They caught a video tape apparantly of leading Republics cheering when Chicago lost the bid for the 2016 Olympics.
I wonder how much that will hurt their poll numbers.
The bigger question is how long before they spin it as a left wing conspiracy?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know, Chicago actually had less popular support within the citizenry than any other potential 2016 city? I think the actual support was either at, or barely below 50%. A lot of people didn't want to see parts of the city built over or torn down to house the Olympics, and were ecstatic when Chicago was eliminated.
I think translating the failure of Chicago into a defeat of Obama ignores the fact that frankly, Rio deserved it a lot more, and was, despite some of the rhetoric in the news and from some IOA officials, likely always a favorite. I think cheering Chicago's failure is pretty stupid, as Obama likely had no effect one way or the other, never was going to, and this bears little resemblance to the efficacy of his power. And I also think that claiming Republicans are putting Obama's failure over concerns for the health of America on this particular issue is also pretty silly, as this had FAR more to do with the emerging nature of Brazil and other third world countries into a more prominent world role than it did with any sort of inherent fault or diss to America. Not wanting the Olympics has nothing to do with how much one loves America. Frankly, I think a big part of why Rio won and Madrid and Tokyo failed was because we share a time zone with Rio, and they wanted to cater to an Olympic crazed American audience, so even in defeat our greatness and importance is recognized.
It may very well be that some Republicans are putting short term political interests ahead of America's long term national interests. And while personally I think it's somewhat worse in severity, it's not much different in nature from Democrats wanting Bush to fail time and again during his presidency. I think the difference was that Democrats were powerless to stop him (or rather, ineffective in using their power to do so), so they didn't take as much heat for it.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
you mean republicans, right?
cheering over a lost olympic bid probably wont hurt poll numbers much. but thats no consolation considering the current track record of the republicans. the poor republican image is no secret. they need to reorganize and get their heads straight. republicans are currently one of the last defenses against liberalism in the united states.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Considering even the forces of liberalism in America still fall within a generally conservative camp, that's an interesting argument. It's also interesting that you portray liberalism as somehow on the march in America. One of the last defenses? What defenses have liberalism knocked down and defeated, to the point where Republicans are the last defense? That's just a really odd statement.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Frankly, I think a big part of why Rio won and Madrid and Tokyo failed was because we share a time zone with Rio, and they wanted to cater to an Olympic crazed American audience, so even in defeat our greatness and importance is recognized.
Wow. And I guess the 500 million people in the EU who would have been in (roughly) the same time zone as Madrid don't watch the Olympics? Honestly, America wins most medals but that doesn't seem to affect the fanaticism of other nations for their Olympic teams. Go anywhere in the world while the Olympics are on and you'll see a craziness which is very similar to that of America.
I mean, I love America, but when everything that happens in the world has to be about 'our greatness and importance' it makes the rest of the world feel like America is just a tad self-involved.
I think Rio's win is more likely to be about the fact that South America has never before hosted the games and now is finally in a position to do so, while Japan, Spain and the US have all held the games in living memory.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: They caught a video tape apparantly of leading Republics cheering when Chicago lost the bid for the 2016 Olympics.
I wonder how much that will hurt their poll numbers.
The bigger question is how long before they spin it as a left wing conspiracy?
I live in Chicago, Blayne. I was psyched when we "lost" the bid, because Chicago won that day. They would have taxed us into oblivion to pay for it. Any theoretical financial benefit of the Olympics... 90% of it would have wound up in the pockets of our politicians. It was an asinine idea from the first.
Has nothing to do with Obama.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Considering even the forces of liberalism in America still fall within a generally conservative camp, that's an interesting argument. It's also interesting that you portray liberalism as somehow on the march in America. One of the last defenses? What defenses have liberalism knocked down and defeated, to the point where Republicans are the last defense? That's just a really odd statement.
I am a bit to the left of most democrats right now, and yet my international friends (in Western countries) think in EU or Australia, I would probably still be in the more conservative party.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:Frankly, I think a big part of why Rio won and Madrid and Tokyo failed was because we share a time zone with Rio, and they wanted to cater to an Olympic crazed American audience, so even in defeat our greatness and importance is recognized.
Wow. And I guess the 500 million people in the EU who would have been in (roughly) the same time zone as Madrid don't watch the Olympics?
Sadly, he has a point although I wouldn't really characterize a reluctance to watch games in different areas as "greatness."
Even a Rio games means that Americans are less likely to watch.
quote:The cost of Chicago's defeat in its bid to host the 2016 Olympics will be felt in the value of the next U.S. broadcast deal.
The International Olympic Committee's top negotiator said the U.S. rights are worth less after the 2016 Games were awarded to Rio de Janeiro.
"Obviously, the domestic games would be more valuable," IOC finance commission chairman Richard Carrion told The Associated Press.
And the American deal — the most lucrative in the IOC's portfolio — might not be done for another three years if the economy doesn't improve.
There are also indications that the border controls in the US are also partly to blame.
quote:Among the toughest questions posed to the Chicago bid team this week in Copenhagen was one that raised the issue of what kind of welcome foreigners would get from airport officials when they arrived in this country to attend the Games. Syed Shahid Ali, an I.O.C. member from Pakistan, in the question-and-answer session following Chicago’s official presentation, pointed out that entering the United States can be “a rather harrowing experience.”
I don't understand the mystery here. We've had the Olympics in the US several times, and we've never had it once in South America. If we have a city that can now host it in South America, of course the IOC is going to choose Rio de Janeiro.
quote:Frankly, I think a big part of why Rio won and Madrid and Tokyo failed was because we share a time zone with Rio, and they wanted to cater to an Olympic crazed American audience, so even in defeat our greatness and importance is recognized.
Wow. American-centric, much?
It's not all about "what's wrong with Chicago" but, "what's right about Rio?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I think translating the failure of Chicago into a defeat of Obama ignores the fact that frankly, Rio deserved it a lot more, and was, despite some of the rhetoric in the news and from some IOA officials, likely always a favorite. I think cheering Chicago's failure is pretty stupid, as Obama likely had no effect one way or the other, never was going to, and this bears little resemblance to the efficacy of his power.
This is exactly how I feel about it. For cripes sake they haven't even had the Olympics anywhere in South America before. It's stupid to act like this proves Obama can't get everything he wants (edit: I also tire of people acting like the majority of his supporters ever believed this), but at the same time it's somewhat foolish to believe that only Republicans or conservatives act this way. I recall liberals doing it as well during the Bush administration. Anything to make your opponent look bad you hammer on it until you can't anymore, do it enough and people start believing there must be something to your constant bellowing about it.
[ October 07, 2009, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I don't understand the mystery here. We've had the Olympics in the US several times, and we've never had it once in South America. If we have a city that can now host it in South America, of course the IOC is going to choose Rio de Janeiro.
Yeah, like the other 8 times a city from South America bid on the games...
Not only did Chicago not get the games, but they were the FIRST city eliminated. Nice Job Barry.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Seriously.
If you're going to make fun of a guy, at least make fun of him for something not completely nonsensical, lobo.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: It's stupid to act like this proves Obama can't get everything he wants (edit: I also tire of people acting like the majority of his supporters ever believed this), but at the same time it's somewhat foolish to believe that only Republicans or conservatives act this way. I recall liberals doing it as well during the Bush administration. Anything to make your opponent look bad you hammer on it until you can't anymore, do it enough and people start believing there must be something to your constant bellowing about it.
Interesting essay on the Huffington Post by Joe Scarborough makes some of the same points BlackBlade is making:
quote:Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama's hometown will not be hosting the 2016 Olympic Games.
Chicago is a beautiful city that would have made a perfect backdrop for the Olympics. The President was right to fly to Copenhagen to try to land the games, not for the sake of his city, but for the good of his country. The fact President Obama failed makes me respect him more for taking the chance, and the fact many right-wing figures opposed the President's mission shows just how narrow-minded partisanship makes us all.
