Slashdot Mirror
Finland Set To Become First Country To Ban Coal Use For Energy (newscientist.com)
Finland could become the first country to ditch coal for good. As part of a new energy and climate strategy due to be announced tomorrow, the government is considering banning the burning of coal for energy by 2030. From a New Scientist article: "Basically, coal would disappear from the Finnish market," says Peter Lund, a researcher at Aalto University, and chair of the energy programme at the European Academies' Science Advisory Council. The groundwork for the ban already seems to be in place. Coal use has been steadily declining in Finland since 2011, and the nation heavily invested in renewable energy in 2012, leading to a near doubling of wind power capacity the following year. It also poured a further $85 million into renewable power this past February. On top of this, Nordic energy prices, with the exception of coal, have been dropping since 2010. As a result of such changes, coal-fired power plants are being mothballed and shut all over Finland, leaving coal providing only 8 per cent of the nation's energy.
Canada announced this three days ago... here on Slashdot.
Maybe Finland will be doing it earlier in 2030 than Canada. Don't know. Now I'm wondering how many other countries are going to be first.
"Oh no... he found the
idiot
Poor little delicate snowflake. I'm so sorry the laws of physics don't line up with your world view. Why don't you go have a big ol' cry, poor little alt-right denier snowflake
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"the lack of evidence for global warming"
So why is the north pole ice melting, why are the glaciers clearly receding.
Do you also deny that it gets hot in green houses,
Do you deny that mankind releases billions of tons of CO2?
Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Tell me, which is it?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Show some peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating your point. Circle-jerk web-rings don't count, nor do "alternative" publications, find some scientific journal articles.
It's all well and good to reduce dependence on coal, but I think the populace will think different and force their government's hand when 1. they see how damned expensive renewables are (as flowery and nice as they might seem, they're still HEAVILY subsidised, and by taxes on coal too, a subsidy that will disappear when the coal is banned) and 2. how they'll fare in the first storm that lasts more than 24 hours when hydro is off because the rivers flow too fast, the wind generators are shut down because they only work in slow wind, and the solar plants shut down because you know, clouds, something finland has more of than almost anywhere, not to mention the small amounts of usable insolation.
I'll be watching them crawl back to coal within a year, and I'll be eating popcorn and grinning all the way.
US will be the last country to eschew coal, well after China. Finland doesn't matter, except maybe for setting a localized precedent.
What evidence? Show documented and peer-reviewed and published scientific articles with authors working in their fields of expertise.
Really? Read more science, and learn some actual history. Supplement other skills as needed (reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. -- all the stuff kids should learn).
Just turn on the weather channel.
That's not trend, you fucking idiots can't even keep consistent the terminology or the complaints.
Even if you were right, which your not, coal is still a terrible dirty fuel that requires digging and unsafe mining acres of ground. After that you have to deal with the ash.
Face it Luddite, coal is obsolete.
Not OP. I deny the existence of CO2. I deny the existence of climate and weather. I deny denials.
As for the north pole... That's Santa's fucking problem.
You really need to read more. More than 30% of Finland's energy already comes from renewable sources, and fossil fuels are expensive (in terms of security cost as 75% of Finnish coal comes from Russia) or logistics (no local coal mines, all must be imported). Oil has similar problems (~90% from Russia) as does natural gas (100% from Russia), but fortunately local nuclear power will make up 60% of all energy needs, which combined with normal growth in renewable production over time allows for elimination of fossil fuels in power generation.
How about People Magazine?
Finland is not the American Continent.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Shouldn't the headline read:
Finland bans coal use, relies heavily on Nuclear (60%)!
We, the Slash Dotters do not need to feel so indoctrinated by those AGW deniers who cannot feel any passion for the planet on which they live. Their speech is worthless and should be treated as such. Who do you THINK YOU ARE denying scientists and the likes of Al Gore?
You openly admitted here recently that you spent years fighting in online forums against creationists.
Basically, you're an online zealot. Climate change is your latest gig.
Find a new hobby. We're tired of semi-pro flamers here.
I'll bet if you really think about it, you'll figure out why those things are not really equivalent.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Stupid Finnish SJWs. Next they'll be telling us they can get energy from heat trapped underground. Sad!
You are welcome on my lawn.
Fuck coal right in its black asshole. Burning coal in this day and age is a ridiculous abuse of the public health.
http://www.nrel.gov/news/featu... The wind turbines in Antartica seem to be going OK and its a lot colder there.
http://www.iflscience.com/envi... (2016)
"there is an overwhelming consensus ( http://www.desmogblog.com/2012... (2012)) when it comes to the link between human activity and climate change. The figure most frequently cited is that 97 percent of scientists agree on the link, but a new meta-analysis puts that figure at 99.9 percent."
It has a nice easy pie chart for you too.
China's not slowing down, and baring a miracle Trump will put the US back into coal in a big way.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Forget what the other guy asked for. Tell me a story. A story that beats: Man burn things that release gases that trap heat from radiating off the planet like greenhouse panels do. That's all I ask for!
Oh my, you almost had a good joke going.
But you need a punchline.
Let me suggest a few
"And don't call me Shirley"
"The Aristocrats"
"PLASTICS"
"Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
"Sexy Clone Jitsu!"
"Welcome to Cleveland"
"I feel the need for speed"
"Put your lips together and blow"
What will naughty boys and girls get if not a lump of coal?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Never fear a lying fuckwad AC will be here shilling for fossil fuels, oh there you are you fucking dumbfuck.
I haven't seen any evidence that data is being manipulated to show global warming where none exists.
All more snowfall means is that on more days that it is below 32 degrees at the right altitude there is H2O.
Something lubricates at -20 degrees. They can use that. Problem solved.
Damn you science on monopoly on science.
Unfortunately, nuclear power is the most expensive electricity. High cost, long lead times, unresolved problems with design and waste. Not a good option. Nuclear only gets built with massive subsidies and public liability for cleanup and accidents.
Wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The AGW part is convincing enough, it's all the catastrophic part that doesn't make sense to me. First time I saw CAGW, had to look it up.
How much do you get paid to be here? Can I get a job too?
Guess what everyone is going to get in their Christmas stocking this year
Steel from that part of the world has had an excellent reputation for over a century due to the very low sulphur content of their coal. Burning it to boil water is a waste.
Also they have been replacing it anyway with tiny generators instead of the capital intensive step of new coal fired units so it's a bit of a non-announcement.
It's like Germany announcing they were giving up on nukes more than twenty years after they had built their last reactor. The real choice was made many years before when it was decided not to build another one.
