Slashdot Mirror

Your calculations are probably overly optimistic by assuming 5L/100km, which while a reasonable manufacturer's estimate for the newest passenger cars, doesn't reflect the "average" efficiency of the fleet of variably-aged vehicles on the road, or the choices that people make when choosing their vehicles. Those "fleet" numbers tend to float around 1.5 to 2x as bad, depending upon country and whether or not you strictly include only passenger cars rather than "light trucks" that include SUVs and other popular passenger vehicles. "Your mileage may vary", a lot, but the averages are reasonably well established.

Some calculations incorporate more than just CO2 emissions because, of course, cars emit more than CO2. They include things such as NO2 and even apparently some methane, which can be expressed in terms of their greenhouse gas effects too. It would be CO2 equivalent rather than strictly CO2, which might be another source for a discrepancy.

In any case, you may be interested in this US EPA page which estimates the average output at exactly the 4.75 tonnes/year/vehicle that the previous poster suggested. All the data that went into the calculation is outlined on that page, although the mix of Imperial and metric units makes it a bit hard to follow without doing some conversions along the way. Calling it 4.75 tonnes/year for *cars* would be wrong, because it includes more than cars. It includes all those SUVs, light trucks, and other common passenger vehicles that get significantly poorer mileage.

This isn't really new. It's been well established that ocean and atmosphere warm at different rates, have their own heat exchange dynamics, and in particular that ocean heat content has been rising continuously while surface temperatures have plateaued.

See, for example: http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

And a quote from this 8 month old article http://www.nature.com/news/cli...
"NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming"

It's well known that the heat storage of the oceans is massively greater than the heat storage of the atmosphere. Hence surface temperatures will sooner or later reflect the ongoing increase in heat content of the earth-ocean system.

It's great to have new studies that confirm this - but why tout it as somehow "new"?

Call the feds @ the EPA. I don't see anything in Paulding County in GA listed on their superfund search site.

Here's a link to the EPA Superfund site search for 'tetrachloride'. There are 215 results, some of which (chosen at random) seem to have a pretty nasty mix of contaminants of concern.

Here's a link to the EPA Superfund site search for 'tetrachloride'. There are 215 results, some of which (chosen at random) seem to have a pretty nasty mix of contaminants of concern.

So what? You're not arguing that California is not the number one state for manufacturing, you're just explaining one reason why it is.

It's still not manufacturing if the actual manufacturing was done in another country. It's just assembly. We have both, and both are counted as manufacturing. It's disingenuous.

You forgot to add the citation for that claim.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate...
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/re...

There is still quite a bit of actual heavy industry in the state, but given its size and population the claim that it's particularly friendly is nonsense.

You also forgot to cite that one.

In fact, the numbers are probably far worse by now. That's how it was over a decade ago. I know you're not too young too remember...

Who said anything about panic? Anyway, you're using linear extrapolation to estimate future sea level rise, because it gives you results you like. The actual estimates of future sea level rise are far larger than your naive and optimistic guess.

First suggestion:

There's been a lot of interest in using Zeolites to absorb heavy metal contamination in water. One specific experiment involved dragging a bag of zeolites through ocean water, the zeolites absorbed enough Thorium to be industrially useful as an ore (if there were a demand for Thorium, which there isn't).

I've found papers that indicate that Zeolites will absorb copper and lead, two of the contaminants listed for the Mount Polley disaster; chances are likely that zeolites would absorb the other contaminants as well.

Here's two papers to get you started:

http://www.yourncdinfo.com/cli...

http://cnu.edu/arc/documents/p...

Second suggestion:

There's been some success in removing non-volatile organic pollutants from soil using steam injection. Essentially, sink a pipe into the soil, inject steam, cover the area with a tarp, and collect the steam/water as it percolates up through the soil. This method can be used to extract non-volatile organic components including tetra-ethyl-lead. (I found that last bit surprising, but this was directly confirmed to me by one of the scientists involved.)

Depending on the chemical nature of the contaminants (ie - solubility, polar/non-polar character &c) this might prove useful in decontaminating some of the mud slurry.

Here's a paper to get you started:

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF...

I think operators of all types of power plants should have to pay for the costs they cause to society and which are so far externalized. Even if the payment is only partial, it can make the problematic technology less competitive and help others gain market share.

