Years ago, in Basic Training, had a guy tell me he was from "Soccolonna"?

And I was like "Where?"

South Carolina.

I'm fine with taking a certain stylistic convention (such as supposed "proper english") and teaching is the norm (similar to Standard Received Pronunciation used to be in the UK).
This ensures that we can still communicate with one another. Without the regional drifts becoming so bad they become an unintelligible dialect to pretty much anyone else.
We don't have to declare english a "closed language (see DEAD LANGUAGE)" the way those idiots in France have tried and failed to do.

But using "English is a living, growing language" to justify "Fo shizzle"isms is disingenuous at best, with me leaning more towards "downright idiotic".

The point of a language is to be able to communicate in a standard manner.

Having to decipher pseudorandom grunts and vocalizations defeats that purpose.

The same thing can be said for the written language.

Spelling stuff "just any old way" is just unacceptable.

Try reading medieval English (from the period of Chaucer and before). And I don't mean copies that have been spelling corrected as of today. I mean the originals.

It can be done. But it's a MASSIVE pain in the balls, and in some cases, requires additional schooling.

Now imagine people turning in manuscripts, scientific papers, reports, etc, etc like that TODAY.

Again, you don't have a common point of reference. Therefore you don't have a language.

Uhm. No. A pair of decently large handgun bullets to the brain snuff you like a candle. There's no need to blow the head off completely.

Seriously. If you want to execute someone and be SURE about it without untoward cruelty?

Two bullets to the head, of the largest possible caliber to fit in a handgun, in rapid succession.

If you want to feel more "humane" about it, drug person to sleep first.

*POW!*POW!*

End of story.

Heheheh.

Because I'm NOT talking about residential low-temperature solar thermal heating.
I'm also NOT talking about residential (or even industrial) solar panels.

I'm talking about high temperature molten salt solar thermal installs. Where you basically have a 1 square mile facility concentrating sunlight on a central structure containing substances that can absorb and retain vast quantities of energy.

Also, where, during the industrial revolution, were we generating hot spots in open air, several dozen/hundred feet above the desert floor.

You keep acting as if I'm trying to be political about this. Yet you apparently misread (or did not read) my original posts, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to talk about urban solar panels when they have nothing to do with the question posed. So, who's trying to be political here?

Low IQ AC mouth-breathers in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The ground absorbs and returns heat to the atmosphere at a given rate.

A concentrator tower is roughly 14-16x as hot. And likely produces a prodigious, and very active, thermal plume.

What I want to know is, how does this concentration of energy, and the resultant shift in temperatures and location affect local ecology and climate.

Look at the weather in Canada and the US this year. Disruptions in normal weather patterns in the Arctic have pushed various fronts down into Canada and the US.

Are you trying to tell me that you've got evidence for a paper that shows that introducing a series of hot spots in a uniform pattern across several thousand square miles has zero effect on local or worldwide climate?

Please. Point me at the research.

Until then, I don't have time for you. Go back to trolling your MLP boards.

I don't know. That's why I'm asking the question.

Terrible spelling aside, mostly "or something". We basically created (and enlarged) multiple holes in our ozone layer through over-use of various chemicals.
I'd like to know what region-scale introduction of a grid of super-hot points will do to a local ecology and climate.

And you, Mr. Internet Expert, know this...how? You can handwave it if you like. Until you can actually point me at real research on the subject, I'm going to continue asking the question.

No. As I said earlier, I want to know what the introduction of these hot points (and the thermal plumes they engender) will do to the local ecology and climate.

I'd like to see actual research, as opposed to some fanboy who THINKS they know the technology rah-rah'ing it in response to a legitimate question.

In a couple places I've seen people dismiss RDJ as "a druggie who got lucky".

Sorry, but cleaning up your own life is not LUCK. It's hard fucking work. As hard, or harder, than anything else he's ever done in his life.

But now, he's famous (possibly pigeon holed) for playing a character who makes technology COOL!
This opens up the opportunity, in this case, for an important medical technology to be presented in an attractive, funny, approachable way.
Incidentally it also gives this kid a thrill and makes his life better simultaneously.

And RDJ CHOOSES to participate in this sort of thing. Furthering the coolness of technology

That, right there, is "class act".

What math? The Sahara desert is approximately 3.6 million square miles.

Yes, I understand worldwide power consumption could be sated with a fraction of that.

I'm simply saying that, were we to do regional-scale deployment of solar concentration type tech, what soft of environmental impacts will be had from generating intense hot spots over large swaths of land?

Take a look at Solar Thermal Energy on Wikipedia jackass.
You essentially have a large mirror array concentrating sunlight on a tower with a molten payload.
It's heat collection. But it's high-temperature heat collection. As noted, a liquid fluoride system can operate at temps between 700-800 degrees Centigrade.
Again, while average temps on and above a desert range in the 40-50 degree Centigrade range, what starts happening in the region if we start introducing an 800 degree hot point every square mile?
As soon as you can give me a definitive answer on this, then, maybe, I'll go back to school.

I believe the lack of perspective is yours my friend.

As I'm not living in a high rise or in the concentrator tower of a solar thermal facility. No. Why should I? Please, strawman elsewhere.

Sure it does. Because you're operating on a bias here. "Your" anointed "solution" is "perfect".
Never mind that you don't simply stick poles into the ground to hold the mirrors. You put in concrete foundations. Destroying habitat for plants/creatures that live on or under the desert floor.

Hey. Maybe YOU have no problem living in a field of such nuclear solar plants.

I prefer more compact solutions.

In terms of overall land use? Yes. It might be even more efficient if there were another method used for storing the cooling reservoir. But that's just how Braidwood is built out.

With heat pollution. You sort of have to weigh the effects of chosen power type against the effects of the CO2 output over a given period.

Doing it that way (concentrating areas of solar generation) can have other side effects as well.

Like giant fucking hot spots above large areas of earth.
Existing molten salt solar facilities already roast birds and destroy the desert ecosystem.
Sure, CO2 is bad. What is a 3.6 MILLION square mile hot spot going to do?

Sure, it's warm above the Sahara right now. But we're talking 40-50 degrees Centigrade.
A liquid fluoride solar thermal plant can generate temps in excess of 800 degrees Centigrade.

The big issue is that solar isn't a very energy dense solution in terms of land use.
Most solar concentration type facilities weigh in at about 100 MW per collector. And each collector is about a square mile.

For comparison, the Braidwood Nuclear Generation Facility (2 reactors, 2,242 MW total output). With its cooling pond, it sits on a site 7x the size of a solar concentration site and outputs roughly 22x the power.

https://youtu.be/7-xPHopebiE

Watch that, THEN tell me about how everyone should have a nice big, TOXIC battery in their house.

And things like Solar, Wind, and Wave wave aren't usable as baseline "brown" power. Because their generation sources are not stable and dependable. BUT, they can be used, alongside existing hydro and geothermal to offset demand spikes.

In other words, you don't use nuclear power to "fill in". You use nuclear as your baseline. You use everything else to fill in.

Thank you Launchpad McQuack.