Try buying some Ammoniumnitrate over the counter and tell me that the Haber-Bosch process hasn't been perfected yet.
It's not a "coping strategy" when you're 10000 miles away.
Thank you for illustrating my point with a real life example.
I'm pretty sure I was just hallucinating webpages like these:
http://www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/challenge.htm ["The author of this paper, following a long-standing interest in renewable energy, obtained a small Sustainable Communities Award from the Millennium Commission in 1998 to study the viability of electric vehicles and, subsequently, sustainable transport fuels. As a result of this research he was one of the first people in the UK to be awarded a Millennium Fellowship."]
I must have also had two more bouts of weekly hallucinations going on for 4 months of a semester each, in which self-declared environmentalists were lecturing me and the rest of a class of 30 to 100 students on the environmental benefits of biofuels without mentioning even once that they compete with growing food. Are you kidding me? It we've had more than our share of environmentalists protesting against *delays* in the large-scale application of biofuels in Germany and enthusiastic exclamations of biofuel being used in lorries, ships, airplanes etc. as a sign of a green future. The Green Party being first among them.
The only thing they will do is to remove zones of brackish water from the environment, that are usually highly prized by greenies as having high biodiversity and such stuff. Of course this is all swept to the wayside once you can make "green energy" out of all this green stuff. You'll even find conspiracy theories thrown out by eco-nuts blaming "big oil" for preventing such "innovative alternative technology" from coming to market. If that should happen, very soon they will have an epiphany, realize that in fact those osmotic power plants destroy important ecological niches
How far fetched is this scenario
There is a reason why there is a difference between "reactor grade" and "weapon grade" plutonium.
You seem to have trouble with English grammar. Please visit an English language course and try to re-parse the first sentence of my comment.
You mean like the people who found out that genetic traits carry over from one generation of animals or plants to the next had great success in breeding, were perfectly correct
Being right in one question does not confer upon anybody any distinction whatsoever to be right with the next question as well. All you are doing is making one great big appeal to authority in order to avoid any factual discussion of the topic.
No, my problem is also with the deliberately disingenuous science by people who take "publish or perish" as an excuse to put out "scientific" papers according to their news value, instead of their scientific merit.
The scientific merit of papers in climate science is questionable in any case, since the concept of "replicability" is virtually non-existent. They are not replicable, period. Because the raw data and computer models used are not published and quite jealously guarded, on the grounds of preventing people to "pick the apart". Which, if you believe it or not, is what science is all about. Mercilessly picking apart the models, finding possible sources of error, correcting those, make predictions, compare prediction with measurements
Not we didn't have a 50 meter rise in sea level in the last 20000 years. We had a sea level rise of roughy 150m in the last 20000 years. Permafrost soil thawed at rates that cannot be repeated these days, because there is so much less of it these days than during the iceage. Temperatures rose by several degrees, deserts didn't expand, there was much more fertile land on the globe that used to look like Siberia or Canada before the end of the ice age.
Of course, we all know that tundra and taiga have vastly preferable climate to any other climate zone. That's why people move there by the hundreds of millions.
Well, for a decade or two the entire scientific community agreed that the climate in the western USA had permanently changed. For the better, mind you. That was in the 1870ies and 1880ies. And then
After decades of one-up-manship and changing goalposts for "global warming"
Trust is a rapidly depleting resource when it is shamelessly abused for politicking.
No, it won't happen. It is an experimental facility and the planners didn't see fit to put some high temperature components into it. Very similar to the first fission reactors, power will be removed at low temperature to keep the engineering effort under control.
It's about the fusion process first, the power generation is easy enough and will come once the physics of the reactor is sufficiently understood to turn it into an engineering and financing excercise.
Plans to build ITER started in 1983. That's 30 years ago. It was planned as a cooperation with the Soviet Union. Failure of the USSR to exist (and be solvent) when it neared realization delayed it. After new plans were made in 1996 or so, it took another decade just to agree on which country would have the honour of building it.
There has been little progress towards fusion in the meantime, because you need better fusion reactors - better hardware - to do that. As it is, the best hardware so far was build in 1983, the Joint European Torus(JET). There are some other reactors that are roughly on par with it (perhaps slightly better), but nothing that would mark serious progress.
When it comes to fusion reactors, size matters. When you build a reactor twice as big in every dimension, you will get roughly 8 times the fusion yield. When you double the magnetic field strength, it doubles too. ITER is more than twice as big as JET and has just over four times the magnetic field strength. The lack of progress stems from the deplorable fact that nobody has build anything in-between over the last 30 years. This makes the problems for ITER even worse, since there is now no experience in that realm and extrapolation of physical characteristics may break down at some point.
Quite the opposite actually. The smaller you build something, the easier it is for it to survive. The larger the house, the larger the area where the wind can push, the larger the forces that all the walls and structural members have to handle. Nobody would use the same thick walls of the first or second floor of a 14 storey building, if you weren't going to put the other 12 floors on top of it. It would be ludicrously overengineered for such a small thing.
It is much easier to build a small building to last a tornado than a big one. It is only hard to do so, if you think that two-by-fours are the paragon of stability.
Joplin Hospital begs to differ. Yet, it was still standing and moved by all of 4 inches (which, however, was sufficient to make it uneconomic to repair). People died either because they couldn't be moved away from the windows in time (being in a bed in a hospital). Or because they depended on ventilators for breathing that lost power due to wind/hail/rain damage on powerlines and emergency backup.
Reinforced concrete is perfectly sufficient to withstand an EF-5. Unfortunately, most buildings in the US are made of reinforced cardboard.
It sounds like that because KSP is based on what real rocket engineers actually do in the real world. You can see this in just about any major rocket family. Although, admittedly, the changes are a bit larger than what people usually do. But that's a function of most companies not having the technological reserves to increase the thrust of their engines by 50%. (Actually, the Merlin 1D has 135% more thrust than the original Merlin 1A. But 50% more than Merlin 1C.)
For comparison: getting 20% more thrust with the Vulcain II engine was hailed as a major improvement of the Ariane 5