Netflix's Cleopatra: why we shouldn't re-imagine the past

Latte And Now For That Latte
63

Fusion energy: Although the front end of electrical energy generation via nuclear fusion is VERY different than the front end of a fossilized-fuel powered electrical energy generation power plant, the process on the back end, is basically the same.

On the back end, the processes are essentially identical.

The pressure from steam, whether generated via the fusion reaction or the burning of fossilized fuels, is fed into turbines that are connected to electrical generators that ultimately, mechanically convert the thermal energy, either from the fusion reaction or the burning of fossil fuels, to the electricity that we all know and love (well 
 at least most of us).

What the vast majority of people are not familiar with is the concept that, on the back end, the process of generating electrical energy from the heat of a fusion reaction employs a concept that is a few hundred years old known as the Carnot (or similar) thermal cycle. First year engineering students in thermodynamics often struggle with the concept, so the vast majority of people are in good company.

The basic idea is that the all energy conversion, including thermal, involves the conversion between one energy differential to another. The electrical energy we obtain from a fusion reaction is the net result of how we arbitrage between the high temperature of the fusion reaction, and the low temperature of whatever environmental heat sink we are using on the back end. The low temperature heat sink usually takes the form of the intake temperature of the river or ocean cooling water, or the cool water circulating from a cooling tower, at the power generation facility.

Even the space shuttle, when it flew in space, had to open the bay doors and point them toward empty space so that the cooling coils lining the bay doors could radiate infrared energy toward the near zero temperature sink of empty space. There were no streams of cool water available nearby, so such infrared radiation was the only option as a low temperature heat sink. (1)

And, despite the hype, this is a limit to the amount of energy that may be converted from any fusion reaction to electrical energy. That limit is the availability of low temperature heat sinks in our environment on Earth.

The proponents of fusion energy speak about the limitless energy that will be available as a result of such a bounty. But what is hidden from the discussion are the limits of the low temperature heat sinks on Earth, such as the rivers and oceans we currently employ to cool the steam that is created and utilized in the electrical generating power stations.

There is a limit to how much we can utilize bodies of water (and cooling towers) to generate the electricity we need without having some detrimental effect on an already warming planet. Power stations are often located in some proximity of the centers of demand with large populations that might be affected by the additional discharge of heat that emanates from the fusion reaction.

Our ability to use fusion energy is not limitless.

scrive

(1) https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html

1 Like
64
1 Like
65

What is the relationship of Tucker Carlson to all of this? :thinking:

1 Like
66

For those who may have studied earth climates, a key determinant in climatic conditions that has been consistent for at least 400 million years is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Having studied some of the conditions that created the climates that preceded the last few million years, humanity developed during what was somewhat of an anomaly from the past 4+ billion years. The last 100K - 150K or so years were somewhat conducive to such development, with climate conditions over the most recent 10K - 11K years allowing for significant improvements in the conditions that allowed for significant expansion of humanity across the planet.

For a perspective, the earth has not experienced the current level of CO2 concentrations for 3 million years. Due to the inertia inherent in the earth’s living spheres (atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) I’ve read one estimate that our recent rapid changes in the CO2 level could take half a century to more fully manifest in the climate (weather may respond much sooner).

There’s an excellent summary of the conditions that existed 3 million years ago at:

A few excerpts:

“The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, ocean waters drowned the lands where metropolises like Houston, Miami, and New York City now exist.”

“It’s a time called the Pliocene or mid-Pliocene, some 3 million years ago, when sea levels were around 30 feet higher (but possibly much more) and giant camels dwelled in a forested high Arctic. The Pliocene was a significantly warmer world, likely at some 5 degrees Fahrenheit (around 3 degrees Celsius) warmer than pre-Industrial temperatures of the late 1800s. Much of the Arctic, which today is largely clad in ice, had melted. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, a major temperature lever, hovered around 400 parts per million, or ppm. Today, these levels are similar but relentlessly rising, at over 420 ppm.”

“More warming will further exacerbate these consequences of increased heat. It will get worse. But will it get Pliocene bad? That’s up to the most fickle, unpredictable factor of the climate equation: humans.”

scrive

1 Like
67

A second reference places our current atmospheric CO2 level at 15 million years ago:

“According to a study published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is approaching levels not seen in 15 million years and perhaps never experienced by hominoids.”

scrive

1 Like
68

That’s one way. But not the only way. Look up e.g. “direct conversion” (basically using the kinetic energy of particles).