Mandatory insurance for the risk of nuclear accidents is a step in the right direction, if the insurance sum is realistic. For instance, Germany has mandatory insurance for nuclear power plants but only at a paltry 2.5 billion euros coverage per plant. Needs to be much higher.

For coal and gas-fired plants, I agree that there should be a mechanism for penalizing CO2 and mercury emissions. The EU has introduced such an instrument for CO2, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme. There seems to be no such thing in the USA yet.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol where the USA, Canada and Russia are the least cooperative states .

At the same time, the USA are starting to do something about mercury emissions while the EU doesn't yet:
http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerplants.html
Not based on taxing the emissions but on emission limits. Emissions below the limits stay free. Still, it is something.

Gas when extracted by fracking probably needs its own regulation concerning fracking chemicals. And so on...

Which would leave renewables in a better position because they don't have most of the usual risks and harmful emissions. Most complains I hear are about birds crashing into wind turbines and turbines looking ugly (matter of taste, YMMD).

Those numbers are almost meaningless. The nuclear numbers for the most part don't include the cost of cleanup operations like what happened in Japan or Chernobyl. They might include a little bit paid to the government for disaster recovery but that would quickly get used up in a real disaster. Likewise coal doesn't include environmental damage and oil doesn't include all the military needed to keep oil stable.

So what you are saying is nuclear is even cheaper, but that externalities are just paid for more immediately than for fossil fuels? Is that it? Or maybe you don't like paying for mistakes immediately and have your grandkids pay for it instead?

Compared to coal, nuclear seems far safer option. The worse possible accidents with nuclear seem to only affect local areas, whereas business-as-usual operation of coal, gas and oil operations seem to cause global issues. Even discounting the multitrillion dollar Global Warming issue, how much compensation can I get for not being able to safely eat fish out of any lakes in continental US?

http://www.epa.gov/hg/advisori...

Oh right ... who eats fish anyway.

Right now it is stupid to have any incandescent bulbs in your house

I can think of a number of reasons to have incandescent bulbs in a house, though most aren't related to power. The foremost is that if I break an incandescent bulb, I just scoop up the shards and toss them in the bin. Here's what they say to do if you break a CFL bulb. I'm sorry, but a broken bulb shouldn't require me to turn off my AC and essentially evacuate the room of vulnerable persons. LED bulbs are somewhat safer in that regard, but the light quality/quantity isn't realy as good and if I break one of those then I cry at the replacement cost.

Usually this means that I have the higher-efficiency bulbs in places where they're less likely to break, and I keep incandescent bulbs in places where there's a higher possibility of breakage (the shop, trouble-light, some lamps, etc). Generally the latter are areas that aren't on as often anyhow. As a bonus in the shop, the heat leakage actually warms things up a bit in the winter.

Also, one of my peeves against the new "efficient" bulbs is that - though they cost more - they were supposed to last much longer. This was much more of a cost-saver than the actual energy. I'm still up-in-the-air about LED bulbs, but I've found that CFL's burn out just as frequently as incandescents, possibly more-so in some situations (low-wattage incandescent tend to last a fairly long time).

I followed your link...EPA Emissions Factor

And...It is actually 10^-4 times less, or 33.1kg.

Emission Factor

6.89551 × 10-4 metric tons CO2 / kWh

(eGRID, U.S. annual non-baseload CO2 output emission rate, year 2010 data)

This begs the question whether mining for BitCoins is more damaging to the environment than mining for precious metals, for a given value of return. The EPA emissions factor for electricity is about 0.69 tons of CO2 per megawatt hour, so producing the electricity used by this datacenter is, on average, dumping into the atmosphere 331 tons of CO2 per day or about 120,000 tons of CO2 per year. While there are many other forms of environmental damage from gold mining, a quick search suggest that the greenhouse emissions from gold extraction run to about 11.5 tons of CO2 equivalent per kg of Gold. At this rate 120,000 tons of CO2 yields of 10.5 tons of gold, worth nearly $500 million at today's price. Will this datacentre yield more than half a billion dollars worth of bit coins each year?

Natural radioactivity is mainly something that hits you from the 'outside' there is a rock or even the bricks of your house that emits something ... it hits your skin.
The exception of course is Radon, a gas produced by decay and radioactive itself. So houses build of particular bricks emit Radon, you inhale it, so it is inside of you. But also Radon easy escapes from the building, it is not building up a concentration.

