I believe the phrase is: Eat you cake and have it too.
Everyone can have their cake and eat it too. At least logically one cannot be eating cake one does not have.
Sent from my phone
Siva <[address removed]> wrote:
>NOT necessarily. It may be possible w/technology, to have our cake
>and eat it too.
>One thing that could be tried to essentially cool the globe to
>counteract global warming can be replacing existing coal power plants
>w/cryogenic solar-thermal plants that operate by boiling a cryogenic
>fluid to a gas that in turns drive the alternators, instead of boiling
>water and letting steam drive the alternators.
>In this plant configuration, heat from the atmosphere (and sun) is
>used to boil liquid nitrogen in a non-insulated tank with a large
>surface area whose walls are directly exposed to the atmosphere, and
>the gas is then used to drive a turbine that drives an alternator,
>then the gas exiting the turbine is sent to a cooled, vacuum-insulated
>enclosure where condenser coils turn it back into fluid, and then that
>fluid is then dumped back into a big liquid N2 tank inside the
>enclosure, from which liquid is then dumped back into the boiling
>tank. A pump can be used instead of the large internal tank to
>complete the Rankine cycle.
>Power from the plant could be combined with power from photovoltaic
>cells (connected to inverters) lining the walls of the boiling tank,
>and then the combined power generated by the alternators and PV cells
>could be partially tapped to help refrigerate the enclosure. Since
>the enclosure is vacuum-insulated, not much power should be required
>to refrigerate the enclosure. The remaining power is the output of
>A similar idea (using CO2 instead of N2 as the boiling agent) has been
>documented in EOEARTH. . .
>The advantage of this plant is that unlike a simple PV-plant, the
>thermal portion of the sun's spectrum as well as atmospheric heat is
>also collected and converted to electricity, effectively cooling the
>surrounding environment. With enough of these plants, the whole earth
>will be cooled and average global temperature could drop. Also, none
>of the fuel is polluting, and if the plant blows up for any reason, no
>toxic substances will be released into the environment (unlike a
>The disadvantage of the plant is efficiency, since not all atmospheric
>heat will be collected by the boiling tank (some of it will be
>reflected or carried away by wind), and some heat will be lost that
>isn't converted to energy. As cited in the article. . .
>"In 2006 a solar energy powered Rankine cycle using supercritical
>carbon dioxide (CO2) for combined production of electricity and
>thermal energy was proposed. The proposed system consists of evacuated
>solar collectors, power-generating turbine, a high-temperature heat
>recovery system, a low-temperature heat recovery system, and a feed
>pump. The estimated power generation efficiency is 0.25 and heat
>recovery efficiency is 0.65."
>On 3/10/13, j <[address removed]> wrote:
>> That's what im talkin about...what are we talking about? Oh yes...there's
>> no lemonade without lemons....sciencedaily.com
>> On Mar 10,[masked]:27 PM, "Mike McGrath" <[address removed]> wrote:
>>> The debate is over in that we've decided to pass the decision onto the
>>> next generation.
>>> We will be remembered as the generation that welcomed the Keystone
>>> Pipeline and its 20 thousand temporary jobs (one third of which will be
>>> in Canada), so that our goal of employing the proletariat at any cost may
>>> be realized.
>>> The real debate now is how high should a ''Green'' turn up his or her air
>>> *From:* Siva <[address removed]>
>>> *To:* [address removed]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 10,[masked]:46 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe] 3/6/13 questions and
>>> The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that while
>>> global warming is the result of both natural and artificial phenomena,
>>> the difference in average global temperature since the late 19th
>>> century compared to other eras is attributed mostly to man-made
>>> greenhouse gas emissions.
>>> That debate IS over, and the only ones who question it are the
>>> American right wingers who can't be bothered with science and prefer
>>> instead to listen to the likes of rush limbaugh.
>>> On 3/10/13, Jon Anderson <[address removed]> wrote:
>>> > 3/6/13 questions and discussion
>>> > 1-when are anecdotes better than aggregates, and visa versa?2
>>> > 2-why are we allowing the war on drugs to take over?4
>>> > 3-how are robotics affecting us?2
>>> > 4-on the conservative to liberal spectrum where is the US, and what is
>>> > vision that implies for the country?3
>>> > 5-is the debate on global warming over?5
>>> > ===========================
>>> > is the debate on global warming over?
>>> > Jerry: we have to define what we mean by global warming, If one
>>> > believes
>>> > it. Sure the planet has warmed. The next question: is it primarily
>>> caused by
>>> > our carbon dioxide production? The last one is whether or not we'll
>>> > have
>>> > catastrophes if we do nothing. I think we're partly the causes with
>>> > causing the rest of the warming. The key factor is being able to
>>> > predict
>>> > what happens in our future. The various methods used so far have not
>>> > been
>>> > able to predict correctly. Fudge factors can be used to replicate any
>>> > predicting either bad or good futures. The major objection I have to
>>> > any
>>> > changes we make is the negative effects it may have one developing
>>> > countries. I like nuclear power. Algae is interesting too, as are wind
>>> > solar.
