Well not really, but anyway -

November 12, 2015, Paris, France —

“Four of the world’s leading climate (alarmist) scientists”: http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/372493/c25ebfa5d2/1603503199/be41125912/, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, will issue a stark challenge to world leaders and environmental campaigners attending the COP21 climate summit at a scheduled press conference in Paris on December 3.

Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy.
However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system this century.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

But wait on a moment;

Naomi Oreskes, the author of that slanderous bit of fiction, merchants of doubt, has accused James Hansen et al, & others like him,
who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.

.
.

.

Via The Guardian she writes – “After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.”

.
.

.
.
As has been noted – her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?

.
.

what’s that ‘strange’ part or’s that to encourage intrigue
don’t much likin’ intrigue sort of wanders anywhere
ol’ he more into mundane’s what, some disinterest see
so true’s be needin’ it more nuclear power for sure
few less people too man breed like borderin’t extinction
wants satisfied, still man on african savanna EoEA
add all ‘em billions of ambition entropic creature is man
fuckfest progress workin’ for civilization want more
all’ll arrive at us livin’ in cubicle, playin’ with our iPhones

The_observer said:

Well not really, but anyway -

November 12, 2015, Paris, France —

“Four of the world’s leading climate (alarmist) scientists”: http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/372493/c25ebfa5d2/1603503199/be41125912/, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, will issue a stark challenge to world leaders and environmental campaigners attending the COP21 climate summit at a scheduled press conference in Paris on December 3.

Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel will present research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy.
However, they will also show that renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system this century.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

But wait on a moment;

Naomi Oreskes, the author of that slanderous bit of fiction, merchants of doubt, has accused James Hansen et al, & others like him,
who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.

.
.

.

Via The Guardian she writes – “After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.

But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.”

.
.

.
.
As has been noted – her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?

.
.

Yes, people have different opinions, therefore you must rely on science for a more rational determination.

> renewables alone cannot realistically meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C, and that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential this century.

That’s been known for a long time, too. Since at least the 1970s.

one for you moll, sure i’ve spoken to you before

in the place of air con overnight you use a large solar array on the roof of a house to freeze water during the day

of a night air is blown through pipes in the ice to cool the house of a night, cheaper than using a battery to provide power to an air con unit

spare electrical energy during the day is stored in ice , it takes a fair amount of energy to melt the ice and also raise the water to 24 degrees say

it might take all night for all the water to melt

as the sun rises the water is then re frozen

5kw is used to run a normal electrically run air con during the day

a 300w fan blows air through ice of a night

you could go off grid if you had a 10Kw system

Talking by phone to a friend, I asked him for his pgp key. He laughed and said I’m the only person he knows who even understands what that means. That’s really disappointing.

wookiemeister said:

one for you moll, sure i’ve spoken to you before

in the place of air con overnight you use a large solar array on the roof of a house to freeze water during the day

of a night air is blown through pipes in the ice to cool the house of a night, cheaper than using a battery to provide power to an air con unit

spare electrical energy during the day is stored in ice , it takes a fair amount of energy to melt the ice and also raise the water to 24 degrees say

it might take all night for all the water to melt

as the sun rises the water is then re frozen

5kw is used to run a normal electrically run air con during the day

a 300w fan blows air through ice of a night

you could go off grid if you had a 10Kw system

I’ve seen plans for using a system remarkably similar to that when I was working on the mathematics of using phase change as an energy storage mechanism for reducing air conditioning costs in hot climates.

From memory, your system is being implemented in blocks of flats, but more for season to season, using the cold weather of winter to cool the flats in summer and the heat of summer to heat the flats in winter.

The two systems I was looking at used a) paraffin and b) hygroscopic salts, in place of your proposed water ice. My system aimed to cut the top off air conditioning needs in industrial buildings such as warehouses (because in warehouses it hardly matters what the night time temperature is, so I could optimize the daytime temperature). The main problem I struck was that I could only drop peak daytime indoor temperatures by 10 to 15 degrees at most. The second biggest problem was the hysteresis time delay between when the cooling was needed and when it was available.

btm said:

Talking by phone to a friend, I asked him for his pgp key. He laughed and said I’m the only person he knows who even understands what that means. That’s really disappointing.

i used pgp many years back