Earth's heat budget

[mary]

It's a real shame that more wasn't done 30 years ago with solar power.  A
friend went to school and got an engineering degree and found there was no
market for his skills with solar energy.  He worked for a nuc. plant for a
while, and was a whistle blower in getting the Shoreham plant in Long Island
closed.  Of course, after that, he couldn't get a job in the energy field
since he was black listed.
People laugh at me, because I don't like even using a microwave.  While on
tour, in '90, those of us on the crew bus made some brownies, Dave came on
the bus, and as soon as he realized something was being microwaved  he was
off the bus faster than you could say "Hawkwind."  The brownies were very
tasty, and we were a few miles from the Canadian border, and 1 of the guys
from the crew realized he still had a brownie, and nobody else wanted it.
Well, it was a real tough job, but somebody had to consume that little
treat, and it was real nice.
I'd rather have the windmills though.

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List
[mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET]On Behalf Of Arjan Hulsebos
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:27 AM
To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET
Subject: Re: Earth's heat budget


On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:28:27 +0100, M Holmes wrote
> Arjan Hulsebos writes:
> > > Some waste product is an inevitable part of living. If you don't
believe
> > > that, try quitting producing your own carbon dioxide and get back to
> > > us on how long that lasted. I already agree that we should reduce
pollution
> > > as far as possible, but I don't agree with the cargo-cult thinking of
> > > the deep Greens that we should eliminate it entirely.
>
> > Again, if you can, why not?
>
> We can't.

No, you won't.

> > Personally, I'd rather have 100 windmills than one nuclear power
> > plant.
>
> Personally, I'll be the last to stop you buidling them. There's no
> reason why you can't get windmills and I can't get nukes.

Windmills don't pollute.

> A useful feature, as is the fact that nuclear fission will still give
> you power on a still day. The most sound plan is to have a variety of
> sources.

Fission won't be here for quite some time, all sorts of solar power are here
today.

> > Industry isn't interested in fixing it, either. It's not even on their
> > unhidden agenda.
>
> One of my chums is a lawyer involved in drawing contracts for pollution
> lets.  She tells me that industry are the most keen to get it all
> tied down so that:
>
> A) There's a level playing field across industry within Britian and
>    indeed across the EU and the world (as far as can be achieved).
>    In the marcoeconomics press, I've seen similar stories from the US.
>
> B) They can factors the costs of pollution lets into their strategic
> planning.
>
> Industry is onboard and already have bought bits of Scottish forest and
> whatnot in order to be ready for lets trading.  Her take is that it's
> the politicians who are going slow on this because it's going to be hard
> to sell to their constituents that they'll have to pay more for
> stuff in order to reduce pollution.

Industry is interested in making money. If they can make a profit by
reducing
pollution, they'll go for that. If they can make more money by dumping,
that's
what they'll do. Industry will only react (they won't act) to financial
incentives. It's just the nature of the beast.

Gr,

Arjan H

--------------------------------
Rock in the 70ies:
   substance inhalation, hotel devastation, and amplifier obliteration