Here we are talking about stuff that is getting inside of your body, and there it will kill you.

You clearly did not do your homework when you wrote this comment. Your body consists of a significant fraction carbon. Some of that is C-14. That is radioactive. There is also a tiny fraction of hydrogen that is radioactive. Remember, your body is 70% water. You also have an amount of potassium in your nerve tissue... that is fairly radioactive.

And in terms of "getting inside your body and killing you," according to the EPA, about 160,000 people die every year from radon-induced lung cancer. This is why people buy radon detectors in certain parts of the country, along with their carbon monoxide detectors.

I could go on for a while, but I've got other things to do.

Did you just make this shit up? Completely false.

Sorry bro, you are full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

References:
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.radiationanswers.or...
http://www.iaea.org/Publicatio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.radiationanswers.or...
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/r...

It is funny how people's definitions of "safe" change depending on the subject.

Note how I didn't say it was unsafe. You made that up and then used it as a straw man. My point was actually that it is safe, but that the rule has developed based on more than just the relative safety of that one number.

Whoa! Wait a minute who ever said anything about solving overpopulation. I'm just saying that from a career perspective caregiver can be rewarding. Also, to really be a caregiver you are going to probably have to be married with your partner working, unless you want to be one of the government dependents but then why are you asking about jobs.

However, I do have some issues with your points.

Food scarcity is normally not caused by society not being able to produce enough food. Well maybe we can't produce a enough meat for everyone to eat like a fat American, but we could meet the current worlds total caloric needs with some work. However, due to war, oppression, terrible government, stupidity, and callously choosing to say screw the poor I want double Steak we make that hard.

Energy scarcity: We have tons of Uranium and Thorium. If we could get off our asses and actually use it to build useful things like Modern power plants instead of bombs we might be able to have a sensible energy agenda.

Pollution Levels: The modern world needs steel and steel is dirty. Unless you want to go back to a pre-steel world we are going to have to put up with some pollution for the foreseeable future. But with good management we can limit the pollution.

Disease Susceptibility: People get sick. Always have always will. Poor people get sick more than rich people due to malnutrition or improper hygiene. Things are still better now than they were though. Maybe we should raise the standard of living in the rest of the world some.

Psychological Disorder: Always existed, society just killed people with this because they were "Possessed by the devil" before the enlightenment. I am not for a return to that idea even if it puts stress on society.

Political unrest: Come on wars are as central to human activity as breathing. As long as humans exist there will be war or at least arguments over something. If you think otherwise have fun in your utopia fantasy land. I welcome getting proven wrong.

Overpopulation in the Western World: Most of the western world is in demographic decline. (I'm assuming this is a predominantly western audience being English language and all.) The US and EU only skirt by with immigrants. So clearly we are not prolific reproducers anymore. Now for the rest of the world, they may have to tone down the reproducing, but unless we want to use that war thing to stop them I'm not sure how we could. And I'm not sure I can support a government that would go to war against the breeders it sounds to Nazi like to me.

Though in the end I agree with you. If we keep growing our population we will eventually run out of resources to support that population. In the end the only real answer is to get off this rock and colonize space. But that's not really an answer to the problem. It's just kicking it down the road for a really long time. (Universal Entropy and what not) Any other form of forced population control will require some form of world government. Otherwise the countries that don't comply will just swallow you up in a few generations.

Even further north (and perhaps west) and you're back in the States. Quickly Googling I see this, http://www.epa.gov/climatechan....

Temperature rise flat? Unless you are cherry-picking your intervals, in which case you aren't looking at the long-term trends, I don't see it: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication... http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... http://earthobservatory.nasa.g... http://www.skepticalscience.co... ...

There is a point to what you say, but we tried that in the Hudson river.

http://www.epa.gov/hudson/

However when something like that plastic falls down a hugely greater distance, like the bottom of much of the ocean, it will compress, but also, does it stay there, or will it be moved/migrate at all? Remember that NYC used to haul loads of garbage out to sea and just dump it. No idea if that still happens or not.

into its* components

        it's = it is

Learn this.