For the better part of 20 years, a bitterness has infected our politics that has weakened our country.
We Republicans spent eight years trying to delegitimize Bill Clinton.
Democrats spent the next eight years doing the same to George W. Bush.
Now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office again, it is the GOP who is trying to delegitimize a sitting president.
Full disclosure: I watch a portion of "Morning Joe" most weekday mornings. I find it the least irritating news discussion show on MSNBC. (Rachel Maddow comes in a fairly close second - she doesn't talk over guests, like Chris Mathews and she invites people she disagrees with, unlike Keith Olberman)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Obama shouldn't have been involved at all, nor should any other national-level politician - sheesh, haven't they got better things to do? But the choice is not a defeat for him or a victory for whoever the president of Brazil is. Not everything is about politicians, much as they like to insert themselves everywhere.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It's not all about "what's wrong with Chicago" but, "what's right about Rio?"
This is also, sadly, a small example of what may be *wrong* with Rio. Despite a large population living in poverty, and a poor distribution of national wealth, the city bids for and wins the Olympics- now where do you think all that money is going to end up? I'm not purely naysaying, but despite Brazil's increasing GDP, its actual human development progress is far too slow, and I don't really know if increased international business opportunities is going to solve that problem or make it worse.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, Chicago actually had less popular support within the citizenry than any other potential 2016 city? I think the actual support was either at, or barely below 50%. A lot of people didn't want to see parts of the city built over or torn down to house the Olympics, and were ecstatic when Chicago was eliminated.
I think translating the failure of Chicago into a defeat of Obama ignores the fact that frankly, Rio deserved it a lot more, and was, despite some of the rhetoric in the news and from some IOA officials, likely always a favorite. I think cheering Chicago's failure is pretty stupid, as Obama likely had no effect one way or the other, never was going to, and this bears little resemblance to the efficacy of his power. And I also think that claiming Republicans are putting Obama's failure over concerns for the health of America on this particular issue is also pretty silly, as this had FAR more to do with the emerging nature of Brazil and other third world countries into a more prominent world role than it did with any sort of inherent fault or diss to America. Not wanting the Olympics has nothing to do with how much one loves America. Frankly, I think a big part of why Rio won and Madrid and Tokyo failed was because we share a time zone with Rio, and they wanted to cater to an Olympic crazed American audience, so even in defeat our greatness and importance is recognized.
It may very well be that some Republicans are putting short term political interests ahead of America's long term national interests. And while personally I think it's somewhat worse in severity, it's not much different in nature from Democrats wanting Bush to fail time and again during his presidency. I think the difference was that Democrats were powerless to stop him (or rather, ineffective in using their power to do so), so they didn't take as much heat for it.
I think that this is one of the best summations I've ever read on Hatrack, and is a reaffirmation of why I love this message board and community so much. I also appreciate the objective nature of this post. (Or else I just regard it as objective because I happen to agree with it; there's always that).
Edit: that's not to say that others don't also have good points. Orincoro, for instance, is likely correct in believing that most of the financial gain for Rio's Olympics will end up in the hands of the already-rich. But then, the same would have certainly happened among Chicago's rich-poor divide.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Bella Bee: Wow. And I guess the 500 million people in the EU who would have been in (roughly) the same time zone as Madrid don't watch the Olympics?
quote:From Teshi: Wow. American-centric, much?
It's not all about "what's wrong with Chicago" but, "what's right about Rio?"
This was sort of touched on by posts following mine but, you both perhaps misinterpreted what I said.
quote:Frankly, I think a big part of why Rio won and Madrid and Tokyo failed was because we share a time zone with Rio, and they wanted to cater to an Olympic crazed American audience, so even in defeat our greatness and importance is recognized.
The broadcast rights for the US to show the Olympics are an extremely lucrative revenue source for the IOC, as is the crap Americans buy related to the Olympics. Remember those beanie/beret things from 2002? They sold like hot cakes! And the IOC got a piece of it. Olympics that show either in America, or near America's time zone are simply worth more, via broadcast rights, than Olympics that show halfway around the world, because people aren't up at 5am watching the luge qualifiers (well, I am, but I'm obsessed with the Olympics). Being able to show prime time coverage live is a big deal, and it's worth a lot of money. So do I think choosing Rio over a place like Madrid or Tokyo was in some way motivated by money? Sure I do, and the US is the most lucrative market, so putting it in Rio benefits the IOC in meaningful ways. Is that Ameri-centric to say? Nope, it's just analyzing the IOC's priorities and criteria in choosing a host city.
The last bit that I put in bold there was tongue in cheek, which I sort of expected would come through from the tone of the post, but tone is hard to convey online.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought your tongue in cheek tone came through loud and clear.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
AARRRGH AMERICANS ALWAYS THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN US EUROPEANS MAKES ME SO MAD I'M NOT GOING TO BOTHER READING WHY YOU THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ACCOMODATE THE U.S. BECAUSE IVE GOT A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER!!! YOU BETTER START ACKNOWLEDGING US AS BEING IMPORTANT GRARRHHGHGGGHG!!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
WHY ARE WE YELLING!?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
LOUD NOISES!!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: The last bit that I put in bold there was tongue in cheek, which I sort of expected would come through from the tone of the post, but tone is hard to convey online.
Okay. I thought the hooo-rah-USA thing was a bit weird coming from you, but sometimes these things happen to the best of us. My sarco-meter must be malfunctioning.
Really, it's all about beanie hats? I wonder if hat sales are the secret motivation behind many of the major global decisions being taken at the moment. It would make sense.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: AARRRGH AMERICANS ALWAYS THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN US EUROPEANS MAKES ME SO MAD I'M NOT GOING TO BOTHER READING WHY YOU THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ACCOMODATE THE U.S. BECAUSE IVE GOT A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER!!! YOU BETTER START ACKNOWLEDGING US AS BEING IMPORTANT GRARRHHGHGGGHG!!
Britain isn't Europe. So yeah, fail.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It's not all about "what's wrong with Chicago" but, "what's right about Rio?"
This is also, sadly, a small example of what may be *wrong* with Rio. Despite a large population living in poverty, and a poor distribution of national wealth, the city bids for and wins the Olympics- now where do you think all that money is going to end up? I'm not purely naysaying, but despite Brazil's increasing GDP, its actual human development progress is far too slow, and I don't really know if increased international business opportunities is going to solve that problem or make it worse.
I'm REALLY surprised about Rio being the pick. My dad is going to Rio in a few weeks on business and we just got briefed on all the security precautions including a escort from the plane, straight from the tarmac to a car, and then he'll be placed on a compound which he is not allowed to leave during his stay (he'll be there for a few weeks atleast.)
A friend said she had a similar experience while working in Rio for another company. Her car escort was nearly run off the road on the way to her residence. According to her driver, cars with foreigners are often rammed in carjacking attempts.
I'd like to think that the Olympics could help the city but I know I'd turn down a free ticket if it was offered to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As a point of comparison, at 33/100,000 people in 2008, it would have a murder rate lower than Detroit or Baltimore at 47.3 and 43.3 in 2006 and higher than Washington or Philadelphia at 29.1 and 27.2 respectively.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I wonder if hat sales are the secret motivation behind many of the major global decisions being taken at the moment. It would make sense.
By gosh, I think you've got it!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: AARRRGH AMERICANS ALWAYS THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN US EUROPEANS MAKES ME SO MAD I'M NOT GOING TO BOTHER READING WHY YOU THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ACCOMODATE THE U.S. BECAUSE IVE GOT A CHIP ON MY SHOULDER!!! YOU BETTER START ACKNOWLEDGING US AS BEING IMPORTANT GRARRHHGHGGGHG!!