The fact that the DoD has declared that resource wars (over water and oil) will be the biggest military threat to the US in the next 50 years?
That is pretty convincing. I'm not part of the DoD (Do work for them on contract basis for research as academic through DARPA and Air Force Office of Scientific Research) But these people are NOT "super liberals" who only think about Tree Hugging or any other such nonsense claim you might want to make against people who are smart enough to realize that climate != weather on a specific day....
The fact that the Syrian War was exacerbated by (I won't say "started by", but it was certainly a significant contributing factor) years of drought forcing lots of young men to travel to the cities to look for work since there wasn't any out in the countryside... MIGHT just MIGHT be -exactly- what the DoD was warning about...
but go ahead, say that the DoD's career military planners/strategists/etc... don't know what they are doing. But before you do that remember that all wars are started by Congress (and the President now b/c congress keeps on wanting to skirt responsibility, and is therefore giving the presidency more and more power )
Ohh I guess the UK Gov't doesn't know what it is doing either https://www.globalpolicy.org/the-dark-side-of-natural-resources-st/water-in-conflict/40119.html
but YOU DO... hahahahah
It's alternative_right and his faggy sidekick shane_optimus come to fag us out with an alt-fag fagpoint. Take it away fags
But the neighbour countries Norway and Sweden haven't used coal in decades. For electricity generation, Norway is basically 100% hydro and Sweden is 45% hydro, 40% nuclear and 15% wind, solar, woodburning and minor natgas. Pressure from Denmark forced Sweden to shut down their most southern nuclear plant, so a small natgas plant had to be built(2 TWh of the total 160 TWh generated). The natgas is bought from... Denmark.
"Wind-turbine lubricants freeze at -1 deg C."
So thats why theres no wind farms in North Dakota... Oh, wait...
Pretty fucked up definitions of both in my opinion if that fits in your mind.
The reason it hasn't been disproved is only because nothing has contradicted it yet and the models have been changing year after year as more is understood about sea currents, cloud formation and a pile of other things. You are blaming scientists for dumbed down soundbites from politicians and economists.
As for nukes, like all massive capital intensive projects economists and bankers hate the things so that's why China and Russia are the only ones going forward with civilian nukes. The choice in the west is TMI painted green - 1970s stuff that nobody trusts and not only looks really disappointing against everything else but takes a decade to build. There was a thorium project with some promise back when Clinton was President (one of those people you are pretending are in the way) but the nuclear lobby, Westinghouse et al, lobbied to have it shut down because they saw it as a danger to their old Uranium designs barely touched since the 1970s. It may seem fun to kick hippies and "the left" over nukes but it wasn't their fault, and it's what you see as "the left" in China (really authoritarian but most people see them as the same as "the left") who are actually getting the things built!
So some of those "CAGW types" really are building nukes.
"alt-right" is a derogatory term now? lol. Silly regressives.
Coal use has been declining because Finland has few coal only plants still running, other coal capable plants have switched cheaper fossil fuels.
I'd also be interested to see if "Energy" includes just electricity, or heat generation as well, because many of their power plants are co-generations plants, and could switch their coal fired boilers to heat generation.
The solution to alt-faggery has been found by scientists:
This is known as a circle jerk of alt-faggery or a web rig of assholes that will allow the the alt-fags to continue their faggery without them realizing anything has changed from when their head normally was, in their own anus.
Yeah... clearly the problem with science is that it's done by scientists. Damn them and their dedication to reasonable conclusions based on empirical evidence! Damn them all!
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You believe there's only one type of lubricant for all wind turbines?
Isn't that cute!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
-20 deg C from October to May.
Wind-turbine lubricants freeze at -1 deg C.
A quick search for "lithium grease" "low temperature" yielded this among many others, and a quick search for "lithium grease" and "wind turbine" yielded this among many others. You're full of it.
Yet another nation announces abandoning coal, a nation with ample hydro resources
"Ample hydro resources", my ass.
Ezekiel 23:20
What about the oil? You still gonna be burning that?
-20 deg C from October to May.
Wind-turbine lubricants freeze at -1 deg C.
That's why all the new wind mills have lubricant heaters. Once the wind is blowing at sufficient speed the heaters are turned off and the friction of the bearings is more than enough to keep them warm. I'm surprised you don't know this. Of course the heaters add to material and operating costs but that is more than compensated by the increased output from year around operation.
Getting nuclear plants online can take 30 years.
Actually it's more like 40 years, at least in the USA. Trump supports nuclear power though, expect that to get down to 2 years real quick.
Likely Finland will buy electricity form the EU and Russia as long as EU exists which may be for another 12 to 24 months.
Finland buys a lot of coal and natural gas from Russia. Expect them to build up more hydro, wind, and nuclear power to replace the coal and natural gas they are abandoning. At some point I'd expect them to sell electricity to Russia.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If attacking pseudoscience is zealotry, I'll wear that title proudly. And if you don't like what I wrote, then don't read it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Unfortunately, nuclear power is the most expensive electricity. High cost, long lead times, unresolved problems with design and waste. Not a good option. Nuclear only gets built with massive subsidies and public liability for cleanup and accidents.
Wind and solar are cheaper and cleaner.
Again, if you fear this more than global warming then I have to conclude that global warming is not a threat.
I thought that global warming was supposed to make the entire earth unfit for human life. Even if we can conclude that building up more nuclear power results in more accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, then I assume that is a better alternative than the extinction of our species.
You seem to assume that we've learned nothing from past nuclear accidents, that these unresolved issues with nuclear power cannot ever be resolved, and that number of dead people from wind and solar do not count.
Nuclear power is safer per TWh produced than wind and solar. (That number of dead includes the deaths from mining the uranium, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, not just on site industrial and radiation hazards.) I thought the goal was to save lives. If the goal is saving lives then nuclear power is the best option we have available right now. If the goal is not saving lives then what is it?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The fact that the DoD has declared that resource wars (over water and oil) will be the biggest military threat to the US in the next 50 years?
I'm not arguing that the DOD got this wrong. I'm arguing that if CAGW is truly a threat to humanity then all options must be explored, not all options except nuclear power.