Sooo, you mean that the oil blobs from the Exxon Valdez spill from almost 30 years ago that still exist under rocks in Valdez Alaska don't exist any more?

But also like the PCBs in the Hudson river that became embedded within the river bottom bringing the extreme toxicity in range of whatever might dredge it up? And that cost multi millions to remove from the riverbed? http://www.epa.gov/hudson/

Why you assume that bacteria will break down everything is beyond me. And what will the bacteria break this plastic down into? Its precursor, perhaps? Crude oil? Petroleum?

Your ignorance is speaking, sir. You are way outside of your discipline of competence.

I'm just saying I'm not willing to debate with someone who stoops to the level of misrepresenting data.

Showing you data that contradicts your assertions isn't misrepresenting data.

There's no logic to your arbitrary pre-1950/post-1950 divide,

Yes, there is - the data shows human CO2 emissions pre-1950 as *tiny* compared to human CO2 emissions post-1950. This is a *fact*.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

Before 1950, we were under 5000 teragrams. Post 1950, we increased by 5x that amount, hitting 25000 teragrams around 2000.

If you believe CO2 emissions from humans have an effect, you should be able to see it comparing pre-1950 data to post-1950, period.

but how does gas significantly reduce carbon emmissions?

An energy source doesn't need to be 'carbon free' to reduce CO2 emissions. Coal is essentially pure carbon, while natural gas is a carbon fixed to four hydrogens. Burning Coal yields pure CO2(in theory), burning CH4 gives you CO2 and H2O
Burning coal:
C + O2 -> CO2. Approximately 2,249 lbs per MWh.
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Approximately 1,135 lbs of CO2 per MWh, or half that of Coal.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/... The EPA is not currently banning or severely restricting the use of the neonicotinoid pesticides. The neonicotinoid pesticides are currently being re-evaluated through registration review, the EPA's periodic re-evaluation of registered pesticides to ensure they meet current health and safety standards. The EPA bases its pesticide regulatory decisions on the entire body of scientific literature, including studies submitted by the registrant, journal articles and other sources of peer-reviewed data.

"Currently, 2 trillion tons of plastic waste is sitting in U.S. landfills ..."

I think that number is too high.

According to both quoted articles and the EPA, "32 million tons of plastic waste were generated in 2012". 32 million to 2 trillion is a huge jump.

As an IRS official, she was obligated to record all E-mails related to tax decisions; whether there was a pending investigation or scandal is irrelevant. Government officials are required to transfer any relevant E-mails to permanent record keeping systems; what the server E-mail retention policy is is irrelevant. Here is an explanation for the EPA (but the same rules apply to all agencies):

http://www.epa.gov/records/faq...

Furthermore, Obama make a campaign pledge of openness and transparency that he clearly has grossly violated (of course, it's only one of many things he has lied about).

To pretend that what happened here is OK is blind and stupid partisanship on your part.

The average car in the US travels approximately 20,000 miles/year.

The 20k/year warranty isn't due to the average, it's to catch like 90% of people. The average is more like 12k - light duty trucks(pickups) average closer to 15k.

1800 miles per charge is 7 swaps, or about every other month.

If you keep even a 25 mile liIon battery in it though it'd become an annual swap for most people.

Perhaps a decade from now, when the vaccine is available, the poor folks living in these areas can stop cursing at the western do-gooders who got DDT banned.

DDT is not banned in regions where malaria is prevalent.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/...

That's the key here. EU mileage figures are rated based on the NEDC cycle, which gives about 15% better mileage figures than the EPA combined cycle. Given that this guy is saying real world is 19% worse than the NEDC, then that's a pretty good testament to the EPA combined cycle.

At least the NEDC is better than the laughable Japanese 10-15 cycle, which gives figures about 10-15% even better than the NEDC.

It's one thing that drives me crazy when Americans point out to cars overseas and say, "Look, how come they get cars that are so much better mileage than ours?" The truth is, there's not actually all that much difference. UK car figures are often even worse because they're usually reported in miles per imperial gallon, which gives an extra 20% boost to mpg figures. On top of that, a large percent of European cars are diesels. While it's fair to compare diesels to gasoline cars when comparing what ou have to pay for fuel, it's not so for an environmental comparison. Diesel is 10-15% denser than gasoline; a gallon of diesel represents 10-15% more oil consumption and emits roughly correspondingly more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. If one cares about CO2, the best approach is to ignore MPG and look at g/100km figures, which are almost always based on the same cycle (NEDC) and take into account differences in the fuel.

>> CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature

Wow You REALLY need to check your facts. Here are just a few of the many sources that contraidct you:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.ifpri.org/publicati...

>> CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature

Wow You REALLY need to check your facts. Here are just a few of the many sources that contraidct you:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

http://www.ifpri.org/publicati...

It's the dose that makes the poison. - Paracelsus

If you have a problem with the current ppm, or the science they use to come to tat number, then state it and we can talk. idiotic statements that make it sound like you can't think about things in a complex way are beneath you.

http://water.epa.gov/drink/con...

The impact of warming on food yields is complex. The latest research suggests that food yields will decrease with a warming of 2 degrees Celsius.

Wow, that's coming across as arrogant even for slashdot, yes Harvard isn't in Europe, but that dosn't mean the rest of us abstain from scientific research into the effects of neonicotinoids on bees.

The topic HAS indeed been "buzzing" around the news for a while over here (in the UK), it's not new, hell the EU has a two year ban on Neonicotinoids that began in December 2013 BECAUSE of the link between them and CCD, here's a couple of links for you to read to bring you up to speed with the rest of the world.

The ban from the EU... http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/...

Scientists from the University of Stirling in the UK submitted papers for publication in October 2011 in this regard http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

as did French scientists from the French national institute for agricultural research in http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

All of the above is correct, unfinished business that results in lost trust. These are not unfounded, irrational fears of NIMBYs wielding BANANAs. Advocates should perhaps dig deeper into how the French do things. Gov't/industry are effectively one there, perhaps the truth is on lockdown? Or are they more serious about things other than profit?

There is a major push from the trillion dollar industry, with support from this Admin, as Climate Disruption rules all. So folks should pay attention.

EPA is currently taking comments on changing the "safe" acceptable radiation levels. Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) http://www.epa.gov/radiation/l...

Comments are due by June 4, 2014

Asking the nuke industry to address its longstanding issues is not a pro coal argument. Coal's issues are not an answer to nuke problems.

So the argument is a dodge, a distraction from another reality. Threat level? Different time zones, orders of magnitude difference, an utterly laughable comparison. Playing with nuclear gadgets has resulted in the world abandoning areas the size of Delaware and three or four Rhode Islands combined, now no-go zones. Nuclear toys have created a waste more deadly than anything in nature, capable of killing all biota for hundreds of thousands of years. No comparison at all is possible.

Oh but look at all the dead people who have died. We may work that out. Why do we die? It is the way. I point to this, drinking killed the man. He was run over by a beer truck.

To answer the presented impressive numbers graphs and Power Point Presentations there is also this and that serious, statistical and scientifically based analysis that Chernobyl killed a million. Nuke fans insist that is FUD. Coal fans do the same, because the problem? Neither is provable. Both are probable. Probably. Beware of beer trucks.

Coal mining vs Uranium mining? An unattractive couple, no photos at that wedding please. Which one threatens unborn children, 26,587 years from now? We have a winner.

Open question one. Should EPA change standards on safe levels of radioactivity? Begin by accepting science that says there is no no safe level. Proceed to the calculation of acceptable rates of excess deaths. How many will we kill?

EPA uses Maximum Contaminant Levels, 70 years of consumption, one in a million die.

FDAs single dose Derived Intervention Level standard accepts two extra cancer fatalities in 10,000.

How many folks are aware FDA numbers are orders of magnitude beyond EPA? Let's have a discussion on that, shall we? Good idea. Done!

Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) http://www.epa.gov/radiation/l...

Comments are due June 4, 2014.

It is an open question what happened at Fuku 3. Perhaps someone or something can get in there by 2025 or so and have a look around. In the meantime, radioactivity flows to the sea. How much? Trace amounts already on the US West coast, but neither FDA nor EPA are bothering to measure.

The effort to radioactivitate (sick) the Pacific Ocean is a work in progress. I would have voted to not do that. (Nukes require on the order of a million gallons per minute to cool).