Britain isn't Europe. So yeah, fail.
Hah, "fail", God, internet people are such losers. Go make a lolcats or something, yea?
Britain is not Europe, thank you for the geography lesson, but it does share with the rest of the continent the same animosity towards a perceived sense of superiority that Americans have over them (and in many cases it is more than just perceived, but its still funny to watch them get worked up about it.) While Bella Bee may be just from Britain, and I have no idea where Teshi is from, the comments could have come from any European with an inferiority complex looking to jump on those smug, self-centered Americans without thinking, so I felt for fairness sake I would group them all together.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Hah, "fail", God, internet people are such losers.
and you are calling them losers on the internet, so uh
ps: Britain is for most purposes something that could be considered european
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ah clever you, what a fool I've been. I mean people who spend their whole lives on the internet and adopt all it's memes and slang into everyday use.
I don't know why you're telling me that Britain could be considered European, I just said that I grouped it with the rest of the continent because of an aspect shared throughout. He was the one trying to draw a distinction.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Hah, "fail", God, internet people are such losers.
and you are calling them losers on the internet, so uh
ps: Britain is for most purposes something that could be considered european
Calling Orincoro a loser, individually, on an internet forum would have had a much firmer support base than the group you ended up choosing...on an internet forum.
But I know what you meant and take no umbrage, I just read what you wrote as a more focused insult and agree with it.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
I'm feeling a lot of negative energy coming from my computer screen right now. Who needs a hug?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Ah clever you, what a fool I've been. I mean people who spend their whole lives on the internet and adopt all it's memes and slang into everyday use.
I assume orincoro spends his whole life on the internet, then. And that this can furthermore be deduced by his use of common internet slang in an internet post on the internet.
I mean, I'm amused by this angle even if it does little other than make you sound incredibly old ('these internet people with their internet words' *shakes cane*) but honestly, you took his bait. don't just start calling people losers like that.
quote:I don't know why you're telling me that Britain could be considered European, I just said that I grouped it with the rest of the continent because of an aspect shared throughout. He was the one trying to draw a distinction.
Yeah, I am disagreeing with his distinction.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Okay.
The thing is… the US is probably my favourite place in the world. A lot of my family is American, I love American history and I think that the American people are incredible. Since I was four years old, I have spent many months in America and have travelled extensively, from sea to shining sea. I don't pretend to know what it is like to live there, or to be American, but I adore the US just the same.
I totally agree about the inferiority complex issue. It’s not just in Europe, by the way. I can’t tell you the number of times I have had to defend the US (and Americans) against stupid, racist people who can’t get over the fact that America has more influence, resources and power than their tiny little nation. A lot of people can’t get over the fact that their country just isn’t that special anymore. They blame the US for their own problems and it drives me mad.
But there is a case to be made (not in this case, but…) that some Americans (I'm not generalising, I’m talking about people I know) have a tendency to assume that the US is the driving force behind every single thing that happens in the world. The reason for this probably has a lot to do with the American TV media and entertainment industries which are incredibly insular. You do have to search to find much information about what the rest of the world is up to (unless it’s an international story about 1) a massive humanitarian disaster 2) a wing-walking child or 3) a rare baby panda). There isn’t usually a story about Turkish politics, or the Belgian economy. If there is an international story that isn‘t a freak show, most of the time it’ll be about what the US is doing about it, how it affects the US, etc. Not a lot about the world just getting on with things on their own.
Fair enough, but not everything has everything to do with America. Often this is the case. Sometimes it isn’t, and from time to time this kind of assumption starts to become annoying, even to me. It’s a big world. The US is a great big wonderful piece of it, but not the only piece.
Is that an inferiority complex? I don’t know.
In this case, I was probably working from an assumption of this trait that was unfounded, and that was unfair and just as wrong as the people who would assume that nothing happens without America’s say so, or that all Europeans hate America. Sorry guys. I’ll try not to let it happen again.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Mention Chicago to the average European, and you'll get something like, "Chicago? Al Capone, bang bang!"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Chicago is tied with Massachusetts and parts of the West Coast for having the most unpleasant people to deal with in the US. Lisa, you are 100% not an exception to that. I hate your city. I hate it bad, and I hate visiting it.
Nonetheless, I don't wish it ill, nor its people ill.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Darn, steven. We were so hoping you were going to visit.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Darn, steven. We were so hoping you were going to visit..."
You may actually be nice in person, and you're not bad to deal with online. However, LISA, OTOH...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Chicago is tied with Massachusetts and parts of the West Coast for having the most unpleasant people to deal with in the US. Lisa, you are 100% not an exception to that.
Bite me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Darn, steven. We were so hoping you were going to visit..."
You may actually be nice in person, and you're not bad to deal with online. However, LISA, OTOH...
Let me rephrase that. Go play in traffic, you unmannered brat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That was pretty ridiculous steven.
----
In other news I found Chicago to be very enjoyable when I visited a few years ago.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"In other news I found Chicago to be very enjoyable when I visited a few years ago."
I'm glad you did.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh dear steven.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ah, hatrack.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bella Bee, when I look at a map of world time zones, it does not appear to me that any part of the USA shares Rio's time zone. It is only one or two hours different from Eastern Time though, depending on whether we are on Standard or Daylight time. So at least for us easterners, that is close enough for us to watch most events live. It will be a little more problematic for people on the West Coast.
As for the snarky title of this thread, Republicans obviously love America more than any of them may hate or be disgusted by Obama; indeed, that is why they hate or are disgusted by Obama, because of the harm he is doing to America.
Many Democrats (though not all) seem to love Obama more than they love America, and that is the real problem, as many Republicans see it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that is the real problem, as many Republicans see it.
I suspect, to be perfectly honest with you, that that -- the quoted part above -- is in fact the real problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, how was it a good thing that the US got voted out of competition on the first round? As Republicans see it.
I can understand the ambivalence of Chicagoans, but why do you think those people were cheering?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, I can see a lot of reasons for people being happy that the president got such a dismal result for his attempt to use his personal prestige as liberalism's messiah to win the Olympics for his home town of Chicago (assuming his real home town is not the one in Kenya). First of all, Chicago is just Chicago, not America. He is president of the USA, not of Chicago. Secondly, Obama's courting of the Olympic Committee was in poor taste and judgment. If you read what he said to the committee, almost every other sentence was about himself and his accomplishment in being elected POTUS. Thirdly, such a resounding rebuff tends to demonstrate what European officialdom really thinks about Obama, hidden behind the glowing rhetoric. They all know he is a do-nothing, inexperienced political lightweight with delusions of grandeur.
Except for the Nobel Prize Committee, which abandoned reason and made a mockery of the Nobel Prize--even more so, that is, than when they awarded it to Al Gore. But that is discussed in a different thread.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
YAY! Another reason to go back down to Brasil! The World Cup in 2014, and now the Olympics in 2016! I can't wait!
Why am I excited? Well to be honest... Brasil is a lot prettier than Chicago.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Brasil is a lot prettier than Chicago.
Isn't that a reason?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad Ron, you're right. Rio is two hours ahead of the eastern time zone. Regardless, that's close enough. Vancouver-Whistler is three hours behind us and I suspect it will be only a tiny problem, rather than the massive time difference from Beijing.
quote:Secondly, Obama's courting of the Olympic Committee was in poor taste and judgment.
Actually, heads of state courting the IOC is a tradition. Generally in the past US heads of state haven't done it, for whatever reason, but it's the norm, rather than the exception, for foreign heads of state to visit the IOC to make a pitch in person for their host city.
quote:Except for the Nobel Prize Committee, which abandoned reason and made a mockery of the Nobel Prize--even more so, that is, than when they awarded it to Al Gore.