I saw some very interesting people speaking on this topic from recorded presentations on Youtube. The DOD, and the US Navy in particular, are very interested in addressing a potential threat to the world's oil supply. The USN is fighting hard for more nuclear powered ships. The USN has been doing research on synthesizing aircraft fuel from seawater and nuclear power. The USAF and USN have been testing bio-fuels in their cargo planes, and if this proves successful this research will continue with other aircraft. The US Army has been using an 80% bio-diesel blend for years in their vehicles on domestic bases. The USMC and US Army have been funding research in solar panels that can be used on forward operating bases to reduce demand for diesel used in generating electricity.
If anyone is working on this problem the right way it is the DOD. The people that are doing it the wrong way are ignoring the energy potential from nuclear power.
Trump supports the military, supports expanding nuclear power, but is skeptical about CAGW. Even though the CAGW people hate him for being a "denier" he's also dong all the right things to actually fix the problem. If the CAGW people would actually stop protesting and shitting on police cars just long enough to think through what Trump has offered they might actually, though no doubt grudgingly, find him not all that bad on policy.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Fuck you.
I used to live in a mountain region eastern Europe, where global warming has caused significant changes the last 15 years. We essentially have 12 deg. C Christmas with rain, where it used to be -10 deg. with 1m Snow when I was a kid.
If you're too stupid for scientific arguments (of which there are plenty) then fuck you. Read book, go to a school or something. We live in the 21st century, it's not like access to education is really in short supply nowadays.
Disclaymer: I am a scientist (physics PhD), although not a climate one. But I know how to read data when I see it, and enough about science not to fall for idiotic bullshit like the "there's no climate change"-crap.
"Everyone I don't like is alt-right: a child's guide to online political discussions"
I agree that making fun of people who deny even the basic principles of climate change is fun, but there was nothing particularly alt-right about the post.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Not so fast! Finland's dependence on renewable energy is diluted by their heavy investment in nuclear power, currently 28% and projected to rise to 60% by 2025.
Just like WebMD and Google have removed our need to see doctors, we'll soon be able to do our own research and eliminate scientists as well.
Is there some problem with nuclear energy that I'm not aware of?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's only the US Santa's problem. The finnish Santa lives in Rovaniemi. And the original Santa was living in what is now South Turkey.
Traditionally in Finland, it's a bundle of sticks.
So that's how I know that the glaciers I know of are receding: By actually going there and looking at them.
All those 3 above shows that many mountain glacier were historically bigger, and the sea ice estimate on north poll dropped in surface and volume. But as denier want to deny, I am sure you will hand wave those.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I guess we can safely assume that you've never flown over Greenland.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
-20 deg C from October to May.
Oh, really?
What other factual errors does Vlad wish for you to share with us today?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Do you also deny that it gets hot in green houses,
Here is where you lost him.
CO2 is not something that is used in green houses to make them function.
Now you have to prove that glass and CO2 works the same way.
I am free because *I AM*. If you must have a gun to prove yourself... well, that's pretty sad.
But do keep the sig--it expresses your predilection for circular logic perfectly.
So no burning on Finnish soil but importing power produced by coal is still OK.
The guy you answer to is a left-wing nut. I have no problem with any leftist, but I have a problem with nuts who claim solar is cheaper than nuclear, black is white, war is peace, etc.
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
*Salutes* ... ATTEENNNNHUT !
Proud members of the pro-reality zealots army
Reeeeccciiitttteee the oath !
I shall not believe that which has no evidence.
I shall accept evidence that go against my previously held beliefs.
I shall not let my economic or moral ideals trump evidence based scientific conclusions.
I shall not use fallacies to attempt to deceive audiences for profit or political gain.
I shall confront and fight enemies of truth, both foreign and domestic, where-ever I find them.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And was almost certainly black.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
you do know the planet is not a large glass house.
A green house does NOT heat up due to Co2.....
A !=B
your confusing apples and turds
Hah. Given most people are simply not interested in climate change, this is all moot. [1]
But seeing as this is Slashdot, and a Friday, the thing is, most "climate change deniers" don't have an issue with any of those points. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and mankind releases CO2, and greenhouses do indeed get hot (why this last one is on the list is beyond me, as "greenhouse" is just an analogy here).
The point which EVERYBODY is up in arms about, is how much warming will actually come from feedbacks, and not from CO2 itself.
The mainstream respectable "in the field" "non-denialist" expert view is that the feedbacks could give you 4 or even oh I dunno as it is a feedback who can say where it would stop maybe 8C for all we know... and the denialist view is that this is ludicrous as why didn't the Earth just accidentally cook itself already.
The science issues are really all about feedbacks, not "basic physics". And the people and politics issues are really all about values. [2]
[1] So much for superordinate goals which could appeal to the different values systems of the global population.
[2] Human beings grow through about 6 or 7 major stages of worldview, each with its own values-system. This is why everyone is usually quite sure that their own way of looking at the world is the "right" way. Climate change isn't just science. Climate change is often really about trying to get the world to adopt a particular values-system. (And then when this values-system gets rejected by people, we end up thinking about them as "selfish", "consumerist", etc.) And in many ways climate change is about bringing forward a better set of values for the world. But because nobody seems to know that values cannot simply be imposed, like how you can't impose democracy on Iraq by bombing the old regime out of office, ie. because people actually grow through values in a particular way, in an organic, life experience kind of way, and cannot be made to change, even if the planet is burning or whatever, then the fact remains, most of the world does not care about climate change, because the way climate change is framed, it is all about a particular set of values, and most people are not at that stage of values. They just aren't. And if climate change proponents would stop being so narrow minded, they might see that. Someone somewhere made a huge blunder in trying to tie a new values system to a science theory (theory in the strong sense of the word). The values system should have been made subject of philosophy and ethics and even religion. But no, it was tied to a science theory, as if "reality" would force you to change how you value things. Which is just not how human beings work. So climate change will fail. It has been failing. It'll continue to fail. It'll really not be going anywhere, it is so failed (you Americans seem to like this kind of phrasing!) But as I say, this is Slashdot and a Friday, so who cares anyway.
To replace coal, we're building more nuclear. There's one new reactor being built (actually the biggest in the world at 1700 MW, although the project has been seriously delayed and is unfortunately massively over budget/schedule due to problems with the French contractor (Areva) and one additional reactor being planned for 2024. If both of these are successfully completed, it will more than double our nuclear capabilities and increase our energy production capabilities by almost 3000 MW. and should be more than enough to make up for the gap left by abandoning coal.
I'm a fan of nuclear, especially since we're also building the first ever deep geological repository to handle the waste storage. It's just a shame that the project has turned out to be such a screw.up (granted it is partially because the reacrtor type - European Pressurized Reactor - is new and has never been built before), and I'm hoping the authorities here learn something important from this: bidding these types of projects based solely on the price-tag will lead to issues. I do believe though that Areva will end up paying the fees once the case is settled, though whether or not it will actually have the money to do so (it's over 5 billion) is another matter.
