The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1152187 - Posted: 14 Sep 2011, 18:35:44 UTC

If the aim is to eliminate the CO2 related to man and his activities, then just release a bio-weapon that specifically targets all humans and only humans. No humans, nobody breathing out CO2 and no human activity.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1152187 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1152195 - Posted: 14 Sep 2011, 19:30:25 UTC - in response to Message 1152187.  
Last modified: 14 Sep 2011, 19:31:25 UTC

If the aim is to eliminate the CO2 related to man and his activities, then just release a bio-weapon that specifically targets all humans and only humans. No humans, nobody breathing out CO2 and no human activity.

At present, the idea (and hope) is that we do not need to be so extreme. The "breathing out CO2" is not a significant problem. The big problem is the "human [industrial scale] activity"...

This is the only world we have...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1152195 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29532
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1152281 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 0:57:46 UTC - in response to Message 1152195.  

If the aim is to eliminate the CO2 related to man and his activities, then just release a bio-weapon that specifically targets all humans and only humans. No humans, nobody breathing out CO2 and no human activity.

At present, the idea (and hope) is that we do not need to be so extreme.

All the global warming fan boys don't think that goes far enough. They say we need a time machine and do it at the start of the industrial revolution as the earth is already past its tripping point. At least that is what their alarmism sounds like.

ID: 1152281 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152290 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 1:59:06 UTC - in response to Message 1152281.  

If the aim is to eliminate the CO2 related to man and his activities, then just release a bio-weapon that specifically targets all humans and only humans. No humans, nobody breathing out CO2 and no human activity.

At present, the idea (and hope) is that we do not need to be so extreme.

All the global warming fan boys don't think that goes far enough. They say we need a time machine and do it at the start of the industrial revolution as the earth is already past its tripping point. At least that is what their alarmism sounds like.


Thats it Gary, as we watch it tip we should all push it harder to see if it is really going to fall. Great plan.



...... NOT
Janice
ID: 1152290 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29532
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1152330 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 5:51:16 UTC - in response to Message 1152290.  

If the aim is to eliminate the CO2 related to man and his activities, then just release a bio-weapon that specifically targets all humans and only humans. No humans, nobody breathing out CO2 and no human activity.

At present, the idea (and hope) is that we do not need to be so extreme.

All the global warming fan boys don't think that goes far enough. They say we need a time machine and do it at the start of the industrial revolution as the earth is already past its tripping point. At least that is what their alarmism sounds like.


Thats it Gary, as we watch it tip we should all push it harder to see if it is really going to fall. Great plan.



...... NOT

Did I say push harder? NO!

I'm saying just tell us how many human units need to go away to get to a livable number on planet earth, or admit that modern civilization must end. Pick A or B. Because that is the message the global warming alarmist fanboys are sending even if they don't know it. I personally think they know it.

Let's get on with the killing of civilization. Fanboys say the sooner the better. Let's start January One and have a worldwide ban all electric generation by coal or gas and the extraction of oil for gasoline. Got to stop NOW! That's what the fanboys say.

Or is Janice saying the fanboys are lying?

ID: 1152330 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152409 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 8:59:09 UTC - in response to Message 1152330.  

If the aim is to eliminate the CO2 related to man and his activities, then just release a bio-weapon that specifically targets all humans and only humans. No humans, nobody breathing out CO2 and no human activity.

At present, the idea (and hope) is that we do not need to be so extreme.

All the global warming fan boys don't think that goes far enough. They say we need a time machine and do it at the start of the industrial revolution as the earth is already past its tripping point. At least that is what their alarmism sounds like.


Thats it Gary, as we watch it tip we should all push it harder to see if it is really going to fall. Great plan.



...... NOT

Did I say push harder? NO!

I'm saying just tell us how many human units need to go away to get to a livable number on planet earth, or admit that modern civilization must end. Pick A or B. Because that is the message the global warming alarmist fanboys are sending even if they don't know it. I personally think they know it.