>>> > Art: I agree we should develop nuclear power. It's cheaper. We could
>>> > desalinate water for droughts. I've read there's a tipping point when
>>> > methane inversion can occur. All the economic questions seem to be
>>> > about
>>> > putting people to work, creating value. Economic forecasts seem crazy;
>>> > frugal doesn't make any money. Spend money to make money -- no
>>> > austerity!
>>> > Tor: I've been praying for global warming ever since I came to
>>> > Minnesota!
>>> > Global warming disaster for MN would be to get Arkansas' weather. I
>>> > don't
>>> > know why no one is talking about the global warming on Mars. Nobody is
>>> > claiming Martian SUV owners caused its global warming (melted its polar
>>> > cap)! Al Gore's Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice melt isn't caused by warming --
>>> > the
>>> > temps on the mountain haven't gone up. So, like Mars the reason for
>>> > melt is the sun. There are three variables: Earth's 23 degree wobble,
>>> > Earth's closeness to the Sun (not orbital), and the sun itself. Sun
>>> > cycle
>>> > data is very good. Why is Mars behaving like Earth? Sublimation (when
>>> > ice
>>> > becomes vapor) can be caused by solar radiation. There's a lot of money
>>> > be made scaring people about global warming. One solution is to release
>>> > kind of crystal into the air that reflects sunlight back to the sun.
>>> > are many others. Since we aren't sure, we are operating on false
>>> premises. I
>>> > was on the Science Museum board and talked to them about it. They said
>>> > we
>>> > are 400 years into an ice age yet the ice isn't growing. An ice age is
>>> > a
>>> > danger. We must ask; if we're just reacting instead of trying to change
>>> > what is good in that? It's unresolved. Eventually money will shift.
>>> > There
>>> > are some things worth preventing, like meteors. We should do that. The
>>> > program should take us to other planets. Can't we build an "escape
>>> > The car was for my significant other who used to spend $200/mo. on gas.
>>> > Jon: Consumer Reports magazine estimates the energy cost for that car
>>> > Volt) is 101 mpg electric and 32 mpg gas.
>>> > Mike: I first heard the term global warming in about 1967. It's my
>>> > understanding that in 1957 some scientist noticed the rise in temps.
>>> > Everybody has a piece of truth here. In a relatively short time even
>>> > kids
>>> > now know global warming so I don't think it's in doubt. I don't think
>>> > be here anymore if it gets bad. This issue has brought out a lot of
>>> > information but I don't think it can be dealt with without a global
>>> > government. That's the backgrounder music here (and I don't like it). I
>>> > things the way they are. (airport security) The best thing that can
>>> > is for me to be "escorted to the exit"!
>>> > Jon: my father worked for United Airlines so when I was a kid I spent a
>>> > amount of time in airports. It was fantastic! No security! Nowadays
>>> > are made quite boring by the security measures. Then there's the
>>> "theatre of
>>> > safety." Most of the efforts at security, like most law enforcement, is
>>> > theatre: perception of consequences. Theatre can be bad. Much of
>>> > airport
>>> > security is bad theatre. Responding to Mike about world government; as
>>> > someone left of center I gather from conservative thinkers that world
>>> > government should be high on my wish list. In truth it had never
>>> occurred to
>>> > me until my conservative friend expressed surprise at my having no
>>> > in it. Conservatives and liberals need to get to know one another
>>> > better.
>>> > Art: there's no global culture. No global consensus. World government
>>> > never happen.
>>> > Rachel: little has been said about eco-systems, our impact on them.
>>> > This
>>> > not be a solution but might it be better to take better care of our
>>> > environment than we are? Whether or not we cause global warming, surely
>>> > we'll be grateful for things like better air, water, soil, etc.
>>> > Jerry: the problem is to isolate what's a real cause from what's not.
>>> > --
>>> > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone
>>> > on
>>> > this mailing list ([address removed])
>>> > http://www.meetup...
>>> > This message was sent by Jon Anderson ([address removed]) from The
>>> > Paul Socrates Cafe.
>>> > To learn more about Jon Anderson, visit his/her member profile:
>>> > http://www.meetup...
>>> > To unsubscribe from special announcements from your Organizer(s), click
>>> > here:
>>> > Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
>>> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on
>>> this mailing list ([address removed])
>>> This message was sent by Siva ([address removed]) from The Saint Paul
>>> Socrates Cafe.
>>> To learn more about Siva, visit his/her member profile:
>>> Set my mailing list to email me
>>> As they are sent
>>> In one daily email
>>> Don't send me mailing list messages
>>> Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
>>> Please Note: If you hit "*REPLY*", your message will be sent to
>>> *everyone*on this mailing list (
>>> [address removed])
>>> This message was sent by Mike McGrath ([address removed]) from The
>>> Saint Paul Socrates
>>> To learn more about Mike McGrath, visit his/her member
>>> Set my mailing list to email me As they are
>>> one daily
>>> send me mailing list
>>> Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 <#13d57466f2d082af_> |
>>> [address removed]
>Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
>This message was sent by Siva ([address removed]) from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
>To learn more about Siva, visit his/her member profile: http://www.meetup...
>Set my mailing list to email me
>As they are sent
>In one daily email
>Don't send me mailing list messages
>Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]