If you actually look at why it was awarded to Al Gore, it makes a lot of sense (though more for the IPCC to get it, but I'm glad they shared it in that sense). Wars of the future are going to be fought over the sorts of resources that global warming, man made or not, is going to make scarce. Trying to do something about it now, to prevent wars in the future, is certainly deserving of the award. Especially given the people he has to attempt to shout down or reason with in order to do so. Hint hint.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh, and in other Olympic news; Golf and Rugby will be played for the first time in Rio for medals. Tiger Woods has already said he's in.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tiger Woods will play just for a gold medal? Well, gold is worth a lot these days.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Oh, and in other Olympic news; Golf and Rugby will be played for the first time in Rio for medals. Tiger Woods has already said he's in.
Rugby yes! Golf what?!
But I suppose it's no different than pistol shooting or archery, except both of those have practical use.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
I assume gravity exists, and is not just a product of bad science and politics, but that's stupid, and you've made me see the light. Perhaps many of my former assumptions are just that, assumptions based on bad science and politics.
Say, what do you think the chances are that global warming *does* exist, and the anti-global warming bugbear is itself a product of bad science and politics? I would think that if you are actually willing to credit those who deny global warming simply because there must exist two equally valid opinions on any subject in Ron's Fairy Tale Land of Binary Arguments, then you should be euqally willing to credit the idea that it *does* exist. Really, since every issue comes down to a binary: either something is "true" or is "false because of bad science and politics," then we should probably examine all of our assumptions this way. If we ever get a hint or even the faintest whiff of that terrible enigma: Bad Science and Politics, then we know we've disproved something outright.
For instance, I get a little bit of a tummy ache when I eat ice cream. My doctor tells me that I am a little bit lactose intolerant. But the thing is, I can drink milk in my coffee with no problem! That doctor is under the influence of BAD SCIENCE AND POLITICS! EGADS SIR! It stands to reason therefore that I must NOT get a tummy ache when I eat ice cream! THE LOGIC IS SOUND MY FRIENDS! And I would never have discovered that terrible doctor's corruption by BAD SCIENCE AND POLITICS, if I hadn't noticed how wrong he was!!! I can now go out and eat all the ice cream I want! If I get a tummy ache, it's a coincidence! I am SO FREE!!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, all those reasons you gave are "why they wanted Obama to fail" reasons. None are "why think the Olympics would be bad for America" reasons. That is my point. More than they wanted America to succeed in getting the Olympics (something countries usually want - and Chicago is part of America) they wanted the President to fail.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
Even OSC believes global warming is a real problem. Whether or not it's man made doesn't really matter. People against man made global warming now say that global warming IS real, but that it's a natural phenomenon and we have nothing to do with it. They cite centuries old patterns of warming and cooling periods, etc and so on. Regardless of whether or not you think the full extent of global warming is actually going to happen...
Do you deny that snow packs in mountain ranges are retreating, smaller every year, and melting faster every year? The information is out there if you don't believe me. The problem is, shifting weather patterns, cited as an effect of global climate change, are moving rains and raising temperatures, which means less snowfall, and the snow lasts few and fewer days. That means in the summer, cities that are fed by melt water don't have any. It's not just an issue in America, though the American west has huge, huge looming long term water shortage issues, basically in every territory between the Mississippi and the Pacific. Overuse of aquifers in places like Iowa and Nebraska, over use of melt water in downstate California either in cities or farms is going to be a problem with northern California cuts off even more water heading south since they control the source point. And don't even get me started on Las Vegas. The west is the American boom region now, but the country is going to undergo a reverse migration in 50 years when life there at those numbers is unsustainable.
Now, this is going to cause a lot of problems for the United States. Imagine how much trouble it will cause in the third world. It's going to cause wars. People are going to fight over resources at a level we haven't seen in a long time. Al Gore is traveling around he world not just clamoring for emissions controls, but also chiefly for conservation. He wants people to use less, so that when these problems come to a head, we'll be that much better able to handle what comes. He's engaged in a preventative mission that could prevent more wars than any other cause in history. I question whether it will work, because there are so many people out there who call him a fraud that his work is twice as hard, but the rest of the world believes in global warming, and the rest of the world thinks it was a pretty good idea. I recognize that you think it was a poor choice because you don't believe in the underlying rationale, so you think he's just shouting for attention or whatever, but for the billions who believe in the looming crisis (and the crisis that already exists in areas where conservation efforts could save lives NOW), his award makes perfect sense.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QB]I assume gravity exists, and is not just a product of bad science and politics, but that's stupid, and you've made me see the light. Perhaps many of my former assumptions are just that, assumptions based on bad science and politics.
thats a false analogy. man cant create or destroy gravity and it would be futile to try and stop it all together. to think of passing legislation to stop gravity is comical. "gravity is ruinging my life i want to pass legislation to stop it." or one better, "i can gain politically by attempting to legislate gravity so im going to back and enact laws that will enforce my political ideology."
i acknowledge the changing of the global climate. what i dont acknowledge are the "scientific" claims as to mans complete responsibility for the change (it was warmer then cooler now its both. so ill refere to it simply as "change").
it hasnt happend overnight and it wont end overnight. there is not need for haste in passing such legislation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn: you are assuming that global warming actually exists, and is not just the product of bad science and politics.
There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Rabbit, it seems to me that it is the other way around.
Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
...says the man just complaining about bad, politically motivated science.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Ron, have you done the research? Can you present some evidence that backs you up that has not been easily countered a million times?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
Heh. This is why no one here takes you seriously.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti
This has been driving me nuts. I'm sorry. Your username is wrong. Did you use babelfish or another online translation program? You've got two adjectives which do not agree in case. I'm assuming you were going for "Infinite Capacity" or perhaps "Capacity of Infinity." (Fringe opinions hazard "Large Infinity" as a guess, but that's a tautology, so I'm ignoring it.) What you were (presumably) looking for is "capacitasinfinita" for Infinite Capacity.
Never, ever do English-to-Latin translation with babelfish. It never goes anywhere good. If you ever have other need for a Latin phrase, I'm happy to advise, or you can try the Latin community on Livejournal, who handle a lot of such requests.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Oh, man. I've never been so tempted to register an alt.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Free online translation:
quote:Oh , vir. I've nunquam been sic tempero ut subcriptio an alt.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
propinquus vestri os , bardus alio
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
its the second part of the phrase "finitum capax infiniti". i didnt want a username that long. it wasnt an online translation and thanks for the offer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, it seems to me that it is the other way around.
Lyrhawn, you live in the Detroit area. Tell me, when was summer this year? I don't recall that we had one. And we had frost warnings in August!
I'm sure you realize the limitations of anecdotal evidence like that. One year out of a century's worth of study and statistics isn't significant. What matters are trends over time. You can't just say "it was cold this summer, so clearly all that data on warming trends is bunk." Doesn't work that way.
Either way, yeah, Summer did seem to come a little later than it usually does, and if you remember, mid-July to mid-August was blazing hot. Also this was one of the hottest Septembers we've ever had. How does that fit into your recollection? The National Weather Service is predicting a warming than average winter for the midwest, but a colder and snowier than average winter for the northeast. What? That's crazy! Warmer in the midwest but colder in the northeast? Must be because the planet is bipolar.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, it seems to me that it is the other way around.
What seems to you is irrelevant unless you have actually read several thousand scientific papers on the subject. Perhaps you could give me an example of peer reviewed science supporting climate change which you think demonstrates bad science influenced by a political agenda? What part of the science was faulty? What part of it was politically motivated rather than scientifically sound? How do the flaws in that paper influence the vast body of scientific evidence on the subject?
I'm sick and tired of dilettantes like you spouting off about what about the bad science behind climate change. What qualifications do you have that give your opinion on a scientific issue any validity? I bet you haven't read a single one of the links I've given you to the real science issues.