Let's get on with the killing of civilization. Fanboys say the sooner the better. Let's start January One and have a worldwide ban all electric generation by coal or gas and the extraction of oil for gasoline. Got to stop NOW! That's what the fanboys say.

Or is Janice saying the fanboys are lying?

Janice is saying the direction is to STOP digging up fossils. Afraid I do not know any "fanboys". The amount of CO2 each person produces by breathing is insignificant in relation to the problem. The exhaust from a 5 minute automobile ride each day is not insignificant. The exhaust from electric plants burning fossil fuels is also not insignificant.

By ignoring it, waving the flag of more drilling/coal mining, we ARE pushing harder. If you want to proclaim those that are paying attention of "killing of civilization", you are very far off and have not been paying attention to anything that is being said by anyone knowledgeable.

What the non-deniers are saying is to move BEYOND this antiquated and deadly technololgy. Because it can and will kill us all if we do not.
Janice
ID: 1152409 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1152440 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 12:21:12 UTC - in response to Message 1152409.  
Last modified: 15 Sep 2011, 12:37:35 UTC

Point of order:

Most would agree that it would be better to stop burning fossil fuels for many reasons not related to putative man-made global warming.

What is the plan, how long will it take, what will it cost and what are the new or increased problems relating to the solution. Whose oxen will be gored. Can the solution be implemented in the Political climate that is likely to prevail ?? Do we have the collective will ?

Now we are talking sense instead of nonsense.

I wish that I could roof my house for $5,000 with solar shingles that generate enough power to put me even with the electric company.

I wish that I could buy an electric car that could go 120 miles at highway speeds in any weather for $20,000.

I wish that nuclear power could produce 5 cents/KWH power. And we could do it safely within 5 years.

I wish for new building mandates for insulation, roof orientation, glazing, overhang, efficiency of HVAC.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. If watches were turnips, I would wear one by my side.

What do you all wish for in this regard?
ID: 1152440 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29532
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1152524 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 17:45:47 UTC - in response to Message 1152409.  

STOP digging up fossils.

Sounds more like a statement of "NO NEW TAXES" by a hard line GOP.

What the non-deniers are saying is to move BEYOND this antiquated and deadly technololgy. Because it can and will kill us all if we do not.

How fast, how much. In other words when are you going to invent the new technology we need and how long to deploy it. The tech we have today is Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl at the scale required.

Is that your understanding problem, the sheer scale of the change? Take the Palo Verde power plant. (Been green for a while since it uses sewer water to cool.) It alone is 4 gigawatts 24/7. To replace it with wind turbines you have to find a place where the wind is 24/7 blowing a fair clip and place about 2000 2mega watt wind turbines. Obviously the wind doesn't blow 24/7 so how many are really needed? 20,000? How much carbon is needed in getting that up and running. Don't forget all the extra carbon needed in building the grid with 20,000 more points spread all over the earth so we have at least 2000 turbines in a windy area 24/7. I'm ignoring transmission losses.

That is just one power plant. There are what? a million? power plants on earth? Is there enough wind?

STOP digging up fossils.

Are you getting the picture of what such statements sound like?

A better statement might be no new coal or natural gas power plants. Or, one child per family.

ID: 1152524 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1152603 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 22:11:44 UTC - in response to Message 1152524.  

... I'm ignoring transmission losses. ...

That is a problem that cannot be ignored for power distribution from any source.

... Is there enough wind? ...

There's certainly a lot of blind hot air generated!

There is a lot more to the game than just wind power. Add all the other sources and developments into the plan including getting just a little more efficient and you get a big win. There is a lot more than just the wind.

STOP digging up fossils.

Are you getting the picture of what such statements sound like?

Perhaps we are suffering from too many walking fossils who are hell bent on destroying the planet for everyone else, just for the sake of ignorance and laziness. (And also selfishness?)


This is the only planet we have...
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1152603 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29532
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1152609 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 22:32:48 UTC - in response to Message 1152603.  

