[ExI] Climate models

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Mon Mar 31 16:27:25 UTC 2014


On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > Running out of cheap energy is far more serious than climate.  It will
> hit sooner and cause more problems, including human deaths, than the worse
> climate predictions.
>

I agree.

> What we need is at least one really cheap and abundant source of energy.
>

Yes.


> > It can't be carbon based because there isn't enough left that can be
> obtained at a low enough price.


It probably can be for the next few decades.

> Here is a dumbed down version of my thoughts on how to solve the problem.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsSzVYQ2Q0YUtCMERRczdYSXMtUWphUl92aHFN/edit?usp=sharing
>

Interesting ideas and there is certainly nothing in them that would violate
the fundamental laws of physics, but it would seem to me that the
technological advancements needed to actualize this would be far far
greater than what would be required to make a Liquid Fluoride Thorium
Reactor (LFTR) practical. And I think economic projections about how long
it would take to turn a profit and how much it would cost to build and
maintain a HUGE project like that with super advanced technology unlike
anything that has ever been built before are pretty useless. And that's
another advantage LFTR has, you don't have to start colossal, you can begin
the learning curve with a small pilot plant and then grow from there.

And there is a problem that both LFTR's and your ideas have,
environmentalists won't like them; for them alternative energy sources are
fine but only if they remain strictly on paper.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140331/0bc73f41/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list