Regardless of the difficulties and the cost, nuclear is really the only way forward for us, because we're pretty much tapped out on Hydro and solar doesn't have much use here at commercial scales because for half the year the sun is pretty much gone. So if we want to be rational and dump both coal and the dependency on Russian import gas, going nuclear with modern is the only viable option at this point.
Germany has gone the opposite direction and is shutting down nuclear power plants which is actually leading to an increase in the use of fossil fuels. Here's a TED talk about why the senseless opposition to nuclear is actually harming the environment because of that.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Quite improbable. He was living in Lycia, a historical region in Asia Minor, to a greek family.
That particular part of Turkey was quite dark skinned, including the Greek part of the population - even for Turks (as in - black). And the oldest known images of the historic St Nick all show a black man. Now these weren't done from life and we don't know how accurate they are - but he was clearly perceived as a black person for at least the first few centuries after he died, the white santa was only invented fairly recently.
We actually know very little about the man - and it's very hard ot tell which parts of the legend (if any) ever actually happened. But the odds are that he was black and this is why he was painted (and depicted in stained glass) as such for centuries.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I said it's too expensive.
No fear. Just too expensive.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
And that is a good thing, becouse the glaciers are a remnants of the last ice age, and the earth is probably trying to go back to pre ice-age warmth levels.
Coal is indeed obsolete - and easy to phase out in countries that doesn't have reserves of their own.
So... biomass, then?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You can see the evolution of the global warming argument in that acronym.
When it was just "global warming", the argument was basically "global warming is not happening".
Then, when it got too hard to sustain pure denial, they added "anthropogenic", so the argument became "OK, global warming is happening, but it's not us that's causing it"
Now we see "catastrophic" added and the argument morphs again: "OK we are causing global warming, but it's not going to be as bad as people say".
If things carry on like this, presumably the next letter will be "L" for "liable". LCAGW: "Ok, global warming might get pretty bad, but I don't see why I should have to pay for it"
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I'm using a very simple rule for scientific results in fields I don't know much about and unless I happen to come up with some generally accepted and confirmed-to-be-successful better way of doing science in that field (which would highly unlikely if I don't know much about it):
I take the current state of the art in the respective field, what the majority of scientists currently agree upon, as my guideline for forming beliefs and informing me for decision making.
Anything else is just stupid. Of course, scientists can turn out to be wrong, science is a highly critical, highly competitive and constantly evolving process, but basing my decisions on the assumption that they could turn out to be wrong in some distant future is just a miserable display of ignorance. It reminds me of this self-published book I've recently seen on Amazon in which some guy uses high school maths to "prove" Einstein wrong, because he didn't "understand relative motion".
Moreover, let me stress the obvious that even if 95% of all climate scientists had conspired to fake their results, this would in no way whatsoever show that climate change is not man-made and not dangerous for the future of mankind. It's kind of entertaining when laymen and crackpots attempt to show something in science by discrediting scientists, but only up to a certain point. At some point, the lack of basic logic and thinking skills just gets annoying. Nobody and nothing except their own stupidity keeps those climate conspiracy nuts from publishing a revolutionary article in Nature.
The problem with this argument is that, until Eddington, the overwhelming scientific consensus was that Newton was right and Einstein was wrong. The argument shouldn't be that only 24 papers have been published on one side and 13,926 on the other side, it should be that every one of those 24 articles has subsequently been shown to have flawed data, flawed methodology, or both. And, given that it's only 24, that should have been really easy. Spending a long post arguing that the majority is on one side shows a rather disturbing lack of understanding of how science works.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How on earth can you possibly be certain that glaciers are receding?
Because most major glaciers have good historical documentation.
Because most major glaciers have for the past century been carefully and accurately monitored.
You're a nobody. And the day you die, you'll be forgotten, forever.
For someone complaining that someone believes something without providing facts you seem very certain about this without actually knowing anything about the person you are talking about.
The real choice was made many years before when it was decided not to build another one.
There's false attribution there in a global landscape that is hostile towards nuclear power in the face of NIMBYS fearing radiation but championing coal as a solution. Times change and the decision not to build a nuclear reactor 20 years ago is not the same as a decision not to build one now.
That is what makes both cases an announcement. We now have policy decision decided on the current environment, not an inferred position based on what has happened under a different set of circumstances.
the earth is probably trying to go back to pre ice-age warmth levels
Spoken like a true man of science...
What's even better is pols first claiming they are not scientists, but then going on to claim science based claims are hoaxes. Welcome to the alt-right hall of mirrors.
Yes, but the thing about feedback, if you understood the term is that it can have one of three effects, increasing, staying the same, or (get this) decreasing activity of the system. So as long as you have a dampening effect, you tend to drift off into an ice world. This has happened before. The problem with increasing activity is it tend to make things hotter. Since you clearly have no clue, do ya feel lucky, punk?
Mate you need to have a long hard look in the mirror. Not even sure why you are on Slashdot if you cannot understand the basic science behind climate change
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
No convection or precipitation inside a green house. What percentage of CO2 emissions is anthropogenic? How do you arrive at that number? Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?
Go look up your political talking points instructions and then start flinging insults.
Given that it was coined by a Nazi (Richard Spencer) as a term to whitewash himself, yes.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
You can do better than that.
Think!
What are the differences that would influence the choices between 1996 and now? The sad thing is even the "cutting edge" reactors such as the AP1000 are the same. Time may march on but some stuff doesn't progress like others and some reasons stay constant for a long time.
Also with something like a nuclear industry once you decide to stop building new gear you lose the people with the expertise you need to build new stuff later. Germany decided long ago to give up and just live with what they had to date. Starting again would have been a very major project, larger than the UK-China nuclear collaboration that has people staggered at the cost.
Let's say it all together: the problem is not that the Earth is warming, it's how fast the Earth is warming.
A new PETM is not a desirable situation. Yes, Earth has done this experiment before.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
Yeah, if only there was a way to test materials for what wavelengths of light they absorb.
Too bad such a technology has never been invented.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
You openly admitted here recently that you spent years fighting in online forums against creationists.
I'm struggling to see why this is a bad thing.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Scientists are just people who lack the conviction to make it through engineering school. Plus, youre European so let me help you here.