But we have a “limitless” heat sink right at our doorstep. The same one that the Shuttle used. Notice the quotation marks, because 



 yes, nothing is “limitless”. But the ability to produce more energy than you need, without messing up the atmosphere and without depleting the required “fuel” — that’s pretty good and practically “limitless”.

1 Like
69

Somehow we went from trashing a Mocumentary to Veganism and Fusion Energy.

In an attempt to get back on course, I would like to point out some successful attempts at historical reality in cinema.

The first is bio-pic of Xuan Zang a Buddhist Monk who traveled from Tang Dynasty China to India. It was China’s entry at the Oscars. Great aesthetics.

Then there is The Chosen a docudrama about the followers of Christ. The producers went to great lengths to adhere to history as much as possible by consulting a Rabbi, a Catholic priest, and a Bible scholar. Regardless of your religious views, you can’t say they didn’t do their homework.

And in regards to historical fiction, there is the German TV series Babylon Berlin a nio noir thriller that makes you feel like you are living at the end of the Weimar Republic. Great attention to historical detail.

I could also recommend the Chinese TV series The Longest Day in Chang’an which is a historical suspense drama set in Tang dynasty China. Aside from the great plot I loved the attention to historical detail such as Persians and Nestorian Christians present in the Chinese capitol. The Chinese are quite particular about historical accuracy.

Are there any movies that you would recommend for being both entertaining without sacrificing historical accuracy?

1 Like
70

Do tell 


As I was writing my dissertation on the Carnot cycle, it occurred to me that it might sound like a tirade against using nuclear fusion to prevent climate change. My apologies of that was how my words were interpreted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Humanity is desperate to find solutions to the conundrum we find ourselves in, and as such, in my humble opinion, may be reaching for one-off solutions such as nuclear fusion. Unfortunately, I believe there will be no single solutions that will make the climate change that is already baked into our atmosphere disappear, or even tempered.

I believe there are options that will determine how severe the onslaught of a warmer planet will affect future generations, and that is where my research has been for the last decade.

As busy humans focused on making our rent or mortgage payments, getting those brakes fixed, talk to my kids teacher about my kids ‘D’ in math, have the doctor look at the mysterious pain in my side if/when I can make an appointment (assuming I can afford it or have insurance). We yearn for a straight forward solution that will ensure our children will have a future at least as good as we’ve had, hopefully better.

What I have observed is that much that is written about nuclear fusion presents it as the solution to climate change. In my humble opinion, the sheer complexity of our reality and the breath of the challenge will be more than just a bit more challenging. Actually, it will be enormously challenging. The coming climate change will test humanity as nothing we have ever faced. The proverbial ground on which we walk, and the air we breath, is about to undergo a change that humanity has never faced.

Do we, will we, need nuclear fusion? Should we invest in nuclear fusion? As an engineering, climate change nerd, in my humble opinion, definitely Yes!

We will need as wide a cluster of answers as we can afford, and then some, in dealing with climate change. Nuclear fusion is just one of the many solutions that may help to alleviate to conundrum that future generations will face, but NOT THE solution.

Although scientists may have some idea of what the future climate will look like, weather is another issue. Scientists may have a wealth of knowledge of what the concentration of carbon dioxide was over the last 400 million years from the Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, et al.

If/when we will begin to see Category 6 hurricanes, and where they will hit? This, I believe, is somewhat more difficult to predict.

My apologies if my tirade came across as a hard and fast condemnation of nuclear fusion.

scrive
:thinking:

71

scrive

72

scrive

73

"After NASA scientist James Hansen sounded the alarm on climate change in 1988, three trade associations – the National Association of Manufacturers, the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute – banded together with a couple of electrical utilities to form the Global Climate Coalition, or GCC.

The GCC systematically opposed any international regulation of climate-warming emissions, and successfully prevented the U.S. from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This was the first example of trade associations working together to stall government action on climate change. Similar efforts continue today."

scrive

74

Maybe the solution to climate change is depopulation.

“JAW-DROPPING” Population COLLAPSE Is Coming!!

75

This corner of the forum is increasingly insane. Once Russell Brand videos start being posted, it’s pretty much time to close up shop and focus the forum purely on Lit&Lat’s products.

1 Like
76

Feel free to support my suggestion: Ban politics (hear me out before you press delete)

77

One of the many tactics of the fossil fuel lobby (let’s shorten that to just FFL) is to make climate change appear as an issue without a solution, and that we all just need to continue purchasing their products, and go home to wait for what they say is the inevitable. Precious.