You and your kind sicken me. This isn't a game. The fate of the world could very literally ride on how we choose to act or not act on this issue and yet idiots like you, who can't tell the difference between science and science fictions, have the gall to insult people who have literally dedicated their lives to figuring this out. And you don't even bother to learn what's actually been done before forming an opinion and shooting off your mouths.
Have you no shame?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Must be because the planet is bipolar.
Most are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You and your kind sicken me.
In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You and your kind sicken me.
In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Your estimate seems kind of low to me. However, I have not read any studies on the topic.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Must be because the planet is bipolar.
Most are.
Well done!
*golf clap*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Let me clarify "his kind" are those who form the opinion that thousands of scientists across the world have been doing bad politically motivated science without reading the relevant scientific studies or at a minimum reading the summaries of that work written by people who have actually read it and who are qualified to comment on its quality.
As I said, this isn't a game. Its critical. It is very likely the most critical public issue of our time. Making baseless, unfounded uneducated accusations about the science behind climate change and using those to recommend action or inactions is recklessly irresponsible.
I recognize that I was highly uncivil in my attack on Ron, but I have had enough of it. I read the actual scientific literature on this stuff daily. We are in a legitimate crisis. Politically motivated fools have delayed action on this for 20+ years beyond the point where the science was unequivocal. That delay has almost certainly already cost millions of human lives. The time for being polite about is long past.
And no, that isn't hyperbole.
[ October 12, 2009, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You and your kind sicken me.
In fairness to Ron, if "his kind" is "people who form an opinion without reading the relevant scientific studies," "his kind" consists of at least 80% of the population.
Tom, I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me. I'm getting rather sick of it. It's arrogant and condescending and despite what you may think, when you do it -- you aren't above the fray you are diving into it.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We are in a legitimate crisis. Politically motivated fools have delayed action on this for 20+ years
fools like the ones who have hindered and thwarted all efforts to create and utilize nuclear power as a means of easing the energy crisis and curbing carbon emissions?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for. This topic makes you very hostile, to the extent that I think you might consider trying to avoid discussing it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We are in a legitimate crisis. Politically motivated fools have delayed action on this for 20+ years
fools like the ones who have hindered and thwarted all efforts to create and utilize nuclear power as a means of easing the energy crisis and curbing carbon emissions?
Perhaps, but not exactly like them.
The primary reasons that nuclear power has been dead for the past 30 years are economic. Yes, many environmental groups have opposed expanding nuclear power and irrational fear of nuclear power in general has certainly had some impact, but the bottom line is that nuclear power isn't economical and has only succeeded at all because of heavy government subsidies.
I have very mixed opinions of nuclear power. I think its an option we can't afford to ignore at this time of crisis but it is far from the panacea many proponents suggest. When you consider the full life cycle of the nuclear power plant, nuclear power can't be considered carbon neutral, although it is certainly an improvement over coal. Furthermore, the supply of nuclear fuel is actually very limited. Technologies that might increase that are still at an early experimental stage. Concerns about the waste that nuclear plants produce are quite legitimate and no country has as yet implemented a remotely satisfactory solution to that problem. There are certainly some people who have opposed nuclear power for foolish reasons but there are others who have legitimate concerns about the technology.
There are places where laymen's opinions are relevant in the climate debate. The role of science is to understand the principles involved and to predict as best as possible how different alternatives will influence the climate. But given that contribution from science, there are many questions about how we should respond to this crisis that are questions of values and philosophy rather that scientific fact. For those questions, every voice should be heard. I think nuclear power and the role it should play is in that regime. The debate over whether nuclear power should be pursued on a wider scale involves far more than the scientific issues.
[ October 13, 2009, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for.
And you think its effective to warn me about being pompous and irascible by being pompous and irascible yourself?
quote:This topic makes you very hostile, to the extent that I think you might consider trying to avoid discussing it.
Which is something I have largely done for a couple of years now. But I will note, that this is one subject on which I have the right to be pompous and condescending. I do in actual fact have far greater expertise in this area than anyone at hatrack who has ever questioned my opinion on this subject.
It is also a subject in which I think my hostility against climate change deniers is fully justified. Everyday in the scientific literature I read more sound science that has me absolutely terrified about the future. I'm not talking about stuff coming from the media or pop science reports, I'm talking about the latest sophisticated rigorous scientific studies and they are becoming increasingly alarming on a daily basis. It is not hyperbole when I say this has reached crisis proportions. I really wish I could find some big holes in the science. I really wish I could believe its all wrong because I don't want them to be true any more than Ron or you or any one else.
And then in parallel with reading and studying the real scientists, I come by hatrack and read people like Ron spewing garbage arguments that any educated high school student should be able to tear apart. And then more sensible people like capaxinfiniti start saying there is no reason for alarm, no reason to act just yet.
And sometimes I don't care if you or anyone else here at hatrack things I'm being pompous or rude. Somethings need to be said. This is no longer an academic issue. It is critical and important.
The time for being polite to climate deniers is past. These people's ignorance is very literally threatening the welfare of billions of people on this planet. And yes, that is deserving of my anger.
I've posted calm reasoned arguments on this subject in the past. I've given references and resources that anyone here can understand. I've done what I can do from a calm rational approach. Eventually its necessary to call a spade a spade. People who are continuing to deny the severity of the climate crisis are either fools or evil. And there comes a point, when you've made every effort to teach the fools but they've refused to learn, when the difference between being a fool and being evil becomes negligible. That time has arrived.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually there's enough Uranium deposits to last humanity 100,000 years.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually there's enough Uranium deposits to last humanity 100,000 years.
Only if you count the Uranium that is in sea water. No technology exists that would allow us to concentrate the Uranium from sea water on a industrial scale and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium. And even if we could somehow overcome that basic thermodynamic barrier, it would only last about 1000 years unless you someone can get breeder technology to work on a commercial scale. Which by the way, hasn't happened yet and even the French have given up on it.
P.S. As a warning to Blayne and any one else who posts in this thread I actually know what I'm talking about here. If you are going to post this sort of thing, you better come prepared to back it up with solid references or I will consider you a fair target. Misinformation on this subject is doing serious harm. It isn't innocent. I'm not going to overlook it anymore than I would overlook child abuse.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Isaac Asimov is my source, there is according to him and his sources enough minable deposits of uranium to last humanity based on predicted energy consumption rates 100,000 years. I trust his Phd more then your random internet anomynousness.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course, Asimov is (at minimum) about 20 years out of date.
Except I think you are citing a fiction book by him from 1956.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Of course, Asimov is (at minimum) about 20 years out of date.
Except I think you are citing a fiction book by him from 1956.
Nope, I'm referring to his popular science article on nuclear fusion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Must be because the planet is bipolar.
Most are.
I'm glad someone got it. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Of course, Asimov is (at minimum) about 20 years out of date.
Except I think you are citing a fiction book by him from 1956.
Nope, I'm referring to his popular science article on nuclear fusion.
I'm not familiar with that particular article on nuclear fusion, but I think you have the facts confused since Uranium isn't a fuel used nuclear fusion. Hydrogen isotopes are used in nuclear fusion not Uranium and their abundance is in fact great enough that it could theoretically fuel the planet for 100,000 years. Unfortunately, nuclear fusion is a technology that has been estimated to be 20 years a way for at least 40 years. Its safe to say it won't be feasible available for at least 20 years, probably much longer. In any case, climate change require an immediate response and that can't come from nuclear fusion.
You don't need to trust my opinion on this. Here are several sources that estimate mineable reserves of Uranium lasting for a few decades at most at current levels of demand and some of these are pro-nuclear sources.
P.S. Blayne, really don't take me on on this one unless you want to be thrashed You are basing your comments on 30 + year old popular science articles that you may not have fully understood. You don't have to trust me, but I promise you that if you want to challenge me I will crush you because I do actually a great deal of expertise in this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You don't have to trust me, but I promise you that if you want to challenge me I will crush you...