Your observed warmth is a conclusion. Noone cares you observed warmth and thats NOT science. Why the warming occured is the question. Now take your own advice and work through the Newtonian method you fuckwit.
At the time of Einstein, it was well understood that something was wrong with Newtonian physics. Light was measured to move at a finite fixed speed, yet this speed didn't change relative to the relative velocities of the sender and receiver. Different reference frames for the same beam of light didn't match up. An explanation had to be found. It was one of the great problems of physics of the day.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
All these snowflakes will melt as the world gets warmer. The tears, in the rain of tears of other snowflakes, melting into tears.
I did.
it was 80f on thanksgiving.
a full 40f warmer than the moving average of the past 100 years, and 45f warmer than the average over the 20th century.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What are the differences that would influence the choices between 1996 and now?
I mentioned the one big one which is giving nuclear renewed interest. Mainly that it's not coal, something no one gave a shit about in 1996.
Also with something like a nuclear industry once you decide to stop building new gear you lose the people with the expertise you need to build new stuff later.
Yes and no. The experience wasn't lost. Construction of a reactor is not specialised and through continued support of existing infrastructure vendors keep on providing all the new products you need. The engineering teams are also still there, still working for westinghouse etc because ... well they never stopped. Only in a few western countries. Construction of a reactor like this is never localised but sucks in expertise from all over the world.
As for cost, comparing the China UK collaboration is just stupid. That project was never about power.
Also you're right Germany made that decision long ago. The only point I was making is that you said it's a non-event. It couldn't be further from the truth. When you make a decision on questionable grounds to appease a few greens by not building something new it is very different from making a concerted effort to shutdown existing installations in the wake of a completely irrelevant event on the other side of the world.
In both cases the policy announcements are significant.
So, you're saying the minority is always right? Let's stay the current course, and don't even try to fix anything, just in case the current consensus is wrong, the paid shills are right and everything is fine?
Come on. I know people are resistant to change, but what you're advocating is like driving at full speed towards a cliff, ignoring any signs warning for the drop, just because your stoned out of his mind friend in the back seat is assuring you everything is fiiiine. All with the rationale that hey, your friend might be right, and if he's not, humanity will probably have evolved wings just in time to save you. At least you don't have to change.
With a population of 5.5 million people and a labor force of less than half that and a GDP of roughly 1/75th of the US, that shouldn't be too difficult. Similar observations can be made about Canada.
The Occupied series depicts this in the "near future". It doesn't go well for Finland.
That's because your are applying rational thought process to it. If you don't think about it it will all make sense.
What the Heck will Santa bring the bad kids?
Both seem pretty transparent, so at least visible light doesn't seem to be absorbed.
Standing in front of a window with the sun shining at you, it still feels warm so IR also doesn't seem to be significantly absorbed by glass. Can't tell for CO2, never had a window-sized panel of CO2 between me and the sun. Then again, even at a couple ppm, there's probably more CO2 between me and the sun than glass when standing in front of said window, so I'd suspect the IR absorption of CO2 is also not exactly high.
I'd venture a guess that what does matter, in green house panels, is the glass stopping convection. That's something CO2 cannot do.
Then again, I'm not an expert in the field, so if someone feels like setting the matter straight, go ahead.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Let's say it all together: the problem is not that the Earth is warming, it's how fast the Earth is warming.
And the solution is to spend trillions and massively expand the size of government to mitigate the how fast part. Until we can say this fast and why this fast and what are the consequences if this fast without all the political bullshit, that's my problem.
I used to live in a mountain region eastern Europe, where global warming has caused significant changes the last 15 years. We essentially have 12 deg. C Christmas with rain, where it used to be -10 deg. with 1m Snow when I was a kid.
You describe a nice improvement in your weather. Why the fuck-you hatred?
Do you honestly think that this is an appropriate foundation for a view on a scientific topic that makes you feel qualified to override the view of actual experts in the field? Seem? Feels? Suspect? Venture a guess?
Look, I'm going to take you at face value here and try to explain this simply: you don't "guess" at measurements of light absorption based on how something "feels". You measure it. Soda-lime glass (aka, window glass) is very transparent in the visible spectrum, poorly in near-IR, and virtually opaque to thermal IR. CO2, likewise, is almost entirely transparent to visible light, but strongly absorbs in various parts of the IR spectrum. The reason that sunlight feels warm through glass is because a large portion of the sun's energy is in the form of visible light - and indoors you don't have as significant heat loss mechanisms (convective or radiative) as outdoors.
Now, note on the above graph that there are other atmospheric absorbers. Indeed, the most potent IR absorber in Earth's atmosphere is not carbon dioxide but water vapour. However, water rapidly cycles into and out of the atmosphere; it is thus a feedback mechanism, not a forcing mechanism. You could remove every last bit of water vapour from Earth's atmosphere, and two weeks later the vast majority of it would be back. And vice versa for overloading it. To force climate you need gases which do not cycle rapidly out of the system. CO2 and methane are the most prominent of these.
Now, it's true that the "greenhouse" analogy has limited benefit because you're dealing with different scenarios, and you're correct to suspect that a key difference is convection. Planets like Earth lose heat virtually exclusively to radiation. As mentioned, Earth would be far cooler if not for the so-called "greenhouse effect" - if I recall correctly, Earth's equilibrium temperature is 255K - that is, the temperature that you calculate if you consider only Earth's albedo (reflectiveness), emissivity and the incoming sunlight, balancing the rate of blackbody radiation with incoming energy. And a key thing to note when discussing this is that what we really care about is the temperature at the surface - a planetary greenhouse effect actually lowers the temperature in the upper stratosphere.
Radiative heat transfer is a balance between heat received and heat given off. A planet without an atmosphere, at night, exchanges radiation with the cosmic microwave background, which means "essentially zero radiation returns". The more IR-absorptive of an atmosphere present, however, the more it starts exchanging with the atmosphere, and at an increasingly low altitude. So you're not just giving up IR, but also getting it back. This raises the temperature; this increases up to the point where the outbound and inbound radiation rates are equal; that forms your new equilibrium.
In a physical greenhouse, this effect occurs as well, but in most scenarios it's dominated by convection losses. However, there are better "gardening analogies" - the most notable being IR-blocking floating row covers. Such floating row covers are often used to extend the length of time before a field succumbs to frost; they do not block convection, but rather radiative exchange. Many night frosts occur on clear nights, when the ambient t
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
The irony is that most people are already paying for it. Anybody that gets any kind of property insurance right now is already paying for the costs of global warming due to property damage from flooding, coastal inundation and the like, and the costs are only set to go up. When you start seeing food prices going up as more land becomes less arable due to droughts, anyone currently not paying will end up paying as well.
