Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Amaris]

I prefer the Jeffrey Hunter version of Jesus. He had such beautiful eyes...

I liked Jeffrey Hunter. So sad that he passed, with such a great future ahead of him. Still, my favorite Jesus is Robert Powell. Just something about him that made it seem like there was something greater to him, something unknowable. I loved his portrayal.

Ted Neely FTW!

Ted Neely is awesome in JCSS, but to be honest, Carl Anderson stole that musical/movie right out from under him.

 

[Forbin]

Well, yeah.

 

[publiusr]

New York City, on the other hand, has apparently stopped buying hybrid buses and is scrapping some of the ones it already has.

Great...just great. Now, to be fair, I have heard it said that buses are the greenest form of transport if filled to capacity--but the least green if you only have one or two riders...

denouncement and excommunication, as happened to Lennart Bengtsson last month, one of the world's leading climatologists with 258 published papers .

That does seem to be the case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Bengtsson

Still, I'd like to get off hydrocarbons that should be saved for chemical foodstocks

There was a time when inspiring the public to do great things, like defeat Hitler or go to the Moon, was not seen as an annoyance to complain about, but as a worthy and noble pursuit.

I do wonder what our grandparents or great-grandparents (in America) who kicked the Nazi's in the teeth, who defeated the militarists in Japan, then came back and built the world's number one economy would think of their children

That, to me, is an even greater threat than AGW.

We have this anti-gov't movement that scares the crap out of me.

The Greatest Generation had the polar opposite viewpoint.

Don't trust businessmen. We remember the bankers and de-regulation. Instead, let's put the best minds of Uncle Sam on a problem and lick it.

This can-do atmosphere has been de-railed.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

New York City, on the other hand, has apparently stopped buying hybrid buses and is scrapping some of the ones it already has.

Great...just great. Now, to be fair, I have heard it said that buses are the greenest form of transport if filled to capacity--but the least green if you only have one or two riders...

Given the ... ahem ... gas emissions ... in such a crowded bus during rush hour, I'm pretty sure the "green" is from the complexion of the passengers.

Seriously, though, it's not all doom and gloom, and reflects the practical, pragmatic process it takes to systematically reduce emissions in a reasonable, responsible manner - one that doesn't ignore the need to reduce carbon emissions, while still understanding that drastic, sudden change isn't going to work. The hybrids will remain in Manhattan and, in the outer boroughs where the technology isn't as efficient, newer, cleaner-air diesels will be used:

Ironically, the switch back to diesel engines could mean cleaner air in New York. Henry Sullivan, the MTA’s chief maintenance officer for buses, said that the hybrids the MTA runs conform to 2004 Environmental Protection Agency emission standards. The new diesel engines, he told the Post, conform to stricter 2007 standards: “When we first went with the hybrid in 2004 that was the way to go. The diesel is better than the hybrid now.”

As the IBT wrote, hybrid city buses are really made for “intense stop-and-go routes where the average speed is 8 miles per hour.” Such as Manhattan. And the city’s keeping hybrids there. But “in situations where buses travel longer distances at higher speeds, the hybrid system is less useful because the lithium ion battery harvests power from when the vehicle brakes and when the bus is coasting,” the IBT explained, which is why they’ll be fine for Manhattan, where buses “travel much slower and brake more often than the buses in the outer boroughs.”

Source

 

[Christopher]

Well, that's not so bad, then.

 

[Forbin]

But wouldn't pure electric still be better than diesel? Certainly less smelly.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Why yes, yes it would be better. And when the technology exists to efficiently run a purely electric bus fleet, I imagine many cities, like New York, will make the switch. But this is why we, as a society, need to invest in developing these technologies. Government regulations and incentives are certainly an appropriate way to help stimulate that research.

 

[gturner]

Many cities made the switch to electric buses back in the 1920's, and some switched over prior to WW-I. Many cities never abandoned them.

 

[Reverend]

All the electric vehicles in the world won't do a damn thing so long as the method for generating all that extra power is done through either burning fossil fuels or dumping fission reactor waste.

We either need a MUCH more efficient solar cell technology or a viable fusion reactor design.

 

[Amaris]

The efficient solar cell is happening, but it would be nice to see more investment into the technology. Instead, fossil fuels and other legacy energies continue to get the majority of funding.

 

[Forbin]

Electric buses with solar cells on the roof, maybe?

 

[gturner]

Not nearly enough power output unless you're on the planet Mercury.

Solar still gets a lot of investment. During 2013 wind power installations dropped to about 8 percent of their 2012 level, though it might rebound somewhat this year. Fracking is taking a heavy toll on both sectors, making it very hard for them to compete and pay back the initial costs. As investments go, thorium could probably wipe out the entire sector if given a green light, and green energy stocks were shaky to being with, having lost 78 percent of their value since 2008, though somewhat recovering last year due to solar.