There is a lot more to the game than just wind power. Add all the other sources and developments into the plan including getting just a little more efficient and you get a big win. There is a lot more than just the wind.

And these other things you speak of, individually they are larger than a 2mega watt wind turbine? Or are you having the same scale of numbers issue.
ID: 1152609 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152616 - Posted: 15 Sep 2011, 22:55:01 UTC - in response to Message 1152609.  

There is a lot more to the game than just wind power. Add all the other sources and developments into the plan including getting just a little more efficient and you get a big win. There is a lot more than just the wind.

And these other things you speak of, individually they are larger than a 2mega watt wind turbine? Or are you having the same scale of numbers issue.


As far as wind goes, there are 3,5,6 megawatt wind turbines(per tower) in fields that far exceeds the production of any nuclear plant. Their uptime is better than nuclear as well, require no refueling, produce no hazardous byproducts by running. The waste is the physical materials used to make them only.

So the direction we SHOULD be going is

1:build up as much wind/solar as we can
2:to create cost parity, stop subsidizing fossil fuels through low cost leases and military deployment to "protect our oil interests"
3:continue with carbon markets to help account for costs created and damage done to the environment
4:build out smart grid(s) to store/re-route as needed

Costs long term will be more than returned through eventual industrial superiority, excellent tech/construction jobs to build and maintain these, lower/no dependence on fossil fuel access.. the list goes on.

Of course, we have to fight the opposite of progress, Congress.

The technologies are there. But economies of scale MUST be brought to bear, and tax benefits of fossil fuels need to be REMOVED to help offset.
Janice
ID: 1152616 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1152667 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 7:23:48 UTC - in response to Message 1152616.  

There is a lot more to the game than just wind power. Add all the other sources and developments into the plan including getting just a little more efficient and you get a big win. There is a lot more than just the wind.

And these other things you speak of, individually they are larger than a 2mega watt wind turbine? Or are you having the same scale of numbers issue.


As far as wind goes, there are 3,5,6 megawatt wind turbines(per tower) in fields that far exceeds the production of any nuclear plant. Their uptime is better than nuclear as well, require no refueling, produce no hazardous byproducts by running. The waste is the physical materials used to make them only.

So the direction we SHOULD be going is

1:build up as much wind/solar as we can
2:to create cost parity, stop subsidizing fossil fuels through low cost leases and military deployment to "protect our oil interests"
3:continue with carbon markets to help account for costs created and damage done to the environment
4:build out smart grid(s) to store/re-route as needed

Costs long term will be more than returned through eventual industrial superiority, excellent tech/construction jobs to build and maintain these, lower/no dependence on fossil fuel access.. the list goes on.

Of course, we have to fight the opposite of progress, Congress.

The technologies are there. But economies of scale MUST be brought to bear, and tax benefits of fossil fuels need to be REMOVED to help offset.


To replace the power generated by all the atomic power stations in the UK would
require the erection of around 4000 wind turbine generators. This would only then be supplying around 18% of of the total UK's power requirements. One study
carried out on wind turbine power generation drew the conclusion that by interrupting the natural flows of the wind across the land via the erection of
too many turbines in the world would increase global warming by 1 degree centigrade. That conclusion does make sense and it's logical that interfering with wind flows will change weather patterns too. Although loosing atomic power stations will reduce levels of radiation entering our atmosphere, we loose though by increasing the amount of highly toxic molybdenum as used in the manufacture of the permanent magnets used in building these wind turbines.
ID: 1152667 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1152690 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 9:52:22 UTC
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 10:39:18 UTC

I am still awaiting the detailed plan and cost analysis and time line ?

Can you do it without scheduling any breakthroughs, either technical or political.

How about it ??

US gas production 100 billion cubic feet per month. Figure 1000 btu per cubic foot.
100 million tons of coal per month at say 20 million btu per ton
We export 2.5 million barrels per day of petroleum products.
We consume 22 million barrels per day of petroleum products. Figure 5 million btu's per barrel.

4 trillion kilowatt hours are produced each year by coal.