Three of the current problems gifted to us by the the Safe, Reliable and Green Nuclear Industry to our largest body of water are Bioaccumulation, Hot Particles, and clumping. Big fish eat little fish, collect the stuff. Hot particles are bits of the fuel that somehow became shot all about, and clumping is the tendency of this nuke waste to gather together. It is not evenly distributed in the water, as cream in coffee.

We are all players in the World Championship Nuclear Lottery. You probably will not consume that many hot particles. Probably, long odds on that. But they get better, the chance of Winning over time increases as radiation continues to flow to the sea.

The Master Strategists, or World Class Assholes (my view) at TEPCO have recently said, err, we don't think we can stop this, any of you folks have any ideas? That only took them three years to figure out.

Marcelo, you should fight these idiots, that is your necessary, good fight. They are to blame for this. The nuke industry should be screaming, lining up to lynch them, to get them the heck out of there, yesterday. Instead they cower together, ignore the problem, lie, and point the finger at others. NIMBYS and BANANAS and COAL and GLOBAL WARMING. Business as usual. I am not impressed.

Chernobyl was arguably the worst design of anything in the history of t

Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) http://www.epa.gov/radiation/l...

EPA establishes certain generally applicable environmental standards to protect human health and the environment from radioactive materials. Issued in 1977, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations” (40 CFR 190) limit the radiation releases and doses to the public from the normal operations of nuclear power plants and other uranium fuel cycle facilities—the facilities involved in the manufacture and use of uranium fuel for generating electrical power.

mac, you are a student in this field, IIRC? What do the folks from within that circle think? Who has run the numbers on this, where did the "40%" come from? Thanks.

Solar panel creation uses many toxic products, chemicals and dangerous gases, including Sulfur Hexaflouride, the MOST POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS... Is it really about the planet, or is it about money?

From Wikipedia - "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that it has evaluated, with a global warming potential of 23,900 times that of CO2 when compared over a 100-year period."

2002 was the last year I could find a quick worldwide sales number for SF6, 5096 metric tons. Using your factor of 23,900 and rounding up, that's the equivalent of 122 million tons of CO2 assuming every molecule of SF6 was dumped directly into the atmosphere. By comparison, in 2012, an estimated 9700 million tons of CO2 were emitted. Of course, only about 7% of SF6 production is used in semiconductor manufacturing, and only a fraction of that is solar cell production and of that fraction not all is released into the atmosphere. Cradle-to-grave estimates for all greenhouse gas emissions in grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh came in at 1001 for coal, 500 for natural gas, and 45 for solar cells.

Capture and sequestration of CO2 from burning coal would have large capital costs and increase coal usage by about 30%, putting the cost of electricity from coal right in the same ballpark as unsubsidized wind and solar.

Please do a little research and thought before you shout "ZOMG SF6 MOST POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS!"

http://remineralize.org/
"Better soil, better food, better planet.... We see a future of thriving farms and gardens producing healthy, nutrient-dense food in great abundance. We see exuberant forests returned to a state of grandeur not seen in centuries, silently sequestering the carbon dioxide that so threatens our planet today. We see a stable climate and a cleaner, healthier environment. We see all of this being possible through the simple and effective process of soil remineralization."

You are right that much of today's organic industry has become co-dependent on conventional livestock farms to use the manure for fertilizer to make up for what is removed from the soil. And returning human waste back to the soil has not proven that workable in the USA because sewage sludge is often contaminated with heavy metals or prescription drugs.That is a big difference from the "Farmers Of Forty Centuries" in China with cleaner sewage back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Also related:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/...
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture...
http://www.globalecotechnics.c...
http://www.oceanarksint.org/

From: http://remineralize.org/histor...
----
Benefits of Remineralization
* Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace minerals.
* Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
* Increases yields and gives higher brix reading.
* Rebalances soil pH.
* Increases earthworm activity and the growth of microorganisms.
* Builds humus complex.
* Prevents soil erosion.
* Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
* Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost, and drought.
* Produces more nutritious crops.
* Enhances flavor in crops.
* Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
Soil Remineralization (SR) creates fertile soils by returning minerals to the soil in much the same way that the Earth does: during an Ice Age, glaciers crush rock onto the Earth's soil mantle, and winds blow the dust in the form of loess all over the globe. Volcanoes erupt, spewing forth minerals from deep within the Earth, and rushing rivers form mineral-rich alluvial deposits.
Within silicate rocks is a broad spectrum of up to one hundred minerals and trace elements necessary for the well-being of all life and the creation of fertile soils. Glacial moraine or mixtures of single rock types can be applied to soils to create a sustainable and superior alternative to the use of ultimately harmful chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
SR has been shown in scientific studies to achieve fourfold increases in agricultural and forestry (wood volume) yields and to produce both immediate and long-term benefits from a single application.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of appropriate rock dust for soil and forest regeneration are stockpiled by the gravel and stone industry.
---

I hope more people learn about this.

