Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
KSMountain
ParticipantWow that looks like a great speech. I’ll read the rest from hotel room tonight or tomorrow.
Ah the joy of business trips…
ParticipantHaven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.
ParticipantHaven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.
ParticipantHaven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.
ParticipantHaven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.
ParticipantHaven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.
OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.
I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.
Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.
It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?
So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?
“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.
I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.
OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.
I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.
Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.
It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?
So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?
“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.
I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.
OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.
I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.
Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.
It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?
So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?
“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.
I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.
OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.
I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.
Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.
It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?
So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?
“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.
I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.
OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.
I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.
Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.
It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?
So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?
“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.
I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.
February 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM in reply to: How close is the San Diego housing market to the historical average? #517390ParticipantAnd on another related note:
Is it just me or didn’t La Jolla “use to be” nicer?
It just doesn’t at all seem to have the cachet that it once did. It’s hard to even picture the high traffic areas as desirable.
What the heck happened?
Seems like there’s been some tremendous mismanagement there.
Anyone agree/disagree?
February 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM in reply to: How close is the San Diego housing market to the historical average? #517825ParticipantAnd on another related note:
Is it just me or didn’t La Jolla “use to be” nicer?
It just doesn’t at all seem to have the cachet that it once did. It’s hard to even picture the high traffic areas as desirable.
What the heck happened?
Seems like there’s been some tremendous mismanagement there.
Anyone agree/disagree?
February 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM in reply to: How close is the San Diego housing market to the historical average? #517916ParticipantAnd on another related note:
Is it just me or didn’t La Jolla “use to be” nicer?
It just doesn’t at all seem to have the cachet that it once did. It’s hard to even picture the high traffic areas as desirable.
What the heck happened?
Seems like there’s been some tremendous mismanagement there.
Anyone agree/disagree?
-
AuthorPosts