The whole "catastrophic" thing is a bit of a fudge anyways. No researchers that I'm aware of are saying "humanity will be threatened". That's not to say that some populations, those who live in marginal areas or where conditions are such that any long term change in, say, rain belt behavior or glacier melt, could very well be at risk. But the way pseudo-skeptics talk about it, they act as if those evil lying climatologists are insisting the surface of the planet will go molten.
In reality, the whole "catastrophic" claim is just a strawman. It's a standard tactic of contrarians to restate the theory they are attacking in the most hyperbolic terms, and then declare "You see, those vile scientists are making nonsensical predictions!" Of course, since most of the people who repeat those claims know absolutely nothing about climatology or AGW analysis and modeling, they eagerly pick up on it. In part, I think it is a contrarian bent to be found among conservatives and libertarians, and in part it's because I think many of the deniers are just selfish cowards who don't want to hear bad news, and most certainly don't want to change today's behavior for tomorrow's problem.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Can you provide a citation in peer reviewed or primary literature where climatologists and other atmospheric and oceanic experts declare AGW will "make the entire earth unfit for human life"? Go on, provide a list. I think, since you seem to know so much about AGW, that you could easily come up with ten of these citations.
Or are you just making shit up, lying through intense ignorance or out of deliberate desire to mislead?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Translation: My pseudo-skeptic misinformation providers don't publish.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But Newton wasn't wrong. He just wasn't right for all possible scenarios. For most non-relativistic problems, Newtonian mechanics is still used. Nobody uses relativistic equations to put a satellite into orbit, or even send a probe to Mars.
In other words, Einstein didn't falsify Newton at all. What he did was take Newtonian physics and subsume it into relativistic physics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
First paragraph translation: I hate that scientists know more than engineers. Stupid scientists and their stupid expertise!
Second paragraph translation: You've provided evidence that climate is changing! That makes you stupid, because you disagree with my denial! Stupid evidence!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Consistently warmer winters in an area isn't weather, you fucking moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Do you honestly think [you're] qualified to override the view of actual experts in the field?
Well guess why I presented my thoughts as beliefs and guesses, rather than as facts, as well as explicitly labeling myself as
not an expert in the field
If only you had bothered to read my rather short comment through to the end before getting triggered like that and wasting your time typing that wall of text that starts with an angry rant (and probably goes on like that all the way down, I don't see the point in actually reading it since it's based on a wrong premise.
Come to think of it -- since you do present things as facts, mind revealing what makes you an expert in the field (that you clearly must be)? Ideally in a verifiable way, but well, who am I kidding.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
That has been done - see the IPCC reports. Error bars and huge numbers of references included. People like you just choose to refuse to believe it.
Furthermore, nobody is talking about "spending trillions and massively expanding the size of government". The estimated annualized cost of "adaptation" (aka, doing nothing) is estimated at between 0,2 to 2% GDP for the first 2C, while the cost of prevention is 0,04 to 0,14% GDP - not counting the side benefits of doing the latter. Multiple regression models indicate an economic optimum with a peak around 500ppm, which still involves "major efforts" at reduction - again, assuming no side benefits. No health cost reductions, no leading to paths that reduce costs below the starting point, no spin-off inventions, etc. And historically, it's been changes in technological paradigms that lead to technological (and economic) revolutions that extend far beyond the technical field for which they were originally developed.
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
You're totally right, no one in science has ever come along with research that completely upsets and reverses the scientific community's long standing, prevailing views of something, that has absolutely never, ever, ever happened.Its JUST LIKE religion, you are SOOOO right. Im SOOOO not being sarcastic right now.
The reason it hasn't been disproved is only because nothing has contradicted it yet and the models have been changing year after year as more is understood about sea currents, cloud formation and a pile of other things.
That's not my question. My question is, what would be something that disproves CAGW? Your comment that nothing has disproved it yet because the models get updated is on the very edge of saying that nothing can disprove it. We should see some global warming being explained as mere random variation, caused by non-human activity, or possibly adjust the global warming trend down just a bit.
What we see from IPCC reports and the like is that they will admit to a slowing in the global warming trend but they will still predict the same total warming in a given amount of time. It seems nothing good can happen, or even anything neutral, it must all be bad and humans have caused it.
You are blaming scientists for dumbed down soundbites from politicians and economists.
Then the scientists need to correct the soundbites from the politicians. If I were misquoted, my work used to support a conclusion I did not believe in, and done so in a way that was so public and influential on public policy as a report on global warming then I'd do what I could to make it known. There could be a lot of reasons why these scientists are silent but not all of them can be so silenced. Someone should be speaking out and so far it's been scientists claiming CAGW is not a thing, not those saying that CAGW is still a thing but they've been misrepresented.
So some of those "CAGW types" really are building nukes.
Those people I have no real arguments with. I can argue details if they'd like but I've learned to stay quiet so long as they act in a way not contradictory with my beliefs. I don't just mean my beliefs on CAGW but on politics, energy policy, etc.
It's the people that think we can save the world with windmills, solar panels, and wishful thinking that will get us all killed.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Nuclear power is too expensive to save lives?
I understand that lives cost money, we cannot spend infinite funds to save a life because that money could be used to feed, clothe, shelter so many. By some measures the deaths caused by nuclear is half that of wind and a quarter that of solar. Since it is might be illogical to hold US nuclear power to the standards of that in other nations we could base this on US deaths alone in which the difference is by a factor of thousands.
You won't pay more money on electricity to save thousands of American lives every year? Who's the heartless people now? Is it the people that want to save lives and clean the air with nuclear power, or those willing to see many thousands of people in the energy sector die from industrial accidents related to wind and solar energy?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Now you're just making stuff up.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
What assurance do I have that you will accept any such sources I provide?
Let me ask you a few questions. Is there global warming? If there is not then we can stop right here.
Is global warming caused by human activity? If not then we should only continue if the goal is to adjust to the warming, not trying to prevent it.
Is global warming bad for human society? If global warming exists, is caused by human activity, then we only need to do something about it if it is bad for us. If it is neutral then we need to do nothing. If it is good then we need to do more.
If you believe that we must do something about global warming then we can only assume that you believe global warming exists, that it is anthropogenic, and that it would be catastrophic if allowed to continue. If you are arguing that "catastrophic" does not necessarily mean "unfit for human life" then you need to calm down and actually think what you are arguing about. Rendering this planet unfit for human life would be catastrophic, no? Not all environmental catastrophes would mean all humans on this planet die, I will concede that, but it seems you are arguing over the wrong aspect here.