*gently* Wouldn't it be sufficient to simply correct him?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for.
And you think its effective to warn me about being pompous and irascible by being pompous and irascible yourself?
quote:This topic makes you very hostile, to the extent that I think you might consider trying to avoid discussing it.
Tom has the right of it, Rabbit. I agree with your fervor, mainly because I think
1. We really ought to stop paying the Muslims to fly planes into our buildings. We'd be better off putting everybody in prisons and mental hospitals back out on the street tomorrow, with no meds, and give them high-powered assault rifles, than to keep buying Middle Eastern oil. It's self-destruction. The constant problems in the Middle East are made 1000x worse by giving the crazy people money to buy weapons.
2. The particulate matter and carcinogens from burning fossil fuels is making city dwellers very, very sick, in many cases.
whether or not we we be seeing real worldwide catastrophe from global warming, the above two issues are more than enough good reason to find non-fossil fuel sources of energy. However, having said that, please try to calm down. Yes, I know that Ron is irritating. Yes, I know Blayne can be annoying. If you want to reach people, you must remember that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. No?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Articles are you know usually long and very essay-like, and in the case of one of the more charismatic pillars of the scientific community usually have quite a bit of build up to its conclusion like y'know most essays. So while the article of ostensibly about nuclear fusion it started with a comparison with nuclear fission and how fission is already for then a sufficient valid source of energy for Humanity but goes on to say that even so fusion is just that much better.
However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful, I clearly recall him mentioning Uranium lasting potentially 50 to 100 thousand years, thinking back on it maybe he said it would last 50 to 100 thousand years based on its halflife ie have that much time to use it but I don't have the article on hand and is a bitch to find online.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
I'd like to know what you mean. (I actually think this is an important question, in light of the last few posts on this thread.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful...
Blayne, Asimov was -- he's been dead for a few decades, now -- a self-avowed polymath, meaning he wasn't an expert at much. In fact, many specialists even in his own day complained at great length about the things they believed he got wrong in his non-fiction (and his fiction).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[nitpick] He died 1992, and he was writing until at least 1990. [/nitpick]
Or are you one of those people who thinks "few" includes 2?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful...
Blayne, Asimov was -- he's been dead for a few decades, now -- a self-avowed polymath, meaning he wasn't an expert at much. In fact, many specialists even in his own day complained at great length about the things they believed he got wrong in his non-fiction (and his fiction).
A case of Science Marches On, many of the times he included science in his fiction he cant be helped if what he wrote happened to be cutting edge at the time he wrote.
However he WAS a Professor in Chemistry which was his Phd so its not like he never specialized in something.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
Yeah; that bit is not correct at all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
I'd like to know what you mean. (I actually think this is an important question, in light of the last few posts on this thread.)
The Uranium concentration in sea water is three parts per billion. In order to use that uranium as reactor fuel, it would have to separated from the sea water and concentrated to near 100% purity. That process is one which results in a decrease in the entropy of the system. That decrease in entropy isn't some abstract incomprehensible concept, it is precisely quantifiable and depends only on the initial concentration in the sea water, the amount you recover and the final concentration required for reactor fuel.
One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that work is required to decrease the entropy of any system. The minimum amount of work required for any separation process can be calculated from basic thermodynamic principles and is independent of the process used for the separation. In other words, no advance in technology can possibly do the separation for less than that minimum amount of work. It would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
And you are right, that principle applies to oil as well as Uranium, but it doesn't mean we can't ever get oil out of the ground for less energy than we can get burning the oil. It means that if the oil is below some critical concentration in the ground, we can't get it out using less energy than could be obtained from the oil. Imagine for a moment that you took one gallon of oil and evenly distributed it over the state of Texas, can you see that collecting all that oil back together again would require more work than you could get by burning the gallon of oil.
Now you might think that this is just a technological limitation, if we could just invent nanites or something that would go about scavenging the oil or uranium we might be able to collect it all back together again for less energy. And since current technologies for separating oil from dirt or Uranium from seawater all use far more energy than the theoretical minimum, it is possible that new technologies will require less energy than existing technologies. But what we learn from the second law of thermodynamics is that there is a minimum amount of work required to do the separation, period, regardless of what technology we use. That minimum work increases as the concentration in the soil or water decreases. Below some critical concentration, the minimum amount of work required for the separation will be greater than the energy available from the fuel and at that point, no technological improvement can fix the problem.
The laws of thermodynamics are something of a bummer. I've heard them summarized this way. First Law: The best you can do is break even. Second Law: you can only break even at absolute zero. Third Law: you can never get to absolute zero.
[ October 13, 2009, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
I'm confused by this claim. That's like saying the laws of thermodynamics say we can't get more energy out of petroleum than we put into extracting it out of the ground.
Yeah; that bit is not correct at all.
Fugu, If you think that is not correct, you do not accurately understand thermodynamics. I recommend you lookHere, and here, for a detailed explanation of the minimum work of separation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
I dunno. I have doubt due to scientists expert in climate change that break their self-imposed hiatus from posting on Hatrack in about six days Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
I dunno. I have doubt due to scientists expert in climate change that break their self-imposed hiatus from posting on Hatrack in about six days
I left because I needed to finish a couple of projects. I'm back for a day or two to reward myself for having completed the first of those. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is no assumption there, do your homework. The science behind climate change is sound. The only reason anyone has any doubt is because of bad, politically motivated science.
I dunno. I have doubt due to scientists expert in climate change that break their self-imposed hiatus from posting on Hatrack in about six days
I left because I needed to finish a couple of projects. I'm back for a day or two to reward myself for having completed the first of those.
Yeah Mucus, she can stop at any time! Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Welcome back anyways Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful...
Blayne, Asimov was -- he's been dead for a few decades, now -- a self-avowed polymath, meaning he wasn't an expert at much. In fact, many specialists even in his own day complained at great length about the things they believed he got wrong in his non-fiction (and his fiction).
A case of Science Marches On, many of the times he included science in his fiction he cant be helped if what he wrote happened to be cutting edge at the time he wrote.
However he WAS a Professor in Chemistry which was his Phd so its not like he never specialized in something.
Blayne, Isaac Asimov was in fact a professor of biochemistry at the Boston University school of medicine. He was however essentially inactive as a scientist after 1958 when he turned to writing science fiction full time. While his science fiction was cutting edge, his science never really was. That isn't a criticism. His popular science articles for the most part very accurate even though they do not represent original scientific contributions on his part.
I have looked through indexes of Asimov's essays on nuclear power. He wrote several articles on nuclear fusion in the 1970s, nothing more recent. Unless the indexes are incomplete, he never wrote about nuclear fission, the process which uses Uranium fuel. Since I don't know which specific article you read, I can check to see whether Asimov actually talked about Uranium reserves, perhaps you could provide a more specific reference? Regardless of what was in the article, the estimate that we have enough Uranium to last 100,000 is inconsistent with what experts in the area were saying even in the 1970s. I have enough respect for Asimov to think the mistake is more likely in your understanding rather than his work but I could be wrong.
Currently, it is estimated that "proven" Uranium reserves are sufficient to last ~60 years at current levels of consumption. The most optimistic estimates are that undiscovered reserves (excluding sea water) will last between 200 - 600 years at current levels of consumption. Right now, ~15% of the global electricity comes from nuclear fission. In order to make a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions, that we would need at least 5 times that much nuclear power, possibly more if we are considering using electricity rather than fossil fuels for transportation. That would exhaust the "proven" reserves in a little more than a decade and even the optimistic estimates of reserves yet to be discovered in a little more than a century. While a number of technologies have been proposed that would increase the amount of available nuclear fuel (breeder reactors, thorium reactors, and fusion reactors for example) none of those technologies are currently viable. They are still in the research and development phase. We can't start building power plants with these technologies in the near future, we can't even guarantee that we will every be able to safely and economically use these technologies.