On the topic of this article on meat alternatives, about seventeen years ago I wrote a letter to a person I had met who was trying to raise fund for some kind of recreational complex in Des Moines, Iowa. His family was a producer of equipment for meat grinding. Inspired by the work of Jon Robbins and "Diet for a New America" and EarthSave back then, I suggested in the letter he consider adapting the technology to make meat substitutes, which I told him was a growing industry. Never heard back from him. See also:
http://johnrobbins.info/

Glad to see peop

http://remineralize.org/
"Better soil, better food, better planet.... We see a future of thriving farms and gardens producing healthy, nutrient-dense food in great abundance. We see exuberant forests returned to a state of grandeur not seen in centuries, silently sequestering the carbon dioxide that so threatens our planet today. We see a stable climate and a cleaner, healthier environment. We see all of this being possible through the simple and effective process of soil remineralization."

You are right that much of today's organic industry has become co-dependent on conventional livestock farms to use the manure for fertilizer to make up for what is removed from the soil. And returning human waste back to the soil has not proven that workable in the USA because sewage sludge is often contaminated with heavy metals or prescription drugs.That is a big difference from the "Farmers Of Forty Centuries" in China with cleaner sewage back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Also related:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/...
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture...
http://www.globalecotechnics.c...
http://www.oceanarksint.org/

From: http://remineralize.org/histor...
----
Benefits of Remineralization
* Provides slow, natural release of elements and trace minerals.
* Increases the nutrient intake of plants.
* Increases yields and gives higher brix reading.
* Rebalances soil pH.
* Increases earthworm activity and the growth of microorganisms.
* Builds humus complex.
* Prevents soil erosion.
* Increases the storage capacity of the soil.
* Increases resistance to insects, disease, frost, and drought.
* Produces more nutritious crops.
* Enhances flavor in crops.
* Decreases dependence on fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
Soil Remineralization (SR) creates fertile soils by returning minerals to the soil in much the same way that the Earth does: during an Ice Age, glaciers crush rock onto the Earth's soil mantle, and winds blow the dust in the form of loess all over the globe. Volcanoes erupt, spewing forth minerals from deep within the Earth, and rushing rivers form mineral-rich alluvial deposits.
Within silicate rocks is a broad spectrum of up to one hundred minerals and trace elements necessary for the well-being of all life and the creation of fertile soils. Glacial moraine or mixtures of single rock types can be applied to soils to create a sustainable and superior alternative to the use of ultimately harmful chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
SR has been shown in scientific studies to achieve fourfold increases in agricultural and forestry (wood volume) yields and to produce both immediate and long-term benefits from a single application.
Hundreds of thousands of tons of appropriate rock dust for soil and forest regeneration are stockpiled by the gravel and stone industry.
---

I hope more people learn about this.

On the topic of this article on meat alternatives, about seventeen years ago I wrote a letter to a person I had met who was trying to raise fund for some kind of recreational complex in Des Moines, Iowa. His family was a producer of equipment for meat grinding. Inspired by the work of Jon Robbins and "Diet for a New America" and EarthSave back then, I suggested in the letter he consider adapting the technology to make meat substitutes, which I told him was a growing industry. Never heard back from him. See also:
http://johnrobbins.info/

Glad to see peop

Ton for ton, really? Some half-assed math puts fly ash at about 68 million tons per year[1] times 30 years .. compared to 29000 tons .. puts it at about 12g. I still wouldn't want that in my backyard (though it probably wouldn't kill or even harm me), but the energy density of nuclear fuel is so amazing that it's really quite hard to ignore. There are few parts of everyday science where you find a hard 6-orders-of-magnitude difference.

Here's what a ship with a 30,000 ton cargo capacity looks like: http://previous.presstv.ir/pho...