There you go lads--have at it.

Don't forget the construction costs and the tab for redoing the infrastructure and delivery systems. Also many homes in the Northeast use oil or propane for heat and the bulk of the rest of us use gas. Factor in the cost of tearing out and replacing maybe 50-80 million furnaces. A funding plan might also be useful.
ID: 1152690 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152699 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 10:23:49 UTC - in response to Message 1152667.  



To replace the power generated by all the atomic power stations in the UK would
require the erection of around 4000 wind turbine generators. This would only then be supplying around 18% of of the total UK's power requirements. One study
carried out on wind turbine power generation drew the conclusion that by interrupting the natural flows of the wind across the land via the erection of
too many turbines in the world would increase global warming by 1 degree centigrade. That conclusion does make sense and it's logical that interfering with wind flows will change weather patterns too. Although loosing atomic power stations will reduce levels of radiation entering our atmosphere, we loose though by increasing the amount of highly toxic molybdenum as used in the manufacture of the permanent magnets used in building these wind turbines.



1:4,000 windmills in thousands of square miles does not seem excessive. Is this using 1.5, 3,5, or 6 megawatt turbines? In the United states it would take
turbines on approximately 20% of the higher wind speed areas to produce 100%+ of what the USA requires in electricity. Keep in mind windmills have co-existed on agricultural lands for centuries.

2: Sources? How is slowing local ground level winds going to warm the globe, especially considering the increased storm strengths already being generated
with the help of global warming?

3: highly toxic molybdenum.. really? Never mind it is quite stable in metals,
and easily recyclable.

Why is it everyone trying to put the breaks on just looking for excuses not to move forward?

The technology is ready. Political obstacles are plentiful, and all that stands in the way to putting the cap on fossil fuels. Even monitary considerations are artificial, narrow viewed attempts to confuse the issues.

As I said, the opposite of Progress, Congress. I am quite sure parliment can
slow things down nearly as well.

Step by step. We can either try to build the future, or not have one.
Janice
ID: 1152699 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1152701 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 10:35:56 UTC - in response to Message 1152699.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 10:36:50 UTC

... Why is it everyone trying to put the breaks on just looking for excuses not to move forward? ...

Is there a high powered lobbying campaign by the big power companies?...

Similar tactics as used by the tobacco industry? (I'd guess that marketing machine has moved onto newly dubious causes to 'earn' their money...)


Power generation and use merely needs to evolve to remove or at least reduce the recklessly rampant pollution that is being foisted upon us all.

The question is whether we can force the power companies to clean up their act quickly enough. They have shown that they have no reason to clean up their act of their own accord.

As for costs... By god by how much do we need to subsidise the present fossil fuels fiasco further?!

We've had the short term gains to kick-start our civilisation. We are long long overdue for moving on to pollution-free. We already have the technology needed. Or are we all trapped in a corrupt game of brinkmanship?...


This is our only world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1152701 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152707 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 11:24:46 UTC - in response to Message 1152690.  

mile=5280sf
sq mile=27878400sf
100*100=278,784,000,000
(kyocera 240watt used as reference)
http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/solar-panels/Kyocera-KD240GX-LPB-240W-Solar-Panel#
Retail panels: 1.97/Watt(installed)
Watt installed @6hrs/day=2,190w/year average 20 year warranty
(call it 2kwh/watt)
3ft by 5 ft panel, approx 240 watts, approx 15 SF(yes this is not precise, but it is almost 4 a.m. here)
18,585,600,000 panels=8,921,088,000,000 kwh/year(panels*480kwh)
Cost of panels (retail!!,"call for discounts") US$8,807,715,840,000
9 Trillion amongst friends.

Williams figures:
(oil alone)
Barrels per year=
8,030.000,000
Current Light sweet crude commodity price(close 09/15/2011)
89.21/bbl
Spent on oil per year at commodity market prices=
$716,356,300,000(716 billion amongst friends)

Over 20 years that would be
$14,327,126,000,000 (14 trillion amongst friends)
IF the price of oil never went up.