The promulgation of such a belief would allow the FFL to continue to extract fossil fuels with the commensurate flow of cash to enrich their coffers to the maximum, while leaving all others to deal with the damaged environment in the aftermath.

Notice how, after being called out, those who support the FFL, resort to images of chaos in a desperate attempt to incite an emotional, irrational response as a distraction away from any actual solutions under discussion or review.

We need to keep in mind just how much of a sea change ending the extraction of fossil fuels means to the FFL as we approach the inevitable end to their reign of power, as manifest by such debacles as the largely manufactured ‘debt ceiling crisis’.

The true panic and desperation by the FFL has just begun. We have yet to see just how desperate the FFL will become in the coming years (e.g. "You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet ") as pressure to actually zero out the extraction of fossil fuel extraction takes hold.

The FFL lobby originally achieved their apex of power at the end of WWII when the Allies won the war, largely a result of the significant production of petroleum from the Texas oilfields that simply overwhelmed the Axis. Toward the end of WWII, German pilots were prohibited from taxing out to the runways under power from their aircraft engines, and instead had to have their aircraft towed by whatever animals were available (e.g. donkeys, horses, etc.) to avoid using up precious high-octane aviation fuel.

The FFL’s position of power was buttressed with Eisenhower’s implementation of the The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 , also known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. (See Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Wikipedia). The national highway system literally cemented the market share for gasoline and diesel fuels in the transportation sector. There were few options to meet the transportation needs for a sprawling country coming out of the throws of a major world war.

Whatever options existed, such as the infamous LA street cars, were simply torn out and replaced with concrete highways and fossil fuel based infrastructure, as happened with the General Motors streetcar conspiracy. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy.)

The Eisenhower era legislation was followed by significant advances in commercial jet engine design that allowed the use of Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel, a.k.a. CAS Number * 8008-20-6 (kerosene, also called fuel oil no. 1) which is a much heavier petroleum fuel than the previous high-octane fuel required to power the earlier piston-driven aviation engines.

The switch from the previous high-octane fuel used in piston engine aviation to the Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel was a game changer for both the refinery industry and the aviation industry. Refineries could now simply take a slip stream off the main distillation tower in the refinery, without having to perform any upgrades to boost the fuel’s octane, and ship it directly to market. (See File:RefineryFlow.png - Wikimedia Commons).

In many metropolitan areas with refineries, there are pipelines that more-or-less connect directly from the primary distillation tower in the refinery, distributing Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel direct to the airports. Such pipelines streamline the delivery of massive quantities of the Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel direct to the commercial airlines, eliminating much of the risk of mishap in the delivery of an otherwise highly flammable fuel.

Such connections are a perfect example of the embedded infrastructure that supports the existing fossil fuel industry, and symbolizes one of many major challenges for non-climate changing alternatives in the decades ahead.

The revenue generated from the sale of Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel provides major financial support for the ‘refinery margins’ when considering the viability of any particular ‘run’ of crude oil within a refinery, as the ‘middle distillates’ are a major component of many, if not most, crude oils.

There are major challenges that the world will need to address as we go forward. The denials, falsehoods, lies and misinformation by the FFL and ilk provide fertile ground for them to maintain the revenues from fossil fuel extraction. The FFL’s actions prevent the development of much needed alternatives that would provide the best alternatives to slow the progression and eventual manifestation of a full-on change in our climate that will challenge us all.

scrive

1 Like
78

In my opinion, all topics should be open to debate. We are human: we can have disagreements and the atmosphere can get heated. That is unavoidable. But Greek philosophy taught us that social progress depends on debate. Those societies that close themselves to the debate contribute to political polarization, facilitate the spread of hoaxes, false news, dogmas and anti-scientific beliefs.

I think that an eminently intellectual forum should be open to any matter.

Regards.

1 Like
79

If you have a button that does that on your system, push it. Push it hard.

1 Like
80

Yes. A general forum should. But this isn’t a general forum, and it also isn’t bipartisan. But the idea didn’t appeal to the majority of users anyways, so that’s a purely theoretical debate at this point.

81

Such a button does in fact exist. It’s possible to mute or block both threads and individual forum contributors.

2 Likes
82

As your moderator, I disagree, and I think the internet provides abundant examples illustrating why.

Any forum, real or virtual, must have the tools to protect itself from bad faith contributors, and the willingness to use them. Otherwise, the trolls will take over and the reasonable contributors will leave. There are also some topics which should not be entertained at all, because engaging with the proponent gives the false impression that there is a debate to be had.

Anyone unfamiliar with the rules of this particular forum should go here:
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/faq

4 Likes