Borzio’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Natural variation

  Here is something interesting. From 2006 to 2007 we had a very large drop in Arctic sea ice coverage. For the current date, that difference is shown here.

  http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...

  This change had the warmers calling for the end of the world "even sooner than expected".

  Now we have had another change in the opposite direction. Again taking the same day (today) in 2007 and comparing it to 2008 we have:

  http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...

  So going from 2006 to 2008 we have hardly any change at all:

  http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...

  Now while the drop from 2006 to 2007 was trumpeted all over the left wing media and the ecological media, the recovery from 2007 to 2008 is not mentioned at all. No agenda there, right?On The dirty secret behind D.C.'s high-tech Virginia suburbs posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Huh?

  "So why would we need more nukes?"

  Are you reading impaired?  I said that the only problem is that we will run out of fossil fuel eventually.On European Union sticks by GHG plan, United Kingdom goes for 80 percent cut posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  New Jersey?

  "Yes, Borzio the argument is that "we" should do nothing because the economy is booming, and "we" should do nothing because the economy is tanking."

  Yes, I guess that's the argument if you want to engage a strawman.  I'll see if I can find one for you.

  "Also, "we" should do something as long as the "something" involves building huge gargantuan nuclear reactors the size of New Jersey."

  The size of New Jersey?  Not given to hyperbole are you?  How much area do you think all those windmills would take up as compared with nuclear reactors that generate the same power.  Also keep in mind the windmill noise pollution that requires people not to live within a half mile of them.On European Union sticks by GHG plan, United Kingdom goes for 80 percent cut posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Efficiency

  "Which option would be cheaper?"

  Depends on the efficiency of the home that you start with as well as the cost of increasing that efficiency. Sometimes it will pay, sometimes not. A lot of people are improving the insulation in their houses. I have done that. And I use compact flourecent bulbs.  Of course I also run a 55 inch flat screen TV that generates a lot of heat and I don't care what ecologists think of that.  If I can get a more efficient screen after this one wears out, I will do so.  But I'm not going to a 21 inch screen to satisfy the irrational fears of the ecologists.  Come up with truely better solutions and they will sell themselves.  Come up with a lot of half baked solutions and you will have to take the standard ecologists approach of getting the government to force it on people. Of course you can make the claim that everyone will not act in their own economic interest.  This is true, some people won't.  But I also don't care about that, because their freedom is much more important to me that your agenda.
  On Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Running stinky's numbers.

  stinkycheese
  "So Borzio, where am I wrong?"

  You are right.  As a percentage of the total, it would grow by 3.3 percent.  But chart 2 shows only 2%.  Also if you simply say that adding 50% nuclear capacity will only add 3% to our electric energy production you are trying to imply that building nuclear gives you little or nothing.  But 50% nuclear increase actually gives you 9.5% more electrical energy than we are generating now.  In today's terms, you would take your percentage from 19% to 28.5%.  So you are simply hiding the power gain in the consumption growth.  To give an accurate and fair representation on the chart you would show a band representing 19% of 3659 in 2008 moving apart to 22% of 4705 in 2030.  That would give you a fair visual representation of the increase. But the idea is to give the illusion that 45 new reactor would yield almost nothing, and that is the illusion that you want to present.  Now let's say that we build 200 nuclear reactors by 2030.  Then your number becomes roughly 300% * 700 or 2100 TWH.  Now you have about 45% nuclear energy for electric generation.  A much nicer picture showing that nuclear can make a big difference.  Of course as I have said before, we should continue to build them after 2030 until we have 100% nuclear electric generation.

  And while you keep trying to give the illusion that you can't run a power grid on nuclear, the French have apparently achieved your impossibility.
  On Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 Responses