Big, yes, but pretty amazing for 30 years of worldwide energy production.

Half-assed references:

[1] http://www.epa.gov/radiation/t...

The problem is electricity generation only accounts for 33% of all greenhouse emissions (source: http://epa.gov/climatechange/g...). Ahem, so what about the remaining 67%... so how do we care to try to address that lol?

There is not in any way "consensus" that "GMOs are safe"

Again the facts say otherwise.

The consensus is that they are safe.
American Medical Association
National Academy of Sciences
World Health Organization
Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission
Department of Agriculture
Food and Drug Administration
Environmental Protection Agency

Scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.

"variety, which is fissile (= radioactive, potentially dangerous and useable as nuclear fuel)" Fissile does not equal radioactive. All uranium isotopes are radioactive. And for the 238 isotope the term applies - fissionable, which means the fission can be brought on by high energy neutrons.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/r...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Yet, [Houston doesn't] have the pollution problem of Paris, LA, Mexico City, or Beijing.

Are you sure we don't? I looked at some EPA data, and it seems like on our bad days (in August) we're up in the particulate range that Paris is in now. We also have a lot of trouble with ozone. I'm pretty sure LA's air quality is better than ours now, or at least was for several years.

I don't think comparing Houston to Mexico City or Beijing makes sense. They have a lot more people crammed into a smaller space with worse cars.

And the thing is, at least with modern equipment coal burns as clean as Natural Gas.

Really? Got a link?

Since natural gas produces one percent of the sulfur emission of an average coal plant even a technology that was 95% effective in capturing the sulfur should still leave coal as being grossly more polluting for sulfur. Clean coal sites are asserting the current state of the art in production is only 90% effective. So no, it isn't.

Half. Even being charged by an electric grid that includes coal, it's half the amount GHG over the full lifetime of the car. That includes mining materials to make batteries and eventually disposing of them - and is comparing to gasoline cars getting an average of 30mpg. The takeaway should be that internal combustion engines are stupid inefficient. They're basically heaters that happen to produce a little horsepower.

Taken from report here (pg. 74 has a nice graph): http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/pr...

I'm not sure what you're asking.

In my area (upstate New York), more than 50% of electricity is made by a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, and "other renewable". (This last is almost negligible.) The remainder is natural gas and coal, favoring natural gas.

Of course, we are one of the cleanest-electricity regions of the country. But we're not the only cleaner-electricity region. For example, parts of Tennessee get most of their electricity from hydroelectric.

Useful links:
EPA eGrid
NYT article on the regional dependence of electric-vehicle cleanliness

What a silly thing to say; as if not filtering 99% of something harmful is a better idea...

OP does have a quite valid point...I worked in water testing lab years ago so I have some experience with this. The EPA standard for coliform in drinking water is zero, that is to say one e. coli bacteria in a water sample (usually 100 ml) means the water is contaminated. (And generally when water is contaminated, there will be far more than just one bacteria per 100 ml.)

So while, yes, removing 99% of the bacterial load is better than not, as a general rule a 99% effective "decontamination" process still leaves you with contaminated water

Not to mention that the original replacement for TEL was MTBE http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.ht... which is still in use in limited quantities. MTBE has been largely replaced with ethanol for octane boosting. Ethanol is pretty cheap compared to MTBE, but it carries large government subsides.

behold, the rhetorical skills of an ignorant nutcase. and it's funny you should mention education...since mine is an engineering degree that involved various geotechnical, geological, and environmental courses, and I'm currently working on expanding my education specifically into petroleum/energy engineering.

When you have information produced by someone with more than a 6th grade education, let me know.

why you looking for a tutor? because apparently you somehow think faultlines just stop at subsequent rock layers, rather than transcending layers (which they do). here, this wikipedia entry should be helpful. It has pictures, so even you can understand it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

And I didnt even mention flowback, the injection water that returns to the surface and has to be treated and released....except they dont always treat or capture it, and is another major source of contamination as a result of fracking.

And then there's these...

4 states confirm water pollution from drilling:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Fracking Wastewater Radioactive and Contaminated, Study Finds:
http://www.livescience.com/401...

Fracking Investigation Finds Evidence of Water Contamination:
http://mashable.com/2014/01/06...

EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources:
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/hy...

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...