I will argue that nuclear power is a good idea whether or not CAGW exists. If CAGW does exist then anyone convinced of its existence should also support nuclear power. In my mind anyone that believes CAGW exists AND that we cannot use nuclear power to stop it has a very messed up set of priorities.
If CAGW is going to put multiple major cities under water from sea level rise, induce resource wars, create "climate refuges", then I'd expect support for nuclear power even if that means having to deal with another Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island every decade or so.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Aye but the mechanism is actually the same thicko!
Yes let's get a big stick and poke the complex system with it. Works well for our financial systems after all!
Because he also likes drinking water?
Translation: I have no citations, so will try to use fallacious strawmen and red herrings because I know I have absolutely nothing meaningful to say.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Alternate translation: I've dealt with people like you before. I've played this game of argumentum ad verecundiam before and I'm not going to try to argue that my climate scientist is bigger than yours.
Also, you claim that I am "making shit up" or trying to mislead. I am conceding the point to CAGW alarmists, something must be done. I am saying that if these CAGW people fear nuclear power more than CAGW then CAGW is nothing to fear. If people believe that new nuclear power plants will blow up like in Chernobyl and spread radiation over the world then they've got serious issues, that everything is to be feared but the pacifier of windmills.
Again, if there is global warming, human activity is causing it, and such global warming is bad for people then we have really only one choice and that is nuclear power. Continued fossil fuel burning only makes things worse. Using wind and solar power means expensive energy and people dying from industrial accidents. Expensive energy also means people dying from not having the resources to get the food, shelter, clothing, and medical care they need. Wishful thinking on some future technology to save us (including a safer means to deploy wind and solar power) is praying for a boat that may never come to shore.
Nuclear power is safe, affordable, reliable, and carbon free (at least it's closer to that than wind or solar). Instead of agreeing with me on what is important you want o pick a fight on what "catastrophic" means in CAGW.
I will not provide sources because (A) I've dealt with people like you before and I expect not a concession but more arguing over who has the bigger climate scientist in their corner, and (B) this is not what we should be arguing about. If CAGW is a thing then it is bad for us and nuclear power can stop it. If CAGW is not a thing then we should still use nuclear power because it is good for us.
I yield. I concede the point. You win on this matter. Catastrophic global warming does not mean a dead world. Are you happy now?
If you still want to argue then let's talk about nuclear power. I will still say that wind and solar kills people and if anyone believes in CAGW and opposes the use of nuclear power then they are fucked in the head.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There was an utter bastard called Alex Gabbard doing PR for Oak Ridge Labs who used that argument in the early 1990s - the one that started the "coal ash is nuclear waste too" thing. By 1996 he'd even managed to get something in Scientific American. Also the science deniers hadn't got as much traction in 1996 as they have now and Al Gore among many others was making a lot of noise about the carbon dioxide from coal fired power stations.
So I can't say I see much of a difference, in fact I think it was even a bigger issue back then due to less PR from the science deniers.
I've worked with a few people from a research reactor and read a few papers on issues that also applied to components in coal fired boilers - based on that I think you are wrong - I think it's specialised as fuck. The Toshiba factory that makes some major reactor components and has a waiting list of years seems to support that.
Funny you should mention the company that laid off all their skilled nuke staff, managed to stumble through after taking over a Japanese nuke company, then sacked most of those new staff as well. The current AP1000 projects have been a learning exercise for newbies, one of the reasons why the first few took so long.
Not why it happened. That's the political attack lie but reality is different. Was Thatcher green? Carter? Reagan? Kohl? You have been conned. The increase in influence of economists who despised large projects of any kind is a very major part of the answer. Nukes have a massive capital cost and some people just cannot see past that to any benefits.
By the way, Finland has a nuclear power plant under construction. As with Japan the situation there is to have an energy source that doesn't require continuously shipping in or piping in vast amounts of material from somewhere else outside of their control.
It's not stupid, building up a nuclear industry from scratch again would cost far more again than piggybacking on the infrastructure of somewhere else. If you think the cost of that huge project is staggering you haven't considered what it would take to do it without China (or you have not considered the scale and expected returns over decades).
Seriously?
Models getting checked and refined against reality is a bad thing?
If reality shows that it was all based on a faulty premise as you suggest then the models will get changed to match reality. Your comparison the religion is bullshit and applied scientists are not stuck in their ways as you suggest. Look at the history of physics, chemistry, geology and so on for examples of some massive changes in approach.
Your anti-science rant is all completely pointless anyway because Finland had nukes and are currently building a new one.
I worry about the anti-science losers that are trying to con you who argue that wishful thinking is enough to fix everything.
One less consumer on the market can only result in lower prices for everyone who's left.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I've worked with a few people from a research reactor and read a few papers on issues that also applied to components in coal fired boilers - based on that I think you are wrong - I think it's specialised as fuck. The Toshiba factory that makes some major reactor components and has a waiting list of years seems to support that.
I work with ex-nuclear people. The reactor itself relies on specialised components but they are still very much in business because these components were continuously required. That was my original point. The actual plant construction is nothing exciting, and the component which are specialised are still available, currently produced and there's been no loss of engineering knowledge.
You have been conned. The increase in influence of economists who despised large projects of any kind is a very major part of the answer. Nukes have a massive capital cost and some people just cannot see past that to any benefits.
Oh hogwash.Yes economist despise large capital costs but they always have. What we have is a chicken and egg. The green fear campaign followed by the public outrage created an over regulated market in which costs skyrocketted. This may have further strengthened the economist's despise of mega projects but there were underlying forces at play helping that.
building up a nuclear industry from scratch again
What are you talking about? They're not building anything from scratch. Half of the reactors in the UK are still actively operated.
If you think the cost of that huge project is staggering you haven't considered what it would take to do it without China
Causality problem. If China built a reactor alone it would be much cheaper, but for absolutely none of the reasons we typically attribute low cost to China. As you said, many of the components are specialised and these are definitely not made in China.
Models getting checked and refined against reality is a bad thing?
The models change but the result never does. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I also noticed that you seem to be avoiding the question I posed earlier, what would it take to disprove the CAGW theory?