This would fit in 100 by 100 mile area(it does not all have to be the same area. In fact it works better when spread across country, extending the solar day length) And this is solar, not wind. Something both sides agree is a fairly expensive form of energy, and which is why wind is more important, it is far cheaper than any other form mentioned here.

So my question is:

How can we afford not to??





Janice
ID: 1152707 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152726 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 12:25:04 UTC - in response to Message 1152690.  

oh yes, one other thing William..

"4 trillion kilowatt hours are produced each year by coal.
"
I have to call shenanigans.

According to the world factbook,
U.S. consumption is

3.873 trillion kWh (2008 est.)

This is in line with what is shown on Wikipedia.
Janice
ID: 1152726 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1152738 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 13:13:49 UTC - in response to Message 1152726.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2011, 13:15:22 UTC

Soft,

You are right--I rounded up to make simple numbers. Anyhow, it's close to 4 quads and will be soon enough with population increase. I like your analysis --I will check your numbers. What do we do at night. What is the cost of storage. We will have to heat at night since we would need to displace oil and gas furnaces.

Problem is coal can be as cheap as $1.00 per million btu's for electric generation (Powder river basin lignite)

Me, I go for nuclear and WISH we could start 200 4 reactor plants for 2 billion each and do it safely in five years. This would cost a scant 800 billion dollars and have low operating cost.
Wishing won't make it happen but I bet some Nation here on this Earth could pull it off.

I also like LNG at $1.24 as a displacement to oil for transportation. Still a fossil fuel and CO producer. We are doing it here in Tennessee for state-owned vehicles (no tax)
ID: 1152738 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1152752 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 13:44:01 UTC - in response to Message 1152738.  

currently most fossil fuel generation, is done during peak hours, when solar is running full bore. The "smart grid" ideas have many ways to "store" energy.
Remember the flywheel cars everyone was talking about in the 1970's? Well, not great for a transportation model, but for stationary purposes it is not at all impractical, and relatively cheap to construct. As we move to plug in hybrid/electric vehicles, these too can be used to help balance loads.

There are many MANY variables. But usually the sun is shining, or the wind is blowing somewhere in this country. Hydro-electric will continue to play a roll, tidal/wave energy is largely untapped.

As far as the numbers, 3.7Trillion was the TOTAL U.S. consumption, not just by coal. Coal plays far too large a role. And As far as BTU to KW conversions,
sorry I would really have to do some serious searching to find that.

My electric rate has more than doubled in the last couple of years, largely due to increases in fossil fuel costs. It is time to move to sources that do not require it. That would mean lots of jobs, and a thriving industrial complex going into the future. But it also means saying "no" to those pushing to "remove obstacles"(i.e. clean off laws they find inconvenient) to further fossil fuel development. Fracking, strip mining, drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.. I have no sympathy for their plight, nor do I find it helpful to give special benefits to those trying to keep going what needs to be a dying industry.

And the really silly part, building a coal fired electric plant, and deploying wind plants, cost nearly the same to build. But the wind plant is definately cheaper to fuel. Hard to argue with free.


Janice
ID: 1152752 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1152761 - Posted: 16 Sep 2011, 14:28:45 UTC - in response to Message 1152752.  

Egad you are right. Roughly 1/2 of the 4 quads is produced by coal.

Rates have doubled due to lack of regulation. The head of TVA knocks down a few million per year. Most non-co-op providers also make a profit for their share-holders and rate increases have been routinely approved without a hard look in my opinion.The cost of adding scrubbers and failed nuclear plants and cleanup of ash pond spills have all conspired to push up our costs.

I use 3413 BTU per KWH equivalent. But, that is source btu for coal and delivered BTU for electricity. Electricity generation is probably around 30% efficient if the waste heat is written off and not used for air conditioning or heating in a steam district.--so probably it would take 10,000 btu or about one pound of coal to produce the KWH that you use at your home.
ID: 1152761 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.