I agree that it is foolish in the current crisis to ignore nuclear power. Its equally foolish to believe that nuclear power is the panacea that will solve the entire problem. The numbers just don't add up. The same thing is true for solar, wind, hydropower, and every other alternative being explored. No one technology is going to save us.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not sure what I've done to offend you but lately you seem to jump in to every debate in which I'm involved for apparently no reason but to insult me.
I'm not doing it to insult you. I'm doing it to warn you that you're being pompous and irascible and damaging the very causes you're trying to advocate for.
I'm sorry Tom, but its gone way beyond that. You single me out even in discussions where my opponents are equally pompous and irascible. It feels like you are following me around with the mission of reprimanding me when you think I've overstepped some line of civility. Its a very condescending and arrogant thing to do and whether you consciously intend it as an insult or not, it is insulting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You single me out even in discussions where my opponents are equally pompous and irascible.
Because I think more highly of you than I do of them, and regard your pompous irascibility as something temporary, which can be corrected.
If you are insulted by the fact that I perceive you to have a vulnerability in this regard, I'm sorry. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm wrong.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Can you take your little feud somewhere else... it hurts my head.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rabbit: yes, there is a minimum energy required based on concentration, but there's a step you missed: showing that the concentration is so low that the amount of energy available from the uranium is lower than the amount required to extract it.
Funnily enough, others have done the math, and it is feasible (especially if you're already doing part of the process for another reason, anyways).
Additionally, an extraction process can be economically efficient even if it requires more energy to get uranium out than is retrieved from it. To see why this is true, consider the example of carnivores, which eat large numbers of herbivores. For instance, if we could create a fish that sequesters uranium in somewhat higher concentrations in itself, then release the fish in the ocean and harvest their offspring, a large amount of energy involved in extraction would be transmitted directly and through the food chain from the sun to the fish. Thus, while the total energy required to extract the uranium from the water would be much greater than the energy of the uranium (since that process is very inefficient), we wouldn't have to have generated the energy in the first place; we'd be taking it from another source of energy we couldn't harness otherwise, in exchange for getting the energy we actually can use.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:However while it is possible I misread it I am highly doubtful...
Blayne, Asimov was -- he's been dead for a few decades, now -- a self-avowed polymath, meaning he wasn't an expert at much. In fact, many specialists even in his own day complained at great length about the things they believed he got wrong in his non-fiction (and his fiction).
A case of Science Marches On, many of the times he included science in his fiction he cant be helped if what he wrote happened to be cutting edge at the time he wrote.
However he WAS a Professor in Chemistry which was his Phd so its not like he never specialized in something.
Blayne, Isaac Asimov was in fact a professor of biochemistry at the Boston University school of medicine. He was however essentially inactive as a scientist after 1958 when he turned to writing science fiction full time. While his science fiction was cutting edge, his science never really was. That isn't a criticism. His popular science articles for the most part very accurate even though they do not represent original scientific contributions on his part.
I have looked through indexes of Asimov's essays on nuclear power. He wrote several articles on nuclear fusion in the 1970s, nothing more recent. Unless the indexes are incomplete, he never wrote about nuclear fission, the process which uses Uranium fuel. Since I don't know which specific article you read, I can check to see whether Asimov actually talked about Uranium reserves, perhaps you could provide a more specific reference? Regardless of what was in the article, the estimate that we have enough Uranium to last 100,000 is inconsistent with what experts in the area were saying even in the 1970s. I have enough respect for Asimov to think the mistake is more likely in your understanding rather than his work but I could be wrong.
Currently, it is estimated that "proven" Uranium reserves are sufficient to last ~60 years at current levels of consumption. The most optimistic estimates are that undiscovered reserves (excluding sea water) will last between 200 - 600 years at current levels of consumption. Right now, ~15% of the global electricity comes from nuclear fission. In order to make a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions, that we would need at least 5 times that much nuclear power, possibly more if we are considering using electricity rather than fossil fuels for transportation. That would exhaust the "proven" reserves in a little more than a decade and even the optimistic estimates of reserves yet to be discovered in a little more than a century. While a number of technologies have been proposed that would increase the amount of available nuclear fuel (breeder reactors, thorium reactors, and fusion reactors for example) none of those technologies are currently viable. They are still in the research and development phase. We can't start building power plants with these technologies in the near future, we can't even guarantee that we will every be able to safely and economically use these technologies.
I agree that it is foolish in the current crisis to ignore nuclear power. Its equally foolish to believe that nuclear power is the panacea that will solve the entire problem. The numbers just don't add up. The same thing is true for solar, wind, hydropower, and every other alternative being explored. No one technology is going to save us.
I'm pretty sure he was active as a scientist past the 1950's if we include his full time teaching position as him also being active as a scientist.
The article was included in one of his popular science anthologies, I think one of the other articles included also had his article on Judo Arguments against Intelligent Design and an article on Skewes Number.
As I said, the article is about nuclear fusion but the first one third was about nuclear fission.
A nitpick he wrote an article in the late 80's on Tritium.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure he was active as a scientist past the 1950's if we include his full time teaching position as him also being active as a scientist.
According to wikipedia, he didn't not teach full time after 1958. Wikipedia could be wrong about that I guess, but it is consistent with information from other sources.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I left because I needed to finish a couple of projects. I'm back for a day or two to reward myself for having completed the first of those.
Yay! A bonus visit!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You single me out even in discussions where my opponents are equally pompous and irascible.
Because I think more highly of you than I do of them, and regard your pompous irascibility as something temporary, which can be corrected.
That's not unlike something you said to me recently, and I find it a little heavy handed, especially since you've been talking to me in much the same way (on and off) for years.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The laws of thermodynamics are something of a bummer. I've heard them summarized this way. First Law: The best you can do is break even. Second Law: you can only break even at absolute zero. Third Law: you can never get to absolute zero.
Heh.
I think Bill Bryson quoted somebody else as saying: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You can't get out of the game.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's not unlike something you said to me recently, and I find it a little heavy handed, especially since you've been talking to me in much the same way (on and off) for years.
Oh, I'm not denying it's heavy-handed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think Bill Bryson quoted somebody else as saying: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You can't get out of the game.
That's always been my favorite version. (And Google reminds me that it's usually attributed to C.P. Snow.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's not unlike something you said to me recently, and I find it a little heavy handed, especially since you've been talking to me in much the same way (on and off) for years.
Oh, I'm not denying it's heavy-handed.
It's not just heavy handed, its pompous and condescending. I'm surprised that you don't see the irony in what your doing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
While it does come off as pompous and condescending, Tom does have a point. I can understand why you adopt the tone that you often do when it comes to this topic, but I don't think that it is often helpful.
You wouldn't deny, would you, that there is a certain arrogance to statements like "if you think that is not correct, you do not accurately understand thermodynamics"? Fugu's a bright guy. You know him, or if you don't, you should, given how long both of you have been involved in this community. Generally, when he says something, it's worth paying attention to. I certainly don't always agree with him, but I pretty much always give the things that he says consideration. If you're going to argue with him, it's a mistake not to; chances are, what he's said is considered, and backed up by something solid, as it was in this instance.
What would have been wrong with saying something along the lines of "Fugu, that goes counter to my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics" and then going on to explain why? What does the contemptuous tone you adopted when addressing him serve?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rabbit: yes, there is a minimum energy required based on concentration, but there's a step you missed: showing that the concentration is so low that the amount of energy available from the uranium is lower than the amount required to extract it.
Funnily enough, others have done the math, and it is feasible (especially if you're already doing part of the process for another reason, anyways).
Interestingly, I could find anything in those reference about the minimum energy of separation.