 

[Cyke101]

I'd much rather see this tha elminate entire towns because "someone" thinks coal is a bad thing. The thought that that is acceptable to anyone is frightening.

No, I'm sure burning a substance into a belching black smoke and dumping it into the air by the tons every minute is a *good* thing for everyone.

I read a whole bunch of Victorian-era novels (several of them being works by Dickens) a few years ago, and it really struck me how much those novels mentioned the perpetual black coal smoke that blanketed London at the time. Those novels were typically about class struggle, finance, and the spectre of invisible money (credits, checks, and the then-new stock market system), but antagonists would almost always be involved with big businesses that polluted the air; the coal-filled London atmosphere would often be a metaphor for lack of moral clarity, poor health, and forces bigger than just one person.

Compare that to London of today; not perfect by any means, of course, but the air is *definitely* cleaner and the literature doesn't dwell on evil industrialists nearly as much, either. Yes, there's at least a century of difference in the two, but my point is: even reading 19th-century novels reveals a lot about how coal isn't exactly the safest, cleanest, healthiest resource. It really puts into context how much one would have to deny the harm it's caused over the years, and why other resources need to be explored and developed.

 

[gturner]

They were burning coal because it was the alternative to wood. They were burning it inefficiently because they needed the heat locally, which means fireplaces, furnaces, and boilers.

Ironically, to meet their green energy obligations the UK is going to clear cut swaths of Eastern US forests and ship millions of tons of wood pellets to Britain because under the EU climate guidelines, burning US forests counts as renewable energy. Other European countries may follow suit. US wildlife isn't very happy about it, but by gosh, someone has to save the environment.

Wall Street Journal story, but you can also get it from the BBC.

CAGW is actually a plot by the Koch Brothers to keep environmentalists distracted with a shiny spoon. That's why Obama gave the wind turbines a 20-year get-out-of-jail free card on chopping up bald eagles and other endangered species.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Thank you Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan, Seth MacFarlane, Steven Soter, Carl Sagan, and everyone responsible for this series. What a wonderful, powerful, inspiring, and scientific finale.

Pale Blue Dot, indeed.

 

[Christopher]

One of my takeaways from this episode: science is cool, but science in balloons is even cooler. I really got a thrill out of the cosmic-ray-discovery sequence.

I also liked the use of CGI to recreate Alexandria and its library and have Tyson walk through it. It's a recreation of something the original series did, using the Introvision matte process, a cutting-edge technology at the time, to let Sagan walk through a miniature reconstruction of the library. So that was a nice callback. As was the discussion of the Voyager probes and message that were such an important part of Sagan's work and legacy, as well as of the original Cosmos.

I'm surprised they didn't play up the Alexandria library story more, or even give Hypatia more than a passing mention. It would've fit right into the series' message about the threat from the forces of anti-intellectualism, those who seek to deny or destroy knowledge that threatens their ideology. Sagan covered the story in some depth in the original, but it seems a better fit for this series' themes.

I was not fond of the space effects in this one. They were too cluttered, too fanciful. Having wind gusting by the Voyager probe was a pointless embellishment. Although... I was going to complain that they didn't show the actual "Pale Blue Dot" photo under the Sagan monologue, but it turns out the final image in the animation was basically the photo in question. (Apparently the streaks of color are sunlight reflections in the lens or something.)

All in all, it was a pretty nice wrap-up to the series, covering the big cosmic questions and the mysteries that remain for the generations to come, and ending with a nice statement at the end. The series had some habits I wasn't crazy about, mainly the fanciful visuals, the somewhat stiff animation style, and a lack of depth in a lot of the exposition. But it was a good series to have, with some important things to say, and I hope it starts a trend back toward more legitimate science programming on TV.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Yep. It wasn't perfect. It certainly wasn't Carl's Cosmos. But it was pretty special on its own merits, shortcomings and all. I really don't think anything could have ever compared to the original, but NDT and everyone else did a phenomenal job, nonetheless. And I'm thrilled at the result.

In other news, I've already pre-ordered my Blu-Ray version of the series from Amazon. It should arrive on Tuesday.

 

[Cyke101]

They were burning coal because it was the alternative to wood. They were burning it inefficiently because they needed the heat locally, which means fireplaces, furnaces, and boilers.

And you would think that, like them, we'd try to focus on the next evolutionary step of energy and resource as well, rather than shoot down alternatives, depriving them of research, and then declaring that they aren't sustainable.

