1 - 10 Next
The best way to increase the total energy supply is to use Nuclear power. Thorcon has a design that is much cheaper than coal. Inexpensive heat can make hydrogen from water, to make synfuel. We can use coal as the input. http://thorconpower.com Their design can make over 100 power plants a year. Enough to turn the USA into an electric powerhouse and at a cost that is cheaper than coal.
In response to:

Stormy Weather and Politics

Think Freely Wrote: Feb 03, 2015 10:13 AM
If we are affecting the climate using coal that generates excessive CO2, then using low cost Nuclear power is the solution. I find it amazing that many of the GW crowd despise Nuclear. Check out this design that is much cheaper than coal! http://thorconpower.com This is specifically designed to be off the shelf and to build 100 reactors a year. We could have much cheaper electricity.
No, you can also produce Hydrogen using very high temperatures. These can be produced very cheaply using Nuclear power, such as any type of Molten Salt reactor. In fact, that is the only way to produce Hydrogen at a cost that will make it effective for transportation. But if you can produce hydrogen cheaply, you should use it to produce synfuel.
The catch is that Thorcon wants to build demonstration plants to show the design and the safety rather than being forced into a prove the design first game with the NRC. The NRC is currently charging 275 dollars an hour per person to even talk with a company about a new reactor design. They bring 20 people to a 2 day meeting to learn how to regulate the new design. So the company pays. 20 x 8 x 2 x 275 = 88,000 dollars to the NRC. The problem is there is no end in sight. There is no limit to the number of meetings or the amount of time that the NRC can take, so the investors have an enormous unknown risk. This is ONE of the ways that over regulation drives up the cost of Nuclear power.
The real solution to our energy needs is to build massive numbers of inexpensive safe reliable Nuclear Power plants. http://thorconpower.com The company believes it can build 100 plants a year for much less than a coal plant - even without the coal fuel. The cost of Nuclear fuel - even with our safe current reactors is only 60 cents per MMBTu. With the Thorcon molten salt reactor that cost would be even lower.
In response to:

Basic Economics

Think Freely Wrote: Jan 14, 2015 7:48 AM
I read this some years ago. It was a good read in every sense of the word. I was educated an enlighten by Dr. Sowell.
For a Buddhist, killing is always wrong - do not kill means every possible form of life. So many Buddhists violate this standard by walking on insects. A Christian and Jew make a distinction between Murder and Killing. For these, killing an animal for human use does not have a moral quality to it. (The torture of an animal for pleasure does have a moral quality). Thus, the religious and circumstantial setting makes a huge difference to how this question is answered. Is the pain applied to a person with active plans for harm with the goal of extracting information to prevent that harm? Then the situation is exactly the same as self-defense against a physical attack.
The question in the title itself is confusing and either not stated well or setting up a false contrast. By stating the question this way the author has set up a moral question from a utilitarian perspective. The other way to state this is are Morals simply utilitarian or are they objective? Of course this is a trap for a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist who believe that morality is objective rather than subjective and utilitarian. The right question is, were these actions moral? To know that we have to know the context they were done in.
If the attack against me is mental, (an evil plan) then the defense against that is also mental (uncomfortable stress). It is wrong and evil to torture an innocent person. It makes all the difference if the torture has the purpose of changing a person's believe system, or of retaliation against a political enemy whose only crime is to expose the crimes of those in power. These are wrong and evil. But it is not wrong to do to an enemy what we do to our own soldiers in order to help them confess the harm they are actively planning to do. That is pure self defense and no more evil than shooting a man who is busy killing people in a movie theater
I disagree. Guilt and innocence are essential to the issue of torture. If the concept of self defense is limited to the physical acts of a person ONLY and not to their current plans to do more harm then we have no defense at all. This argument says we should not deal with a mental threat to harm us, only with a physical threat after that threat is manifest. If we know a person is guilty of planning to harm us, we are sure that they have specific and ongoing plans, we are simply using self defense to use uncomfortable methods to weaken that person's mental strength. I am sad that an innocent person died. That was wrong. The question was if those who were dealing harshly with him KNEW he was innocent or if that information only came later after he died. Guilt or innocence are KEY to this argument.
1 - 10 Next