I think the problem here is that we are mixing two different issues. It is possible to purify some Uranium from sea water using less energy than can be obtained from the fission reaction. My objection is to those who calculate the total amount of Uranium available in sea water and claim that is all potentially usable Uranium. It isn't. I've done the calculations and it simply isn't possible to recover any significant fraction of the Uranium in sea water in an energy efficient manner.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I make the minor assumption that a journal-full of nuclear scientists aren't overlooking a well-known limitation taught to undergraduates.
I'm not sure what you mean by "significant fraction". If even .1% of the uranium in seawater could be extracted with moderate efficiency, that would be a huge source of additional energy. Could you provide your calculations? A quick back-of-the-envelope approximation is fine. I note that this is also a weaker statement than your original one, which professed that it was impossible for all seawater:
quote:the laws of thermodynamics dictate that no technology ever will exist that would allow us to do that for less energy than we could get from the Uranium
Also, see the rest of my post: even if it cannot be done without more energy put in than is taken out, that does not mean it is a bad idea. It is only required that the energy over the amount made available is not energy we could otherwise harness for useful work.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The concentration of uranium in ocean water is about 3 parts per billion (Uranium Information Center, 1999). From Eq. (3), the minimum work required to separate one atom of uranium from seawater is about 0.5 eV. This energy is minute as compared with the energy release from nuclear fission of about 200 MeV. Thus, the separation process could be exceedingly inefficient and yet still yield a large net energy gain in fission energy technologies.
He also mentions that this seems to already be in range for at least one process (on commercial scales).
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
While I think The Rabbit's tone wasn't necessary (and, yeah, she was off on some of the nuclear stuff, at least as far as I understand the industry), I understand her frustration in dealing with some of the misinformation out there.
For example, a coworker of mine just emailed our group this lovely piece he received from some industry list he's on. (He consults on the private side of environmental energy, I'm on the public side with the EPA Clean Air Division as our main client. I think I'll let them know that they shouldn't label CO2 a pollutant.)
quote:Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?
Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:
More Plant Growth Plants need less water More food per acre More robust habitats and ecosystems CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it - No Life On Earth!
P.S. Their site is amazing. AMAZING!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, I had no idea that Obama's EPA was trying to end all life on earth.
Now I'm totally against the EPA!
You have to, well maybe not admire or respect, but at least be impressed by the brazenness of that kind of hatchet job. I sort of have a tiny problem with labeling CO2 as "pollutant," at least as far as any traditional thoughts as to what a pollutant is, but for regulatory purposes, it's a necessity. An email like that however would be hilarious if I didn't think that a lot of people would actually take it seriously.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ah ha, here's someone who has run the calculation.
The key quotation:
quote:The concentration of uranium in ocean water is about 3 parts per billion (Uranium Information Center, 1999). From Eq. (3), the minimum work required to separate one atom of uranium from seawater is about 0.5 eV. This energy is minute as compared with the energy release from nuclear fission of about 200 MeV. Thus, the separation process could be exceedingly inefficient and yet still yield a large net energy gain in fission energy technologies.
He also mentions that this seems to already be in range for at least one process (on commercial scales).
What he calculated is the energy required to remove one atom Uranium atom from seawater. What I have calculated in the past is the minimum energy required to remove all the Uranium from 1 mole of seawater.
Its been sometime but the calculation goes something like this. The minimum work = RTlna, assuming a temperature of 273 K (0°C) and 3 ppb by weight Uranium which is 0.7% U235, that gives 68 kJ per mole of water which translates to 440 GeV per atom of U235 recovered.
(edited to add that I didn't this calculation by the seat of my pants, its been some time since I've been through this in more detail and I can't guarantee I haven't made some fundamental mistake).
I believe the difference between his calculation and mine is that I am looking the energy required per atom to recover all the Uranium from seawater and he is looking at the energy/per atom to recover a negligible fraction of the Uranium in seawater.
My objection is when his number is used along with the total amount of Uranium in seawater as though combined they represent a reasonable estimate of accessible reserves. They don't. If my original statement made it seem that I was claiming that no net energy could be obtained from any Uranium in seawater, it was not intended to do so.
I haven't found anyone who has estimated how much Uranium could be recovered from seawater at the break even point and I don't really have the time to do that myself.
My original point, however, that Nuclear energy can't be seen as a panacea for our energy/climate problems stands. Based on the Nuclear industries own estimates of proven reserves that are accessible using existing technology, we have 60 years of nuclear fuel at current levels of consumption. Exploration and improved technologies are likely to significantly increase that number, but very unlikely to change the over all picture which is that we can't meet our energy demands with nuclear power alone over the long term. Nuclear energy isn't a panacea.
[ October 13, 2009, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: While I think The Rabbit's tone wasn't necessary (and, yeah, she was off on some of the nuclear stuff, at least as far as I understand the industry), I understand her frustration in dealing with some of the misinformation out there.
For example, a coworker of mine just emailed our group this lovely piece he received from some industry list he's on. (He consults on the private side of environmental energy, I'm on the public side with the EPA Clean Air Division as our main client. I think I'll let them know that they shouldn't label CO2 a pollutant.)
quote:Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?
Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:
More Plant Growth Plants need less water More food per acre More robust habitats and ecosystems CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it - No Life On Earth!
P.S. Their site is amazing. AMAZING!
The really facinating thing about this claim is, that like many of the climate change deniers arguments, it isn't something that has been overlooked. Its known as CO2 fertilization and it does in fact happen in green house situations. The hypothesis that it will happen in nature and offset the green house effect has been investigated by several researchers using both model calculations and controlled experiments and the answer is -- No. The hypothesis is wrong.
In the real world, CO2 is only one of many nutrients plants require to grow. CO2 fertilization only works in green houses because you can also increase the concentration of all the other nutrients plants needs. But in the real world, CO2 is very rarely the limiting nutrient for plant growth. In the oceans, where a very large fraction of photosynthesis occurs, the limiting nutrient is usually iron. On land, its typically water, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which is why irrigation and artificial fertilizers have been so successful in increasing farm productivity.
The bottom line is, that the scientific method has been used to test this hypothesis and proved it is invalid.
Which highlights what constitutes "good science" and why what's coming from climate change deniers is so bad. Good science requires more than generating plausible hypotheses, it requires testing those hypotheses with rigorous experiments. The real scientists who are studying climate change didn't just take this hypothesis and throw it out because it didn't support their case. That's what they would have done if the accusations that they are doing bad politically motivated science were true. No they took this hypothesis and subjected it to rigorous experiments, and unfortunately for all of us it turns out to be wrong.
The climate change deniers on the other hand, do exactly the opposite. They take hypotheses like these and because they fit their political motives they not only fail to test the hypotheses themselves, they also ignore the results of all the studies which show the hypothesis is wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think Bill Bryson quoted somebody else as saying: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You can't get out of the game.
That's always been my favorite version. (And Google reminds me that it's usually attributed to C.P. Snow.)
Its clever, but not really all that accurate, particularly for the 3rd law.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If "getting out of the game" = absolute zero (and it's as reasonable an explanation as any), sure it is.
Anyway, it's meant to be an amusing classroom mnemonic, not a summation of the laws.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:What I have calculated in the past is the minimum energy required to remove all the Uranium from 1 mole of seawater.
Its been sometime but the calculation goes something like this. The minimum work = RTlna, assuming a temperature of 273 K (0°C) and 3 ppb by weight Uranium which is 0.7% U235, that gives 68 kJ per mole of water which translates to 440 GeV per atom of U235 recovered.
Question from an utter layman:
How does it change the results if you're only trying to recover, say, 75% of the U235 in the water, rather than all?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fugu13, when you speak of removing uranium from sea water, are you talking about the U-238 isotope, which is the most common and cannot be used to produce a fission reaction, or the U-235 or U-237 isotopes, which are fissionable and present in much smaller amounts?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)