But yeah, let's also then write off a century's worth of literature that pointed to coal being unsafe for the general populace. That's a *lot* of books that knew full well about soot, sickness, and lung disease; and that was from popular authors, writing what they knew from scientists. That dozens and dozens of fiction and non-fiction points to the hazards of coal is not coincidence nor conspiracy. Even back then, environmental concerns were confirmed by the research of the day and lead to major clean air reforms and technologies in the UK well before the birth of environmentalism in the 70s.

Ironically, to meet their green energy obligations the UK is going to clear cut swaths of Eastern US forests and ship millions of tons of wood pellets to Britain because under the EU climate guidelines, burning US forests counts as renewable energy. Other European countries may follow suit. US wildlife isn't very happy about it, but by gosh, someone has to save the environment.

Wall Street Journal story, but you can also get it from the BBC.

But the alternative then is to continue with coal, then? America hasn't been doing a good job of protecting its own forests, and that's not news in and of itself -- hell, Bobby Jindal just two days ago basically said no one in his state can sue Oil & Gas, including but not limited to them destroying a football field of wetlands every minute. Why not try to develop technology and resources that bypass wood and coal? Because those initiatives were proposed 15 years ago and shot down by the US, when, had they been passed and sponsored, we'd probably be 15 years ahead in green tech than we are now.

As you're framing it now, it's like this:
-a guy runs a race with bare feet
-you give him shoes and he runs better
-rather than give him money for skates, you tell him to give up on the shoes so that he doesn't leave a trail
-now he wants the shoes, rather than the skates, but must rely on with his bare feet
-meanwhile, what happened to those skates?

 

[gturner]

I'm not the one replacing coal with wood. That's a leap backwards. Instead of mountain-top removal, we'll just go ahead and burn the whole mountain, and all the woods around it, because it's "sustainable."

Germany switched to wind and solar and their coal use went up, not down, but coal plants are easily converted to burn American wood pellets, so they could still green up, destroying foreign forests in ways that wouldn't ever be allowed in Germany, just as the UK does.

Coal is very dangerous to mine (my dad was blown up in a coal mine, but survived, and one of his brothers died of black lung). Most all his friends died of black lung, and his old boss and eleven bodyguards were gunned down in a labor dispute. Coal can kill you in all kinds of ways. One of the ways it probably can't kill you is by warming the planet, and even if we reduced our coal use to zero, the use of coal would still skyrocket because of India, China, and the developing world.

But the alarmists have everyone frightened of 2C of warming above pre-industrial levels, claiming that it will be an apocalypse, even though everyone living in major cities have already had 2C of warming, with 1.5 C of UHI on top of 0.5 C background warming. But instead of abandoning our cities, people flocked to them, resulting in massively increased urbanization. Apparently they're attracted to the warmer micro-climate, but now sit in Starbucks whining that the world's going to end if the rural rubes get in on the cities' climate secret.

Since coal power is the cheapest (as low as 1 cent per kWh at the mine mouth), China's use of coal will allow them to undercut the rest of the world on energy-intensive products like cement, glass, and aluminum. California's high-speed rail project, the green dream, was going to use cement imported from China because it's much cheaper.

Chinese solar cells are also much cheaper, which is why Solyndra went bankrupt and a host of European players exited the market. China can still use the cheaper, simpler processes for making silicon which were banned in the West because they emit hydrochloric acid.

What we could do with coal is improve plant efficiency using Ericsson and Kalina cycles to boost efficiency past 50 percent. We could also use an iron-oxide combustion process developed at Ohio State to remove all non-CO2 emissions. We could combine coal with heat from thorium reactors to run zero-emission coal-to-liquids plants and produce anything from methane to dimethyl ether to pure octane, probably at a petroleum price equivalent of around $40 a barrel.

Instead we're playing games with technologies that based on experience deliver less than 15 percent of their nameplate capacity, don't work at night, don't work well in the north (where all the winter heating requirements are), and take up vast tracts of land permanently, while producing energy at a much higher price than alternatives. That higher price tag comes from the added inputs in materials and labor per unit of output, so it amounts to producing less with more.

 

[Amaris]

Yep. It wasn't perfect. It certainly wasn't Carl's Cosmos. But it was pretty special on its own merits, shortcomings and all. I really don't think anything could have ever compared to the original, but NDT and everyone else did a phenomenal job, nonetheless. And I'm thrilled at the result.

In other news, I've already pre-ordered my Blu-Ray version of the series from Amazon. It should arrive on Tuesday.

Hey, I cried there, at the end. If nothing else, the show expresses a deep appreciation for science, for the scientific method, for the advancement of human knowledge, and the desire to explore and discover. That alone puts it head and shoulders above every other program on network television.

Of course, I gained much more than that from it, and for that I am thankful, and I am sad to see the show finish its performance, and give way to whatever mindless pablum that will now be placed in its spot.

Also, I love Neil, for his tireless efforts; and I miss Carl, for his timeless words.