrote:
So, here is my message to politically conservative people who doubt that humans are responsible for climate change.

The politically conservative people who really need convincing:

• 1) don't believe in science & don't trust scientists and
  2) don't care if polar bears starve or if folks in Bangladesh drown.

As to #2 polar bears are thriving and have grown to a population estimated to be 25,000
as of the last survey from an estimated population of 20,000 at the prior survey.

• 3) put much greater weight on anecdotal evidence than on actual scientific studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Population_and_distribution wrote:
<< It is difficult to estimate a global population of polar bears as much of the range has been poorly studied, however biologists use a working estimate of about 20,000–25,000 polar bears worldwide.

There are 19 generally recognized discrete subpopulations. The subpopulations display seasonal fidelity to particular areas, but DNA studies show that they are not reproductively isolated. The thirteen North American subpopulations range from the Beaufort Sea south to Hudson Bay and east to Baffin Bay in western Greenland and account for about 70% of the global population. The Eurasian population is broken up into the eastern Greenland, Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, and Chukchi Sea subpopulations, though there is considerable uncertainty about the structure of these populations due to limited mark and recapture data.

Modern methods of tracking polar bear populations have been implemented only since the mid-1980s, and are expensive to perform consistently over a large area. The most accurate counts require flying a helicopter in the Arctic climate to find polar bears, shooting a tranquilizer dart at the bear to sedate it, and then tagging the bear. In Nunavut, some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. Scientists have responded by noting that hungry bears may be congregating around human settlements, leading to the illusion that populations are higher than they actually are. The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN takes the position that "estimates of subpopulation size or sustainable harvest levels should not be made solely on the basis of traditional ecological knowledge without supporting scientific studies."

Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations:

• 1) eight are declining,
  2) three are stable,
  3) one is increasing, and
  4) seven have insufficient data>>

BMAONE23 wrote:If there were more openness then the debate might truly be settled but the techniques employed by Climate Scientists to avoid sharing data goes against the very methods they are supposed to stand for as scientists

Jasev wrote:APOD, I am amazed an astonished. Any amature astronomer can clearly see this photo shows sun from the lower left, and therefore clearly shows these are raised formations...

neufer wrote:

mikef wrote:
So, here is my message to politically conservative people who doubt that humans are responsible for climate change.

The politically conservative people who really need convincing:

• 1) don't believe in science & don't trust scientists and
  2) don't care if polar bears starve or if folks in Bangladesh drown.

WIKI wrote:Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

mikef wrote:
So, here is my message to politically conservative people who doubt that humans are responsible for climate change.

• 1) don't believe in science & don't trust scientists and
  2) don't care if polar bears starve or if folks in Bangladesh drown.

mikef wrote:I love APOD, but have lurked for years. Something occurred to me when reading the commentary on this one, and I thought it was worth posting.
Having reviewed many different sources of data on humanity-induced climate change on Earth, I am a "believer." If somebody doubted this theory, however, and believes that changes in climate are soley a function of "natural cycles," then Mars might present a viable control planet for study. If climate changes are a function of changes by the sun, or by the solar system passing through regions of differing density ... then there should be similar evidence for this on Mars. Granted, weather patterns and soils are vastly different on Mars - but APOD has posted many photos showing that Mars is not an inert ball of rock without an active atmosphere. Therefore, ice and carbon analysis should be possible on sediment cores.
So, here is my message to politically conservative people who doubt that humans are responsible for climate change. Fund a series of Mars missions to compare a nearby planet without humans! If Mars' climate changes mirror Earth's climate changes, THEN we need an extra-strong economy to weather the upcoming warming cycle. Think of the Mars missions as an investment in your political ideals, or as a bet you can't lose since you're so sure of your ideals. If (on the other hand) there is no evidence of a parallel climate change on Mars (and science for Mars sediment analysis is viable), then we need to alter our behavior.

NoelC wrote:
I've been studying the shadows at the edges of these things for quite a while now (while waiting on hold on a phone call), and I haven't been able to find it possible to make my mind believe that these are pits.

For one thing, it's FAR easier to believe that the features inside the "pits" are bumps, surrounded by a smooth blanket of snow.

NoelC wrote:

neufer wrote:

NoelC wrote:
The light is definitely coming from the left.

Your military left?

I stand by what I wrote. I've looked at this image every way imaginable, and in every case I'm convinced that these features have edges raised over the surrounding floor.

These are not pits but raised features.

neufer wrote:

NoelC wrote:
The light is definitely coming from the left.

Your military left?

MartinL wrote:
does anyone know how much gold would have to be on Mars so an expedition there would be economically reasonable?