They keep updating these models, after they've proved to be disastrously wrong, but somehow we are supposed to believe them now? After they've been doing this for so long, and doing so poorly at predicting anything, should not someone in the "climate science" community come along with a model that deviates somewhat from the narrative? If a group does come along with a new model then they are said to be liars, shills, a "non-scientist" or whatever. I'm not talking about being a denier, just someone that thinks that the global warming isn't going to be so bad, or that we've got some time to work on this problem. Anyone that isn't running around like their hair is on fire that we are all doomed unless we act now are called "deniers".
You see no one can answer the question on what would disprove the CAGW theory because if it actually happens then they lose their "leverage" on getting funding and whatever else it is they want. Which is why I'm tending to believe it's not stopping global warming that they want because they ignore the one big solution that is staring them in the face, nuclear power.
Your anti-science rant is all completely pointless anyway because Finland had nukes and are currently building a new one.
They are the exception and not the rule. It's also rare for anyone in the CAGW community to consider nuclear power a good thing.
These people will write bills on how to address global warming, such as a carbon cap and tax. These bills will account for wind and solar power for carbon credits but leave nuclear power out. In their mind nuclear power is just as good as a coal plant to offset global warming. Support for nuclear power doesn't prove their theory, it only proves that they believe their own theory.
Even though a statement on what would disprove the CAGW theory would take a long time to verify, if it is verifiable at all, it would be nice to see them say something that shows there is real science behind this. A theory is only a theory if there is a null theory to go with it, as in some way to prove the theory wrong. This is very basic science. If these people cannot explain to me what would disprove the theory then it's not science.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Citation:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
If you have more recent data showing wind and solar to be safer than nuclear power then I'd appreciate it if you'd share with the rest of the class.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So, you're saying the minority is always right?
No, and I'm not sure how you'd get that from what I said. In this case, from the evidence that I've seen, the majority are probably right, but that are right because of their application of the scientific method, not because they are the majority.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The result changes all the time unless you dumb it down to the utter max of the average going up or down. It's like complaining about voltage measurements when all you've got is if a light goes on or not instead of actual voltage.
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough - something that shows it does not work will disprove it. The specific thing will obviously depend on what breaks it and nothing has yet.
Somebody has sold you on a massive pile of shit polished up to look like a conspiracy theory where all scientists are liars.
They do are in atmospheric science it's not really something they know about - go bother people in Washington or the banks if you want someone to pay for nukes.
I already did, more than once I think, and I suggest you hit an encyclopedia or something for a definition of science instead of making up your own one. Personal definitions are a petty high school debating trick you should be well beyond (especially here where this is not a debate).
You've been conned by expensive PR to believe this weird conspiracy theory. I suggest giving it a rest for a while then read something based on fact in a few months and you may get over that con job and annoy people a bit less.
Damn - I have to dumb it down this far - stop drinking booze before reading garbz.
A nuclear fucking construction industry from scratch obviously. They are pretty fucking major projects that take a fucking decade each and the parts really are very specialised in the reactors which is why it takes so fucking long even though the turbine hall etc is the same as other plants. Look at an example of something real (eg. the current Finnish one) instead of a blind guess - your guesses have sucked.
Was that blunt enough to soak in?
It's been so long since the UK built a reactor that the workforce that built the previous one has long retired.
Under Thatcher? Reagan?
You've been conned by revisionists looking for something to blame on the greens today. Back then they were powerless.
The problem is that the IAEA only counts immediate deaths from nuclear construction and not, for instance, the 4000 deaths that WHO estimates will occur as a result of Chernobyl.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
A nuclear fucking construction industry from scratch obviously.
I can't make this any simpler for you. THERE'S NO SUCH THING. IT'S NOT SPECIALISED.
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough - something that shows it does not work will disprove it.
That is not an answer, that is a tautology.
Somebody has sold you on a massive pile of shit polished up to look like a conspiracy theory where all scientists are liars.
It's not that science, or lack of it, that bothers me as much as the solutions presented. Carbon taxes won't work, a bit of economics will show that. Bio-fuels won't work, just computing how much land that would take will show that. Wind and solar won't work because they are expensive, unreliable, take so much resources and land to implement, and additionally history shows them to be dangerous from all the people that have died from industrial accidents. Geothermal, hydro, and to a lesser extent wind and solar again, all depend on favorable geography to work.
What does work is natural gas and nuclear power. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel but it is cheap, plentiful, ten times safer than coal, but only half the CO2 output of coal. Nuclear power is cheap, plentiful, nearly a million times safer than coal, and a CO2 output that is the lowest of any energy source we know of except hydro.
They do are in atmospheric science it's not really something they know about - go bother people in Washington or the banks if you want someone to pay for nukes.
If the climate scientists don't know anything about energy then they should shut their mouths and let the people that do speak up. So far the people that have spoken up never mention nuclear power except to say it is not an option. All we get are the same lies about nuclear power, about it being unsafe, to expensive, takes to long to build, etc. That has never been true and in the decades that have passed nuclear power technology has improved considerably on all arguments against it.
The only thing holding up nuclear power is, oddly enough, the US Department of Energy. The one federal agency that guards all the doors and holds all the keys to nuclear power development in the USA is uninterested in performing the one mandate the department was created to perform, lead the nation to energy independence.
The people in Washington don't listen to reason, they listen to votes. So long as people vote against nuclear power it will not happen. This most recent election shows promise but it will still take a lot of convincing. I'd think that the kind of people that Slashdot caters to would be able to, as you say, rest for a bit and read something and come to the same conclusion I have. Those in the CAGW camp that claim to have done the math and still dismiss nuclear power just shows me that they either did not do the math, or they have some other goal in mind.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you like but it seems quite straightforward. The CAGW people have laid out the problem. Nuclear power is a perfectly viable solution, it may not be a perfect solution but it is the best we have so far. If the CAGW people reject the nuclear power then one has to wonder if they believe their own CAGW theory or had some other goal in mind.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So, in two years and a month, the USA will have it's first major nuclear accident. Awesome! Maybe we'll all get superpowers... or we can at least cut down on the energy consumed by street lights?
Seriously?
What corn flake packet did you read that from?
Why bluff with an empty hand in the first place? Since you don't know about this stuff why are you banging on about it?
Do you really want us to believe that Swiss actually exists?
So, in two years and a month, the USA will have it's first major nuclear accident.
The USA has had nearly 100 operating nuclear power plants for decades without a major nuclear accident, why would you expect that to start now? Is it because Trump is POTUS?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So that's how I know that the glaciers I know of are receding: By actually going there and looking at them.
Original research? First hand knowledge? Blasphemy. ;)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen