Governments 'Not on Track' To Cap Temperatures at Below 2 Degrees: UN (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Governments 'Not on Track' To Cap Temperatures at Below 2 Degrees: UN (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on Sunday September 2, 2018 @02:51PM from the reality-check dept.

Governments are not on track to meet a goal of the 2015 Paris agreement of capping temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before the end of the century, a United Nations official said on Sunday ahead of climate-change talks in Bangkok this week. From a report: Patricia Espinosa, head of the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which steers the climate talks, said both the public and private sector need to act with urgency to avoid "catastrophic effects". The Paris climate agreement, adopted by almost 200 nations in 2015, set a goal of limiting warming to "well below" a rise of 2 degrees C above pre-industrial times while "pursuing efforts" for the tougher goal of 1.5 degrees C. "1.5 is the goal that is needed for many islands and many countries that are particularly vulnerable to avoid catastrophic effects. In many cases it means the survival of those countries. With the pledges we have on the table now we are not on track to achieve those goals," Espinosa told Reuters in a telephone interview on Sunday in Bangkok.

420 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 14:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

And we didn't even need the not-so-very-objective and not-so-very-honest(!) UNFCCC to figure that one out.
We did too little when we could back in the 70s and now we're too late and we're hosed. In fact, all the world is hosed.
This is one guaranteed to be lasting legacy. Hope you're proud of it.
1. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And if we had spent the R&D money back in the '70s to boost renewable, sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases, we'd be much further along the process.
  If we'd actually tax companies for their emissions and the effects to mitigate those emissions, we'd be a lot further along.
  In general, too many places have done too little because ti would cost those in power money, even though it was other individuals that ultimately shoulder the consequences.
2. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 15:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually, we CAN stop it now. We just have to quit adding fossil fuel plants, esp coal, and then add only clean ; wind, solar, hydro, Geothermal, nuke. But that will not happen.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
3. Re:We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  You need people to be around for it to be a "lasting legacy".
4. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:25 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  We can make it happen, but have to put younger people for president who know other, modern economy than only fossil based.
5. Re: We're hosed by renegadesx · 2018-09-02 15:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is Government, which is run by partisan politicians.
  The right wont accept solar and wind and the left won't accept nuclear.
  
  --
  Make SELinux enforcing again!
6. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  Name names. WHICH countries are behind target? For a non binding agreement, that is all the leverage you have - the ability to shame countries into compliance
7. Re: We're hosed by b0s0z0ku · 2018-09-02 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Fossil farts are still a fossil fool. We should have done the same as the French "Plan Messmer" and gone mostly nuclear-powered through the 70s and 80s, Chernobyl and TMI be damned. Nuclear is clean, fossil fools are not.
8. Re: We're hosed by b0s0z0ku · 2018-09-02 15:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The French government did great in picking a nuclear energy policy in the 70s and using highly standardized reactors. Far better than the mess in the US or Asia, where every plant is a white elephant.
9. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  America is the all time highest emitter, and the richest country on the planet. So why not pay for nukes in every country you want to replace coal?
  Oh you're not serious about solutions? You just want to sound like you care? Well mission accomplished.
10. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:10 · Score: 2
  
  it is not just in the west. America has not added a single coal plant in some 10 years, though we have added nat gas. This is much cleaner, but all it does is slow things down. It still has not stopped it. BUT, the real problem is that Asia, esp China, continues to ADD (not replace) MASSIVE numbers of coal plants. This needs to stop.
  
  As to wind, the right is actually FINE with them. For example, which states have the most wind? Nearly all red. They KNOW that it is much cheaper.
  Oddly, the right wing is split on solar, which is insane. BUT, I notice that they are not looking to remove the solar subsidies.
  However, you are about 60% correct on nuclear. Basically, it is the far left, not just the left that fights nuclear. We are allowing a small group of idiots to control our nation. We really need to push this CURRENT gov right now, to help with nuclear (and ideally geo-thermal) power. I still think that the right way is to push for subsidy to help a 2-4 SMR based companies and several geo-thermal electricity companies, and also we need to require that all utilities have at least 2/3 of their power available through base-load systems. IOW, it can not be indeterminate energy, backed up by small amounts of batteries (though a hydro storage with at least say several days worth, might work).
  
  Finally, I still maintain that America has the ability to get all nations on-board with a simple taxation. Sadly, we have the wrong president for it.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
11. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 16:11 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  This is Government, which is run by partisan politicians.
  The right wont accept solar and wind and the left won't accept nuclear.
  It's not really about right or left anymore. When I grew up, we had ethics, we had heroes, heck Superman's "Truth, Justice, and the America Way." was a real thing or at least it seemed to be.
  Trump created MAGA without actually defining what great meant, so it meant whatever people wanted it to mean. It worked, to a point at least. People wanted things. The biggest appeal seems to be mostly to racism, and it is a very common lever to pull, when you want to motivate a group. Find a group that isn't going to support you anyway. Blame everything on them, then whenever something new goes wrong it is the "other's" fault.
  What does all this have to do with climate change? Everything. Politicians that win tend to sell fix it quick solutions, that don't really fix much and may be a sham. Why? Because it gets them into power. Along the way many may become indebted to questionable people. That doesn't help.
  But people might say, well all we need is enough politicians willing to do what is right, even if it costs them getting reelected. Simply put, those kind of people rarely get elected in the first place.
  Overall democracies weakness is its voters. Sure we may be inundated with propaganda of late, some of it even foreign, but it wasn't foreign influence that created juggernaught's like fox news. We did that all on our own.
  The duty of a citizen doesn't decrease when things get worse, when propaganda thrives, and truth becomes a hunted species. No, it increases.
  1. Value truth. Do not do business with companies and people who do not value truth.
  2. Vote for people who value truth and put country first. Initially you may have to compromise on a candidate who can win, but enough of a showing by a third party could, eventually, make a difference, though it may take decades of work growing that party.
  3. Vote for changes that help the process, such as instant run off voting and source control for all bills.
  4. Vote for changes that promote honesty. If you are a candidate for office, all confidentiality agreements they hold over other people are null and void. For instance, boycotting every company that contributes to Trump is fair game.
  5. Promote and pay for good journalism.
  Finally as far as shutting down fossil fuel plants. It is fair game for government to put its thumb on the scale, if it means long term health for the planet. Simply phasing in penalties on ways of generating and using energy that are particularly harmful is likely enough. That way government is only picking losers. The market is probably better at figuring out what is optimum with what is left.
12. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 16:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  So why is your country, one of the highest emitters, with the most money, going all in on gas?
  Why are you still pushing crappy fuel economy cars when transport is your biggest emitter?
  Why are your levels so much higher than Europeans?
  Why try to lecture others when you are basically the worst offenders?
13. Re:We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 16:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Someone still needs to tell me exactly what downsides I'm supposed to be scared of here
  - Zillionaire assholes with oceanfront mansions get fucked - never a bad thing.
  - Mideast will turn into an uninhabitable wasteland, instantly bringing about world peace.
  - While the resulting refugee crisis will almost certainly overwhelm the naive diversity zealots in Europe under a tsunami of Cultural Enrichment, at least the ones that make it as far as Europe will be (for the most part) somewhat above average in terms of resourcefulness and religious-nonextremism. So whatever Europe turns into, they can take comfort that at least they're still better than Sudan.
  - Famine hits third world hellholes the hardest, again bringing some desperately-overdue herd-culling to the human race, which has been pretty much immune to natural selection for centuries at least.
  - Warmer temperatures = less shitty winters. If you think I wouldn't personally kill 50 polar bears just to go one winter without scraping ice off my car in -10 degree weather, you're sadly mistaken.
  - A coral reef might die here or there and a couple species of grasshopper might go extinct somewhere, but honestly who gives a shit? Circle of life.
14. Re: We're hosed by Ocker3 · 2018-09-02 16:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Except in Australia where a really advanced solar panel manufacturing tech came out of the CSIRO, the Conservative Prime Minister refused to spend Any money developing it for domestic markets, so the scientist took his patents to South Korea, helping them cut Australia largely out of the solar panel manufacturing industry.
15. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 16:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Don't be like US, all out coal is grandfarthered in. You can't have any.
  Americans per person still get more of their electricity from coal than Chinese people do. Even though you closed a bunch of plants, and China opened a bunch too.
  You are so blinded by your fixation on coal that you don't even understand the scale of the problem. Even if China took as much coal as they use to make electricity. Put it in a big pile and set it on fire for no reason. China's percapita emissions would still be less than America's.
  (America's emissions are just so much higher per person. You continually hide behind the fact your country is 1/4 the size.
  Imagine your outrage if Canada and Australia pointed their fingers at you for polluting so much because you are bigger. That's essentially what you are doing with China.)
  But they aren't doing that.
  They are using a little bit more coal per year for electricity. (The % of electricity coming from coal is decreasing.) And using less coal for other industrial uses. So the amount of coal is slowly going down anyway.
  Not increasing massively like you always claim (lie about).
16. Re: We're hosed by renegadesx · 2018-09-02 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine your outrage if Canada and Australia pointed their fingers at you for polluting so much because you are bigger.
  
  That IS what Australia does. They just sacked their Prime Minister over this issue.
  
  --
  Make SELinux enforcing again!
17. Re: We're hosed by jrumney · 2018-09-02 17:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Please explain how shale oil and hydraulic fracturing count as "sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases".
18. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 17:33 · Score: 2
  
  And what is America's / Windy's response?
  Do they think it's at all serious that per country America should be the same as Australia? No they say fuck off, Australia is a tiny country.
19. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:50 · Score: 0
  
  Americans per person still get more of their electricity from coal than Chinese people do. Even though you closed a bunch of plants, and China opened a bunch too.
  China: 69%
  US: 30%
  This US bashing is far beyond denial.
20. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  How is shale oil a renewable that doesn't emit greenhouse gases? Ditto for hydraulic fracturing.
21. Re: We're hosed by Barsteward · 2018-09-02 18:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think that he means USA produces more carbon dioxide per capita than China.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
22. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  Do the climate models show a different outcome if the per person amount changes, but not the total?
  It's just a moving goal post that actively hurts fighting climate change. When people are told to use less, and do so, then the goal changes, AGW deniers are born and existing ones given ammunition.
23. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  The coal plants wouldn't be an issue if we had a real tax on their emissions.
  Also, the US is a developed country, there's no reason why we can't have real mass transit, solar panels on most of our buildings as well as other technologies that minimize emissions.
  Plus, we're like the Saudi Arabia of wind power, we've got so much potential generating power with wind, that we could be doing a lot better in terms of our carbon footprint.
24. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  I was unaware that shale oil was a renewable.
25. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  The major stumbling block for nuclear is private finance. The time to profit is too long, and with renewables getting cheaper, too uncertain. In terms of France, it was government intervention by a government that was left in US terms that made it happen.
26. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, that would be too obvious. Caffeinated bacon/crimson tsunami/nearly all the ACs following me is a troll who basically supports China and for that matter, any nation but America , emitting co2. I have been ripping on all nations since from my POV, we are in deep trouble ( I have friends that monitor co2, runs the various Sims, etc, but most importantly run oco2 ). But this troll well, just a troll.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
27. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  That a comment with two sources, one authoritative, responding to a direct claim with a direct refutation of said claim stays at zero when a sloppy copy paste job from wikipedia defending a claim that was not made but assumed gets modded up is a shameful example of the politicking at play here.
28. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  His statement gives me a reading on my Sarcasm-o-meter. Large amounts of money was spent, but in a completely counter productive way. As usual.
29. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Americans per person still get more of their electricity from coal than Chinese people do. Even though you closed a bunch of plants, and China opened a bunch too.
  You could at least read what you reply to.
  At least you didn't use Windy's lie of 80% - 90% coal.
30. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  In your alternate reality where all your lies are true. I suppose patting America on the back for tiny decreases that still leave them as one of the highest per capita emitters, counts as ripping on them...
31. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  No, I mean exactly what I said.
  If you look here at the global coal tracking site. you can see here where they track how much coal powered electricity countries use.
  America's 1,344 operating is more than 1/4 of Chinas 4,271 (China has over 4x as many people)
  American's get more electric power per person from coal, because they use so much more electricity than Chinese people do.
32. Re:We're hosed by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We're already at stage 4? That developed quickly, just weeks ago we still had discussions in phase 2.
  For those unfamiliar with them, the 4 stages of climate denial:
  1. There is no climate change.
  2. Ok, there is a climate change, but it's normal, not man made.
  3. Ok, it is man made, but it's been warmer before, so no problem.
  4. Ok, it is a problem, but it's too late anyway.
  The beauty is that, no matter what stage we're on, we needn't do anything about it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re: We're hosed by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  We'd have to put younger people into office, all right, but for another reason: They will still be alive in 30 years and live in the hellhole they'd create. Those in power today know fucking well that they'll be dead in 30 years.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re: We're hosed by DNS-and-BIND · 2018-09-02 21:07 · Score: 0
  
  Since when is it the government's job to pick winners and losers in the market? Moreover since when is it not suitable for Asian countries to take the lead in technology? It's not written in stone that white people countries have to win every single time. Let's let the stigmatized Other have a win once in a while, the world will be a better place.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
35. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  Except those sources are irrelevant to what was in the post he replied to, and even quoted.
  The links don't mention anything about per person.
  The links don't consider how much electricity people in different countries actually use.
  It's almost as if it was a pointless troll from someone who didn't even bother to read the discussion.
  Much like your own.
36. Re: We're hosed by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-09-02 22:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What benefited France most of all was a policy of simply not listening to yammerheads and just plowing ahead with construction. That's how we need to approach it: develop a legal principle that "I don't like it" does not give you standing to argue court cases over technology.
37. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  I think he's saying, governments had the money to boost development of green technologies but wasted it elsewhere.
38. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 22:57 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
  Yeah I would not say that the us is looking good on that list compared to other Western nations
39. Re:We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  Who is this "we" you keep talking about?
  Have you done anything about it?
  I sold my car, I use public transportation, I cut my consumption of useless things, I stopped eating meat.
  Have *you* done anything about it?
40. Re: We're hosed by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-02 23:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not really. The reason French nuclear energy companies are struggling to stay in business and desperately looking overseas for business is that the French taxpayer got fed up of them living off nuclear welfare. It was supposed to be cheap and clean, but turned out to be neither and as usual all the costs were socialized (i.e. taxpayers pick up the bills).
  Of course now they want the same level of subsidy from other governments, but are maintaining their standard level of incompetence with cost overruns and the most expensive form of energy on the planet. The new reactors being built in the UK by French company EDF (with Chinese investment money) are guaranteed to get 3x the price of current wind energy, and that ratio is getting worse every day.
  They should have put the money into offshore wind + storage, but lacked vision and EDF is good at bribery.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
41. Re:We're hosed by Opportunist · 2018-09-03 00:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. I stopped caring.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
42. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulation, you changed from one source of CO2 to another source of CO2. Well done. Super effort.
  You accomplished fuck all.
43. Re: We're hosed by guruevi · 2018-09-03 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We did but then Greenpeace decided that "nuclear is bad" and so we're now stuck with gas, oil and other options that are way worse.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
44. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Since when is it the government's job to pick winners and losers in the market?
  Kings as mecenas is about as old as kings themselves, so answer to your question: since always.
45. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-03 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Shale is literally the primary reason for natgas switch in US. In shale production, methane is the "undesirable consequence of extraction process" which used to do nothing but cause severe risk of catastrophic explosion. Which is why it's generally flared off in a safe fashion.
  And now, it's increasingly captured instead, and then transported to CCGTs which are rapidly replacing other burner plants in US, because transport over short to medium distances via infrastructure that is rapidly being built up as we speak is very cheap. And in process, halving CO2 emissions for the same energy produced (look at the emissions per energy produced on methane vs coal for example).
  The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch. And this is a trend that is set to continue for quite a while. So if you're an environmentalist who's primary concern is global warming, shale is something you should be championing, not something to fight against.
  But modern environmentalism has nothing to do with that. It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship (wasn't it great when people weren't here to destroy the nature?) and plain anti-human tendencies (humans are a blight on this planet and it will be better when they're all gone). Those that are actually working towards goals to reduce emissions, i.e. nuclear power generation industry, are some of the most persecuted by the environmentalist movement because they make a great case against those two tenets.
46. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Weâ(TM)re all in this together!
  If you feel good about yourself, you make the planet feel better too!
  Suns going dark anyway
47. Re: We're hosed by GameboyRMH · 2018-09-03 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  I think that would now be called "Making Australia Great Again!" And now Australia is heavily invested in radiation-spewing, planet-murdering coal, which would now be called "#Winning!"
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
48. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-03 01:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Main shale byproduct is methane. Methane when burned for energy produces about half CO2 compared to coal. The only other byproduct of the burn is water.
  Parent is trying to spin a sarcastic narrative, possibly to mask the fact that main reason why US has been reducing its CO2 output more than for example Germany because of success of fracking and replacement of other burner plants with CCGTs burning methane.
  Switch to methane to massively reduce CO2 emissions isn't an element unique to US, as most other Western countries with ready access to methane try to do it as well (example: UK). However methane is notoriously difficult to transport over the sea routes, and is best transported over pipelines as that doesn't require the energy expenditure to compress it into liquid form.
  Such infrastructure is only really possible due to shale revolution in US, which made methane basically a free waste product, which states and federal government could mandate to build pipe networks to transport across the country (and now is starting to feed Mexico due to excess availability, likely resulting in solution to many of Mexico's energy and lowering its CO2 emissions). Second best infrastructure in the world after that is methane from Russia being piped to Europe, alongside similar pipes from Norway, Scotland and North Africa.
  Methane is the short to medium term solution to getting CO2 emissions under control. Cutting burner emissions to two thirds to a half is a great stepping stone to the solution. Absolutist crazies will of course continue with their "but my solar and wind" mantra, never realizing that the main reason for their proliferation in US in Europe is the proliferation of CCGTs that can in fact function as spinning and cold reserve in economic fashion due to cheap fuel and fast spin-up and load-accepting times.
49. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  You also were against GMOs and vaccines when it was a leftist position, so really nobody gives a shit what you think.
50. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  They have children, which they care about.
  Purple haired feminists and beta cuckold bois like you, however, do not.
51. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  It won't happen because you'll make other people suffer in the process. Third world countries need coal to get themselves out of poverty.
52. Re: We're hosed by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  If you are concerned about per capita, go after the UAE. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Luxembourg. They all emit more CO2 per capita than the US. Why don't you rail against them? Oh - because it's the total emissions that matter? Then China is the proper target...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
53. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah do us a favor and stop breathing.
54. Re:We're hosed by butzwonker · 2018-09-03 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's going to be that bad, there is still ample time for adaptation and technological improvements. Globally, by any objective indicators mankind as a whole has never been as well off as today, don't forget that.
55. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Caffinated Bacon/crimson tsunami, Per capitia, America is the largest buyer of EVs vs EU and China.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
56. Re:We're hosed by hey! · 2018-09-03 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  We may no longer have a choice about getting hosed, but we still have a choice about how *quickly* we get hosed.
  Would you rather gethosed by a garden hose on mist or a firehose?
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
57. Re: We're hosed by Chas · 2018-09-03 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, if you want to volunteer to live in the same world poverty conditions that a huge chunk of Chinese citizens do, knock yourself out dude.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
58. Re: We're hosed by Chas · 2018-09-03 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there is.
  1: Mass transit sounds nice. The problem is, they generally have a history of failing to make money or even break even. Americans are rather attached to the freedom their cars provide.
  2: Cost and feasibility. Solar panels on EVERY building doesn't work in dense urban high rise as a majority of the panels in place are shaded by adjacent buildings most of the day, basically waste.
  3: You still haven't come up with an economic or feasibility argument for grid providers. Solar, by itself, is just an uncontrolled input on the grid, generally producing most at times when it isn't required, and the cost to store that excess is astronomical. Not to mention that we simply cannot PRODUCE that much storage capacity.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
59. Re: We're hosed by Chas · 2018-09-03 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, renewables still aren't a replacement for base load. As we are limited in the amount of storage capacity we can produce.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
60. Re: We're hosed by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  And if we had spent the R&D money back in the '70s to boost renewable, sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases, we'd be much further along the process.
  What's really going to bake your noodle is that back in the '70s, PC PV solar panels could repay their energy investment in less than seven years, and they already had a median lifespan over twenty years. So if we had just started deploying them AFAP, we would have been doing very well. Many of those panels could still be in service today. Instead, the fossil fuel industry convinced us all that it was a big scam and that what we needed was to dig up what's left of trees sequestered millions of years ago and set it on fire, because profits.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
61. Re: We're hosed by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 02:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Nuclear is clean, fossil fools are not.
  Solar and wind are clean, nuclear is not. Strip mining, and waste which is lying around in pools waiting for a problem to happen. When the waste is interred, you can call it a solved problem.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
62. Re: We're hosed by dj245 · 2018-09-03 02:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You're spot on. I'm a coal and natural gas steam turbine engineer and I have seen the industry evolve even in my short career of just 12 years. We have made tremendous progress in a very short time. But it is and never will be enough for some people. Many of those in the industry are fed up with helping to provide a vital service to support the wind and solar ramp up and getting nothing but distain and "we'll eliminate your job" from the public. It's no wonder that energy policy has become extremely polarized. I've had enough of it, and am leaving to start a small business in a completely unrelated field.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
63. Re: We're hosed by dehachel12 · 2018-09-03 03:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Since when is it the government's job
  Do some research on the amount of money spent on the oil wars in the middle east. The government did the oil industry's bidding.
64. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Per capita, America is also the largest buyer of ICE cars as well.
  Did you have a point?
  What you probably failed to realise is that according to this. Passenger plug-in market share of total new car sales between 2013 and 2017 for selected countries and selected regional markets Shows in 2017, China had almost twice the percentage as America. (they overtook you in 2015 and have been pulling further away since.)
65. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  In percentage terms, over the last 20 years, Germany has reduced pretty much the same amount as the USA. In absolute terms the USA has reduced more, but still emits more per capita.
66. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Greenpeace has approximately zero influence on whether nuclear plants are built or not.
67. Re: We're hosed by Type44Q · 2018-09-03 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  So basically the same approach the French took with their testing of nuclear weapons?
68. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Porky rarely reads any of these and will always skim out items, but mostly out-of-context. Porky remains a liar and a troll that really does not care about the temps, only about China being allowed to grow their emissions no matter the costs.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
69. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that he is chinese and that is why he is OK with china growing their emissions, no matter what it costs society.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
70. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just so that you know, America is in top 10 (5?) nations that have solar per capita.
  Likewise, the same for wind (germany is #1).
  What is interesting is that China is WAY down the list in terms of solar or wind per capita.
  
  This is why some, like porky, will refer to CO2 emissions per capita (even though they really sux since they are at 9 and growing), but will then refer to totals on solar and wind, which just barely passed America.
  Likewise, some ppl love to compare America vs Europe vs China on EVs, but you have 350M vs ~500-700M vs 1.3T. So, having all 3 groups buying similar amounts of EVs really does not show what is happening.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
71. Re: We're hosed by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Again, you run a red herring and lie. America is 1/5 of the population of CHina. Yet, America is more than 3/4 of the EV sales of CHina.From a per capitia POV, we are MUCH MUCH higher. And with ICE sales PER CAPITA and IN TOTAL, give me a BREAK. You nation China is the winner on that amongst ALL NATIONs.
  
  Basically, your nation is getting worse. Hell, your gov allowed the manufacturing of CFCs even though you agreed to stop it. Now, you are dumping HUGE quantities in the air.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
72. Re: We're hosed by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-09-03 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, but carbon-free energy is the sort of peaceful purpose that would benefit the world if all major countries behaved this way.
73. Re: We're hosed by thegarbz · 2018-09-03 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  And now
  You misspelled "as always".
74. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Court cases? This is a democracy. "I don't like it" is a perfectly acceptable reason for voters to boot out any and every elected official. Good luck retaining your position when NIMBY types have sufficient numbers.
  The only way to stop that is tyranny.
75. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  In 2100 it is allegedly all over (4 degrees above status quo) and it will be bad already in 2036 (2 degrees above status quo)
76. Re: We're hosed by Chas · 2018-09-03 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. One of their 1%'ers.
  Figures.
  His argument is "you put out more per-person". Great, fine, wonderful. SO WHAT?
  The per-person amount is meaningless if you're putting out more OVERALL. It's not like the atmosphere goes "Oh! This is CHINESE CO2. It's all good brah!"
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
77. Re: We're hosed by TimMD909 · 2018-09-03 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  What's to say the younger generation has enough wisdom to be better than the last? Yeah, they may have more skin in the game, but it's a bit presumptuous to say that they'll magically solve the problem with less experience. You're like the people who say Rust will save us from C...
78. Re: We're hosed by Type44Q · 2018-09-03 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
79. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  No. I downmodded you because of your attempt at revisionist history. You are wrong.
80. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  "No. I downmodded you because of your attempt at re..."
  How do you know someone replied to your anonymous comment?
  Do you bookmark each comment and then come back to check?
  Just curious if you track them, how you do it (does anybody else do this?).
81. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Americans per person still get more of their electricity from coal than Chinese people do. Even though you closed a bunch of plants, and China opened a bunch too.
  Lets break that down.
  Americans per person still get more of their electricity from coal (30%) than Chinese people do (69%).
  30% is not more than 69%.
  Many here know that you run multiple accounts on a harassment campaign to discredit and bash the US and uphold China, and only China Mr. CrimsonTsunami. You are the Russian trolls that so many people rail against, but for a different nation. Well done keeping hidden for so long, but no more.
82. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes ac is not disappeared and some interesting development in mod or replies. It's enough to revisit the story, when something interests you.
  He's a shill though! ;)
83. Re: We're hosed by AutodidactLabrat · 2018-09-03 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  The French government did great in picking a nuclear energy policy in the 70s and using highly standardized reactors. ...
  Yeah, and the 150 reactor-days shutdown during the summer heatwave of 2016 showed just how useless THAT turned out to be!
84. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:07 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Greenpeace always said: go for wind and solar and biomass.
  And actually, we all know: nuclear is bad. So what is your point?
  Oh, you got not evacuated from Chernobyl or Fukushima? Wow, what a relieve for you ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
85. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  So if we had just started deploying them AFAP, we would have been doing very well.
  And we would have made the progress in crafting them 50 years ago, and not just in recent 10 years. And probably no one would blame China, because they were 50 years behind us that time, instead of 5 years ahead.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
86. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Who ever modded this troll should be stripped of his mod rights ....
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
87. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Oh ...
  Never mind ...
  For one second I lapsed in reading in make "Austria" great again ...
  Phuuu! luckily I misread :D
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
88. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Methane is the short to medium term solution to getting CO2 emissions under control.
  Only if cars etc. get switched, too. And I don't see that going to happen soon.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
89. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch.
  In percentages they are far behind.
  And Germany has exhausted its shale gas since ages.
  And if we buy more from Russia, we get flamed :P
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
90. Re: We're hosed by martinX · 2018-09-03 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  If it was developed by the CSIRO, it belongs to the Australian government.
  
  --
  When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
91. Re: We're hosed by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-03 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. It could be implemented by having moderators who use troll and then others mod/meta-mod positively lose the ability to moderate. Would take more than one incident.
  The other problem is that new accounts are more likely to get mod points than old ones, so trolls can create be accounts constantly and be fairly sure if getting them.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
92. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  The best hope for getting off petrol/deisel cars is slashdot's favourite cynicism target, elon musk. Don't expect much here.
93. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-03 10:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're not the only one. I've seen the stone-faced "green" activists back when the company I was a temp in did a project in Narva, which transformed what was essentially the most polluting power plants in the world into far less wasteful. This is not an exaggeration, those plants burn shale rock, which is essentially 70% various deep underground elements and 30% oil-like mixture. Soviet era plants literally could not work for more than two weeks at a time because it would develop what locals called a "goat", the massive amount of sticky, toxic residue from burn process that would cling to the heat exchangers in the burner. And the stuff that actually burned just spread all that toxic stuff out of the pipe in the form of particulates in well over hundred kilometre radius. Not to even mention the NOx and SO2 related acid rain issues.
  I've read analyses that something like 5-7% of trees within the range of exhaust raining down from those plants literally died standing due to the extreme toxicity of that exhaust. And airways-related illnesses in the region were very high. Said activists were invited to showcase that our tech basically pushed SO2 and NOx exhaust from horrifyingly high to zero, and the post-filter which ensured that the toxic ash would also go to zero in the exhaust.
  They sat there stone-faced, and when I listened to them after the lecture was done, it was all about "how this will justify existence of this plant". Basically fuck the people who had to breathe the toxic stuff and were getting their power and livelihood from it. Just fuck them, in the name of the utopia. It disillusioned me with the entire movement.
94. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-03 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  CCGT revolution started ten years ago or so. I noticed how you doubled the relevant timeline so you could fudge the numbers.
95. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-03 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Cars are increasingly constrained on their end by efficiency requirements, but they're a different beast entirely to power generation.
  Regardless, if you want to talk about CO2 as a whole rather than on country level, here's a much better view for you. It's literally irrelevant what we Westerners will do in short to medium term, because the people in developing countries will not allow green activists to forcibly keep then in poverty. In fact, green activism is increasingly treated as terrorism in developing countries with full blessing of the locals, specifically because they tend to try to push policies that are detrimental to rapid rise of masses out of poverty. Which is the primary source as to why energy requirements worldwide are growing rather than shrinking.
  So everything we cut, developing countries will add and then some. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep cutting emissions. Does mean that we should in no way undercut our livelihoods in expectations of actually being able to cut them in a meaningful fashion. In the end, the requirements will have to be driven down the throats of masses in developing countries at a barrel of a gun. And that means strong economies that can buy the people with guns to do the dirty work.
96. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of the world has and is making many changes. Solar is everywhere. Australia has installed much solar, wind and hydro. Where i live in the south there is a large amount of natural gas. Even china is making great advances. The problem is, that all countires need to do more. Whats been done is not enough. Polaticians are typically older and more worried about money than climate. Were seeing the effects of climate change now but its going to get a lot worse before it gets better - and we wont be able to reverse it quickly. Total emmissions now are a lot worse than in the 70s even though much of it cleaner just because of scale more people consume on. We need to reduce the greed and selfish behaviour and all people/countries do what we can.
97. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-03 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  They are far ahead over the CCGT/shale revolution duration, because not only did Germany not get on board with it, it actually failed miserably by shutting down the best option to cut CO2 emissions - nuclear power plants.
  Also Germany has no shale gas production, nor did it ever have any to my knowledge. The relevant technology has barely existed for a decade in the first place, and Germany's green movement is utterly consumed by anti-humanist tendencies. Which is why it has always driven the anti-nuclear crusade that culminated in Energiewende, which essentially drove Germany off the CO2 reduction track, turning the long term trend of reducing CO2 emission around to stagnation and even increase in emissions.
  All while US, without any major Germany-style proclamations had the shale and CCGT revolution, and reduced its CO2 emissions significantly. It's literally a great example of outcomes of green grandstanding vs actual engineering at work.
98. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  generally producing most at times when it isn't required,
  That is nonsense. Solar produces its energy when it is needed, are you retarded?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
99. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  What has base load to do with renewables?
  Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Hint 2: read it before they edit the truth out again.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
100. Re: We're hosed by Applehu+Akbar · 2018-09-03 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  An independent judiciary doesn't get replaced with every election, as Trump is finding out right now. It's supposed to be a reserve of institutional continuity, of long-term thinking, that does not have to follow each popular fad. The concept of 'standing' is a key element in judicial independence: the people who should bring cases to court where technical issues are concerned are those who know what the hell they're talking about.
  Living near a project that some random blogger has decided is scary should not give you standing to use the courts for your narrow self-interest. What good will it do you to prevent construction of a nuclear plant on your seacoast if enough glacial ice melts to put your property underwater?
101. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares whoâ(TM)s responsible? Weâ(TM)re fucked any way you look at it
102. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  Somehow, I doubt incels like you are more successful reproducing than the "beta" cucks you disparage. I would say "go fuck yourself" but you have that down already.
103. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Earth has gone through bitter cold ice ages with higher CO2 levels than we have now. CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. Why do people believe such lies, wake up!
104. Re: We're hosed by jezwel · 2018-09-03 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Since when is it the government's job to pick winners and losers in the market?
  Our now PM is the same minister that brought a lump of coal into the House of Representatives:
  https://www.theguardian.com/au...
  They continue to support coal based power even though not a single energy company is interested in building - or even maintaining - these obsolete power plants.
105. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that you are American and that is why you are OK with America being one of the highest CO2 emitters (2x China's per person), no matter what it costs the planet.
106. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't.
  But that's exactly what Windy expects Chinese people to do. He wants to send 100's of millions of Chinese people back there. All so he can keep his nice things.
107. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  Ah. One of their 1%'ers.
  Step up from a 50c Chinese troll I guess...his mum must be proud.
108. Re: We're hosed by acrimonious+howard · 2018-09-03 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  modern environmentalism ... It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship
  I consider myself a level-headed person who sees the world reported to me by scientific study. I think you'd call me, therefore, a rabid environmentalist, and I'd call you a dogmatic, biased, neanderthal, stuck in the past, promoting buggy-whips.
  
  But just in case you're capable of discussing topics like grownups, here's some real commentary:
  
  I want to say thanks for opening my eyes a little about shale gas. I previously only knew that it probably caused local environmental damage like minor earthquakes and some correlation to flammable sink water. However, I'm not sure those effects are large-scale enough to dismiss the technology, given the real costly gorilla issue: climate change. Your comment and those above made me think more about it and look it up. I found, so far, that the real thing to consider with shale gas is methane leakage. The latest study I found says if it's kept below 3.2%, it's better than coal, and a 2009 study says it was at 2.4%, so I'm already on board with using shale to replace coal. I wonder if anyone can reply with more recent and definitive data.
  
  However, "better than coal" is not necessarily good enough. I've lived through Hurricane Harvey. If that's indicating what the future holds, then the current cost of any fossil fuel is way higher than we think, we're just not paying for it yet. I therefore believe the best idea I've heard, is that we have to try and estimate that cost, and actually charge it so that we know what we're getting. A carbon tax that is calculated to cost less than 3% of GDP sounds right to me. I'm not mad if gas companies accidentally release methane, as long as they're paying the appropriate price for it.
109. Re: We're hosed by Opportunist · 2018-09-03 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Odd. One could assume they hate their kids as much as I do considering the state they plan to leave the planet to them.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
110. Re: We're hosed by Opportunist · 2018-09-03 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  My hope is that they notice they have more to lose and hire people that know what to do.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
111. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously the reactor should be built near someone else's house, not mine.
112. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know what's more green than buying an EV. 'not buying a car'.
  Per capita China is much better at 'not buying a car' than you, most of Europe probably is too.
113. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you need a remedial math class.
  After you learn what 'per person' means.
  Where in those numbers does it show how much electricity they used?
  Oh it doesn't does it.
  More pointless trolling from the hidden WindBourne army. See here to understand why usage is the important factor here.
  Who am I kidding, you are probably incapable of understanding. Anyone who disagrees with you or points out your errors is a Russian troll? Grow up.
  If I'm trying to discredit and bash the US and uphold China, then why is the only person I have a problem with, the one person who falsely accuses me of lying all the time? Your claim doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense.
  If you were man enough to log in, and someone baselessly called you a liar in every second post, don't you think you would try to point out they were wrong? Wouldn't you also want to show that they are the liar and not you?
114. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe a picture will help explain it for the slower people.
  It's a bit out of date (2014) but shows Americans per person use 3x as much power.
  30% of 3 is 0.9
  69% of 1 is 0.69
  You can probably figure out which one is bigger...
115. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  If some asshole from any of those countries claimed they were doing a good job, while calling me a liar, I probably would.
  You wan't to point out those countries are good for the environment? I'll gladly tell you you are wrong.
  If your feelings are so easily hurt by me singling your country out, you are free to include your friends. Every time I mention America you can pretend I said those countries too, add in Australia and Canada if you like. Wouldn't want you to feel excluded.
  Total emissions = per person emissions x number of people
  Funny how that works isn't it.
116. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-04 00:12 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody wants any meaningful methane leakage on your oil/gas extraction facility. See Deepwater Horizon for reasons why.
  As for "carbon tax", it's already in as a punitive taxation regime on the more polluting production systems. Take it too far and you get to Denmark and its catastrophic state of affairs, where spinning reserve is taken offline because it's punished, yet more wind goes up. Resulting in a grid that is wholly dependent on Swedish and Norwegian interconnects and hydro supply and legislation to literally stop coal plants they made unprofitable via those taxation regimes from closing, because they desperately need them to back up wind power.
  This is something most people ignore. You can't run a modern grid without spinning reserve and cold reserve and intermittent renewables being intermittent need close to 100% cold reserve and a large amount of spinning one. If you don't have it, you have a third world grid with intermittent, randomly cutting off power supply. If you want to find out what that's like and what that leads to, research Lebanese generator mafia and comprehend that you will have no meaningful industry if that were to occur.
  So you don't get to put status quo against Harvey. You get to put Lebanese level of infrastructural disaster against Harvey, because US isn't Denmark, and doesn't have convenient mountainous neighbours with massive surplus of hydro and willing to sell you usage of those at as a spinning reserve at extortionist levels of premium + grid companies that literally tell Denmark to bend over and take it from behind as happened about a year ago. And if you pick Lebanese kind of a grid, but you are indeed anti-humanist.
117. Re: We're hosed by sproketboy · 2018-09-04 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  And if we had spent the R&D money back in the '70s to continue the nuclear energy program we wouldn't have this problem at all. FTFA
118. Re: We're hosed by sproketboy · 2018-09-04 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nice straw man from a communist.
119. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Also Germany has no shale gas production, nor did it ever have any to my knowledge.
  Depends how you call it.
  Some call it shale gas, some call it fracking.
  Germany did fracking since shortly after WWII, so I don't know if that is equivalent to shale gas.
  Which is why it has always driven the anti-nuclear crusade that culminated in Energiewende, which essentially drove Germany off the CO2 reduction track
  Strange that still Germany is the country, that has reduced its CO2 output the most.
  All while US, without any major Germany-style proclamations had the shale and CCGT revolution, and reduced its CO2 emissions significantly.
  Yeah, and they did this, last 5 years? We do it since 30 years. Guess which "integral over time" reduced CO2 more?
  Yeah again, US reduced their CO2 output by .... uh? Was it 30%?
  Germany reduced it by 35% ... again: over a 4 times to 6 times longer time frame: so in total "as integral over time" again, to a much bigger degree than the US.
  Germany is a small country. If we had a Fukushima like disaster, half of Germany would be gone.
  If we had a Chernobyl like disaster, all of Germany would be gone.
  So you wonder why no german citizen wants nuklear power? And then again: you are an idiot. We started with renewables 40 years ago. Since 20 years we do it massively. Now we have about 40% (this year perhaps even close to 50%) of all our electricity produced by _renewables_ (and on top of that still about 10% by nukes).
  If we had started building nukes 20 years ago: none would be finished yet. How the funk can people be so stupid!??
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
120. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  It's government's job when the winner is nuclear power isn't it?
  More seriously, government should be the embodiment of the collective will of the people*, with protections from the tyranny of the majority and if people want it to pick winners, that's fine. (* Assumes it promotes people being informed to allow them to decide)
121. Re:We're hosed by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2018-09-04 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  We're not all hosed. We just need to adapt instead of try to change the situation.
  One great way to adapt is to switch to drought tolerant foods.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
122. Re: We're hosed by atrex · 2018-09-04 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Switching over to fracked gas burning from coal is hardly all that great of a milestone to crow about. Yes, gas burns cleaner than coal. However, the process of getting it pollutes water tables, causes earthquakes, and releases tons of methane into the atmosphere which is a lot worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Obtaining coal has it's own set of environmental impacts, but, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't have the huge methane problem.
  
  https://www.eeb.cornell.edu/ho...
  
  If every dollar that had been put into fracking and natural gas over the last decade had instead been spent on renewables, we'd be in a much better place. Instead, we ceded the development and production of solar technologies mostly to China, and let them become the export kings for solar panels throughout the world.
123. Re: We're hosed by atrex · 2018-09-04 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Naw, they're rich and powerful. Their kids will have only the best. While the rest of the world is starving and fighting over barely drinkable water and wilted lettuce, their kids will be living in guarded paradises with the best water filtration systems money can buy, eating caviar, and placing bets on which third world country will go up in flames next.
124. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not concerned about trolls getting points.
  I'm just annoyed by idiots modding other idiots up.
  People can have their opinions, as retarded as they may are.
  Then again, the mods have opinions, too ... so where to draw the line?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
125. Re: We're hosed by werepants · 2018-09-04 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  And actually, we all know: nuclear is bad. So what is your point?
  Blatant, baseless FUD. Nuclear has the best safety record of any power source, if you look at actual facts. Opposition to nuclear amounts to support for fossil fuels.
126. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-04 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't shale extraction done in Germany after WW2 basically similar to what they do in Estonia today? Shale rock formations that they dig out wholesale and either try to extract oil from it, or just burn it as is, pollution be damned?
  They most certainly could not have had gas extraction back then. Transport technology and extraction technology wasn't there. Until very recently, oil extraction processes were almost universally flaring natgas off. This was a universal process for at least a century if not more. Methane tends to gather up around your extraction facility if you don't flare it off or gather it as you extract oil, and is extremely flammable. A smallest spark will set it off. It's what typically generates those tremendous explosions when something goes really badly wrong in oil extraction.
  Statistics show that Germany clearly broke the trend it was on for previous ten years in the current decade. This hasn't been news for at least half a decade if not more. It's generally not talked about in Germany, because like most nasty things that happen as a result of utter failure of federal policy, it's better to just sweep it under the rug. It's far from the only such failure that has been acted upon this way. Problem is, Germany still has to report its numbers, so those of us actually in business got to go "just as expected" in late 2000s and early 2010s. The trend where Germany was reducing its CO2 emissions by about 2% per year broke around then, and reduction flatlined at zero, even growing in some of the measurement periods. And that's with Germany outsourcing much of its spinning and cold reserve to France and Poland, with Poland producing it on nothing other than coal. That huge facility that was built up in a small enclave sitting near Germany and Chechia was a wonderful example of consequences of Energiewende. Not to even mention the constant complaints from Polish grid operators about constant loop flows of electricity through German interconnects.
  And do notice how you and all the other apologists are desperate to increase the scale from "decade" which is the span of Energiewende to "two decades or more" to cover the period before Green insanity of Energiewende was in place and Germany was actually on track to meet its CO2 emissions reduction obligations. Something that widely accepted as impossible today due to Energiewende's consequences without some massive numbers fudging such as artificially counting Germany's spinning reserve's emissions as lower than it is by using more Polish and French power instead.
  Also, do note that your religious hatred of nuclear power has zero grounding in either reality or science. Average speed of building a nuclear power plant today stood at 7,5 years in 2016 if IAEA's PRIS database collation I've seen back then is to be believed. What religious zealots like you do is pretend that the massive outlier, the two AREVA's test EPR reactors, who have been around 13 years in building and will likely take about 15 years to finish are somehow the norm, and then you add 5 years on top of that massive outlier to get to your stated number of "twenty years".
  It's a statement so out of any confines of reality, it's hard for me to even imagine where you could have dreamed those numbers from.
127. Re:We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Styrofoam.
  As a kid, I was taught that Styrofoam is terrible for environment because it takes thousands of years to naturally decompose.
  My response was "sure, but if it becomes a problem, it wont take scientists thousands of years of find a solution". My teacher and peers didnt like that answer. (of course, prevention is preferable to cleaning up, but you get the point)
  Should the world be convinced of anthropogenic climate change, sequestering CO2 to adequate levels is likely achievable (and should the tech be developed, some places will likely sequester too much CO2 which could lead to funny situations).
128. Re: We're hosed by Opportunist · 2018-09-04 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea why I have to think about the two preppers where one describes in minute detail what he's going to stockpile and how he's going to build his own bunker and whatnot while the other one said when asked what he's gonna prepare: "A shotgun. And his address".
  The problem with having something someone else does not is to keep it. Especially if the one not having it is facing the choice of getting it or dying trying. Having no alternative than taking it from you makes one very motivated killer and you a very hard to defend target.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
129. Re: We're hosed by acrimonious+howard · 2018-09-04 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody wants to die in car accidents, but the law requires us to buy insurance. Insurance companies and the police convince us to not drive dangerously by way of premiums, tickets for speed, seat belt, etc. This system ain't perfect, but way better than lack of a system. Nobody wants to die in car accidents but most people won't do the research and make the right choices unless the system exists. I hope there's a similar type of insurance and policing for methane release, it'd be ridiculous if not. Businesses are supposed to chase profit, so that system is even more important - it's not like drivers who have an added incentive of potential death. All that said, I'm thinking a carbon tax allows the free market to determine the most efficient way, versus micro-managing.
  
  Of course a premium has to be paid for base load sources. But the system isn't weighted enough. Base load should be natural gas and nuclear, and afaik, new nuclear is currently frozen due being so much more expensive than everything else. The fact we're using any coal at all means we haven't gone far enough yet. Saying that's pushing for a Lebanese system is like saying seat belt laws will put all car manufacturers out of business.
  
  I'd have to see some very convincing numbers showing that we're already changing too fast to be convinced of it. The science came in 30 years ago, and while the gas progress is great, it still feels like we're way behind where we need to be. Germany has 5x as much solar despite getting as much sun as Portland. My electric bill could double and I wouldn't bat an eye. I see apartments advertising "free electricity". We're living on borrowed pain. Our kids will pay it tenfold.
130. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-04 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  The moment you think that private consumption is in any meaningful way analogous to large scale production, and you use this analogy as the core of your argument, you demonstrate that you're utterly out of your depth.
  Stop. You clearly lack even the most cursory understanding of the subject you're trying to argue in detail about. This is in no way, shape or form even remotely comparable to car accidents.
131. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  We had quite a set of nuclear accidents, about 10 I recall, hardly a saftey record.
  We have ten thousands of tons of waste world wide, not a single ton is safely stored somewhere ...
  The stuff Germany stored has to be digged out again.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
132. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  No, I did nothing of the sort, it was just that it was a figure I knew off the top of my head.
133. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  You are mixing up CO2 emissions as a nation, that stagnated a bit, with CO2 emissions from electricity production, which still is strongly reduced each year.
  The complaints of the Polish are a myth. Every energy transport is either planned day ahead or hourly ahead, or in rare cases a minute ahead. There are no surprises. The receiver allways knows what is comming via the interconnect. And more important: why did he buy the power when he is now complaining that it is "to hard to handle"?
  Also, do note that your religious hatred of nuclear power has zero grounding in either reality or science
  Tripple wrong: no religion, no hate, and the two big disasters are a scientific fact ...
  Average speed of building a nuclear power plant today stood at 7,5 years
  You forget the ten years or more to get the permit to build it.
  you add 5 years on top of that massive outlier to get to your stated number of "twenty years".
  That is exactly what I did ... as we allready know the finish and french reactor wont be finnished after 18 years, but are delayed again. In Germany it would be even worse, do you really think the population would let anyone build a new nuke? Where would you build it? After all it needs to be at a river. Did you check lately how many places we have where you could build one? Oh, most places already have one ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
134. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  Looking at the figures 1995-2005, and 2005-15, the USA achieved a 5% reduction per capita in the first decade, about 15% since, Germany about 10% in each, but in both cases the fall seems to have slowed or stopped, so the USA is likely to remain at 1.6:1 per capita.
135. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  I am not aware of an ice age with higher CO2 levels. Do you have citation. If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas our understanding of physics over the last 150 years is wrong. Such bold claims require evidence.
136. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 23:54 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear power research receives a larger share of federal research funding in the USA compared to any other energy technology area. However, funding to the energy sector as a whole peaked in 1982, after a rapid run up in the late 70s. I don't have figures for commercial R&D, or the split in the 70s.
137. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-05 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yup, Greenpeace prevented us from developing Solar, Wind power, Geothermal.... ohh.. wait...
138. Re: We're hosed by werepants · 2018-09-05 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  We had quite a set of nuclear accidents, about 10 I recall, hardly a saftey record.
  Sure, accidents happen. They also happen for wind, solar, hydroelectric, natural gas, coal, and oil. The only reasonable way to evaluate safety is to compare the deaths per unit energy for all energy sources, which equalizes all the various contributing factors and gives you a fair comparison. By that measure, nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than everything else:
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
139. Re: We're hosed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-05 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  The short to medium term risk is CO2, so it is cleaner in that sense, with respect to the more urgent requirement. I've seen various opinions on EROEI if usage is expanded.
140. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, US is on track to keep reducing its emissions, while Germany has stalled. It looks like we're in agreement on facts.
141. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-05 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  >The complaints of the Polish are a myth. Every energy transport is either planned day ahead or hourly ahead, or in rare cases a minute ahead. There are no surprises.
  Germans have direct command of the wind. Ah angelosphere. You truly deliver the most insane narratives on slashdot with hilarious regularity.
  Good day to you. Keep on trollin'.
142. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-05 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  So we're literally talking about shale revolution and CCGT breakthrough, both of which have happened in the last decade. And you just happen to have the timeline long enough that would diminish effects of both to make it appear that those didn't happen.
  Completely by accident.
  Do you see why your narrative is rather difficult to believe in context of this discussion?
143. Re: We're hosed by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-05 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Do the climate models show a different outcome if the per person amount changes, but not the total?
  total CO2 = (per person CO2) x (# of people)
  How could they?
  Unless you want to remove people, the only way is to have people use less.
  It's not magic, just simple logic.
  Should even be common sense...but that is quite lacking around here.
  PS: Notice in the equation there is no need to mention countries, where the people are makes no difference. The only use for comparing countries is to find out where the high (per person CO2) is. So you know who has the most to cut. Which people are causing the biggest part of the problem.
  In before some idiot claims businesses make CO2 and not people. No, the same way businesses don't pay taxes, they pass them on to the consumers. Businesses only make CO2 in order to supply good and services to people.
144. Re: We're hosed by Agripa · 2018-09-06 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  So let's see. France produces a total of 1.2 TWh of nuclear power per day. That comes out to 190 billion dollars of the cheapest required energy storage or 763 billion dollars for lithium battery based storage for just one day of storage. And that does not include the cost of generating the electricity in the first place. Capitol costs for nuclear power are about the same as wind power so France got a deal without having to spend even more for storage.
  What hurts the cost effectiveness of France's nuclear power is that it is being used as baseload capacity to support intermittent sources like solar and wind. Any reduction in the capacity factor of nuclear power makes it less economical. But without it, solar and wind become less economical because of the required storage infrastructure.
145. Re: We're hosed by Agripa · 2018-09-06 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Since when is it the government's job to pick winners and losers in the market?
  
  It has been that way since the future winners can pay the government to select the future losers.
146. Re: We're hosed by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-06 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why on earth would you need a day of storage? And isn't France linked directly to the grids of neighboring countries?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
147. Re: We're hosed by Agripa · 2018-09-06 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Why on earth would you need a day of storage? And isn't France linked directly to the grids of neighboring countries?
  Now apply that idea to all of France's neighboring countries as well. With that concept, nobody needs any storage at all because it is always day and the wind always blows somewhere else.
148. Re: We're hosed by acrimonious+howard · 2018-09-06 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Your argument is so powerful, with all those research links and facts. Project much?
149. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-06 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  What does "this isn't a research paper" have to do with "not understanding functionality differential consumer products with infrastructure projects"?
150. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-06 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  The wind is not piped by command of anyone into a trans country interconnect.
  Which part of: "Every energy transport is either planned (and) day ahead or hourly ahead, or in rare cases a minute ahead." Don't you grasp?
  It is forbidden and taken care for that no unannounced power is going through an interconnect. In what stupid reality do you live that you think a german power provider would just "dumb power" over an interconnect to another country and the other country has to deal with it? How the funk could that possibly work?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
151. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-06 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  The only reasonable way to evaluate safety is to compare the deaths per unit energy for all energy sources
  No it is not.
  As no one dies to the energy ...
  And your links you like to throw around, simply ommit all the death du to nuclear. E.g. roughly a mission dead after Chernobyl. Hundred thousands died do to uranium mining ... I mean: you account coal death to mining ... not to dying from a stroke at a plug from coal energy ... why don't you account for the dead who died to open pit mining of uranium ore?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
152. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-06 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, the angelosphere squirming upon getting caught in utter ignorance. I forgot how hilarious it is to watch. But you're still on the record with your magnificent claim of Germany, that Godly state that can control wind.
  Keep squirming.
153. Re: We're hosed by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-06 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes, actually. The amount of storage required is dramatically reduced when you have very wide geographic distribution and a diverse range of renewable sources. Plus some, like solar thermal, have storage built in anyway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
154. Re: We're hosed by werepants · 2018-09-07 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  As no one dies to the energy ...
  Not sure what you are trying to say here, but every energy source has a cost in lives. People fall off roofs and wind towers and die all the time. Coal pollution kills thousands of people each year. There is no energy form that doesn't have some kind of danger associated with it.
  
  And your links you like to throw around, simply ommit all the death du to nuclear. Hundred thousands died do to uranium mining
  What are you talking about? Supply a source to back up your claim that "hundreds of thousands" have died in uranium mining. That's pure nonsense. Fuel is a pretty minor part of running a nuclear power plant, and the whole nuclear industry is so safety-obsessed that the actual power plants are safer by far than any other type. Nuclear also produces an immense amount of power, so one nuclear power plant can produce as much energy as 100,000 home solar installs. So, considering a huge amount of power per plant, for a tiny amount of fuel needed, and an insanely conservative safety culture, and extremely low CO2 emissions - if you want to save lives, want to limit pollution, want to slow down global warming, you should support nuclear power.
  Or, you know, just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore logic.
155. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-07 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of moron are you?
  The topic was power transfer from Germany to Poland.
  And we don't transfer more power to Poland than one is buying there, or is reselling tomanother country.
  No idea why you are so ignorant about physics and powermanagement that you run around here and insult me.
  Why don't you read a bit how trans national power trade works? Moron ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
156. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-07 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure what you are trying to say here, but every energy source has a cost in lives. People fall off roofs and wind towers and die all the time.
  Because that are work accidents. The people would fall from the roof if they put up shingles there, or what ever.
  Claiming that solar power causes more death than nuclear, because construction workery don't follownsafty regulations is just fraud, fud, a lie.
  Ever nuclear power plant has (had) about 10 to 100 dead during construction (just like coal plants) ... But for some reason, idiots like you, don't count them, but you try to count people dropping from a roof when they install a solar panel.
  Ha ha ha ha, from where actually would you get a reliable number?
  You can have as much nuclear power as you want, as long as an accident does not hit my country. Hint: my country already got hit once. And after 30 years it is still not save to eat mushrooms or wildlife shot in south or east Germany.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
157. Re: We're hosed by Luckyo · 2018-09-07 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  When you claim to be a "professional in the field of power generation and transmission" in one discussion and in the next post in another fail to understand the very basics of power transfer that Poles actually complain about.
  Yeah, I think you should stick with controlling wind. Psychotic ramblings sound much more up your line.
158. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-07 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  The Poles don't complain.
  It is a /. or american internet myth.
  As I stated before: you can not transfer more power from Germany to Poland than all polish customers bought together.
  Laws and safeguards forbid that.
  Your 'controlling wind' myth astonishs me.
  Anyway, if you want to know how power transfsr works:
  A) ask, and stop insulting me, or
  B) google it
  If you find a way to transport more power to Poland than their grid can handle, you get my car, my house, my wife, my bank account and my firstborn, stupid idiot!
  I keep my motor bike, though, moron.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
159. Re: We're hosed by werepants · 2018-09-07 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Supply a source to back up your claim that "hundreds of thousands" have died in uranium mining.
  While you're at it, you now need to supply a source to support your equally absurd claim that 10-100 people have died for each nuclear power plant constructed.
  You should make at least a cursory attempt to back up your opinions with facts.
160. Re: We're hosed by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-07 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is common knowledge that at a construction site about 1 to 10 people die per million of dollars of total construction costs.
  YMMV
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
161. Re: We're hosed by Mr+D+from+63 · 2018-09-07 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Don't count on it. angel'o'sphere is a flat out liar. I've caught him multiple times making claims that are clearly wrong, and he never backs them with a citation.
  
  Then there is this complete fabrication, to which he won't respond;
  https://slashdot.org/comments....
That's OK by PPH · 2018-09-02 15:00 · Score: 0

My wife has been cranking the thermostat up anyway. She'll be happy to hear this.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re: That's OK by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  That isnâ(TM)t all your wife has been cranking
2. Re:That's OK by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  "They favour a room of 25C (77F) compared with 22C (72F) for men"
  Jesus christ are they fucking cold-blooded reptiles? And females have tons more bodyfat as well, why is their body heat so terrible? My guess is they all wear skirts and crap clothing, if they just wore the same clothes as men they would be fine.
3. Re: That's OK by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe, since men prefer it cooler, we should wear the skirts!
4. Re: That's OK by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe, since men prefer it cooler, we should wear the skirts!
  Skirts!? Bah!
  *Real* basement nerds post on /. 'commando'! :D
5. Re: That's OK by TimMD909 · 2018-09-02 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  Here's some helpful information from another woman. . She too used to have trouble with temperatures.
6. Re:That's OK by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  "They favour a room of 25C (77F) compared with 22C (72F) for men"
  Jesus christ are they fucking cold-blooded reptiles?
  I think I saw that porn...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:02 · Score: 0

A money-sucking political megaphone proclaims that countries aren't on track to meet the goals of a non-binding agreement?
Did I get that right?
1. Re:Let's see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you're very perceptive! God says that belief in Jesus is all you really need, so don't believe the hype, pray, and get ready for paradise!
2. Re:Let's see.... by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  What I always wondered, is there also an orthodise? Because I'd rather go there, paradise sounds like it's kinda distant and removed.
  I know, the discussion is getting kinda meta now.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
two faced prick by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:02 · Score: 0

So why then these things keep taking places in many countries... all of em fly there too... not helping to reduce carbon innit?
It was always too late you idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:08 · Score: 0

The first clue you should have had was that meeting the emissions targets requires global enforced cooperation. That didn't happen in the 80s when this first started being a thing people cared about and it sure as hell isn't happening now.
The second clue you should have had was that there was no economic reason to meet those emissions targets. AGW is the world's largest object lesson in the tragedy of the commons.
And finally, you should have realized your own hubris in assuming you could do something to stop this and instead bent your energies towards figuring out how to survive this.
1. Re:It was always too late you idiots by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  So making sure seatbelts and airbags work instead of hitting the brakes, gotcha.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Geoengineering by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:10 · Score: 1

We can dump iron in the oceans as a fertilizer which produces bigger fish harvests and sinks co2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We could use calcium too.
https://www.technologyreview.c...
https://www.wired.com/2008/07/...
We could farm Kelp.
https://www.scienceforums.net/...
But unless we stop emitting co2 this will not be enough. We should really consider Thorium reactors especially if they are as safe as scientists are claiming.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
Sorry about the quality of the links but it should be a good starting point for some research. None of these by themselves will be enough but we have many options even terrible ones like reflective aerosols.
~matthekc
1. Re:Geoengineering by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830180058.htm
  Another bit of chemistry we could attempt to take advantage of.
2. Re:Geoengineering by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:23 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with organic CO2 sinks is that they die at some point, decompose and return that CO2 into the air. We could of course somehow bury them really deep and hope that it never comes back up. That's already been done by nature some couple million years ago, also worked pretty well, at least until one species was stupid enough to dig it back out.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Geoengineering by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with organic CO2 sinks is that they die at some point, decompose and return that CO2 into the air.
  They don't return all of that CO2 into the air. Rainforests return most of it because of the rapid rate of fall and decomposition; too much of it is anaerobic, which produces more CO2. Aerobic decomposition produces little CO2, and more of the carbon is interred in the soil. Even grasslands burning every year will sequester carbon; sure, most of it is released, but a portion of it is retained as biochar. Over time this cycle enriches the soil with carbon, which is important for plant health.
  I'm not against other carbon sequestration methods, but plants are effective.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Geoengineering by Opportunist · 2018-09-03 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  They are effective as long as there is something alive that keeps the carbon bound. For this to work, you have to keep that rainforest alive actually, something that we also don't really have a good track record of.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Solution: by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:13 · Score: 0

Burn more coal! It will work! Believe me.
1. Re: Solution: by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  You must be caffeinated bacon/crimson tsunami.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:Solution: by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  Only in the extreme short term due to aerosols... Aerosols are bad mkay.
  Some have suggested that injecting sulfur compounds into the atmosphere might help ease global warming by increasing clouds and haze that would reflect sunlight, but an earlier study concluded that would be a bad idea.
  Injecting enough sulfur to reduce warming would wipe out the Arctic ozone layer and delay recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by as much as 70 years, according to an analysis by Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011297/Coal-burning-China-cools-planet.html
  ~matthekc
Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 15:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Paris, like Kyoto, was a joke. It did nothing to address real emissions. Until an accord is implemented that brings all nations down together, nothing will improve. things will become worse because massive numbers of coal plants are being added while idiots defend it.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:Give me a break by ShanghaiBill · 2018-09-02 15:26 · Score: 0
  
  things will become worse because massive numbers of coal plants are being added while idiots defend it.
  The only idiot defending coal is Trump, and since he was elected America has added zero new coal plants, and has no new coal plants in the pipeline or even being planned.
2. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  Coal plants are awesome though, there's no reason to not use it. People just need to invest more into carbon sequestration, there's already a shotgun of working ideas and proof of concepts, no one cares though.
3. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  And yet a goal to REDUCE EMISSIONS is not a joke even if it is piecemeal and not enforceable, because IT IS THAT NECESSARY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. Yes, it would be nice to have stronger protocols. Ask the Orange Traitor sometime.
4. Re:Give me a break by Koby77 · 2018-09-02 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like Poland is following suit:
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
  
  And Indonesia
  https://www.sei.org/featured/d...
  
  Australia is trying, although somewhat unsuccessfully
  https://www.spglobal.com/platt...
  
  So it appears to be more than just Trump. Low cost energy sources are a great way to expand the economy.
5. Re:Give me a break by archer,+the · 2018-09-02 15:37 · Score: 2
  
  China still has a few coal plants in the works, although it did stop construction on some. India says it will stop building coal plants in 2022. While the US isn't adding new coal plants, the current administration is attempting to keep the existing ones in service longer.
  Basically, we need to do what we can as individuals, and the cheapest (and maybe most important) thing there is voting to get people of sound mind into government.
6. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Bill, Russia has boosted coal output big time in 2017 and 2018 --- for exports to China.
  "Chinese imports of Russian coal surged 36.3% in 2017 for a volume of 25.3m tons." https://www.miningworld.ru/en-GB/press/news/Russian-mining-industry-overview-2018.aspx
  China and India (and Asia as a whole) are going to be where coal usage rises. Western nations, coal use will fall of course.
7. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  You need three coal fired plants to power the equipment that would sequester the co2 from one coal fired plant. That's three extra plants for every coal plant, which would need another nine, etc etc.
  Co2 sequestration is a stupid idea. It's like getting a new, high interested rate card to pay off your mortgage early. Don't pay 20% when you can pay 4%.
8. Re:Give me a break by owlaf · 2018-09-02 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Last I knew the average since Trump has been in, is a coal plant closed every 15 days. I am sure this is why there was talk to claim national security as a way to stop the closures
9. Re:Give me a break by b0s0z0ku · 2018-09-02 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  There is no economy when your country's ecology is destroyed. Poland is run by idiots of the same stripe as Trump. Indonesia is a dictatorship. Australia is ripe for solar -- lots of empty land area with strong sunlight. Doubt that plans to mine more coal will go far.
10. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  The only joke here is you Windy. You continue to deny that Americans are emitting much more than other countries. You just hide behiond the fact you have less people so it's all ok. Same as Canada and Australia.
  Get your levels down to EU levels and then someone may take you seriously.
11. Re:Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  well, trump is a joke. Thankfully, so far, everything that he has done to harm the environment has backfired. BUT, that is so far. I will say that he has the ability to do otherwise.
  
  But no, paris was a joke. Why? Because all of the nations walked away from it claiming that it would work. Yet, it was obvious that it was just as bad as kyoto. Until we stop ALL NEW FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS, nothing will be accomplished.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
12. Re:Give me a break by rtb61 · 2018-09-02 16:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The Australian coal mining thing is not what it seems, actually more likely a scam. So borrow tons of money, especially from government to build new coal mine and power station, build it all up, sell it and then when it can't not compete because of pricing pressure from natural gas and watch it all go belly up because of course the profit comes from developing and selling it and then betting it will go bankrupt (privatise the profit and socialise the loss). No sure how far that model spreads into Indonesia or Poland but it likely is an element, just the normal psychopathic way of doing business.
  Yeah, coal is screwed and Trump was playing pump and dump with his buddies (talking up coal so his buddies so sell out before it all collapses and the public ends up wearing the bankruptcies). It is pretty clear now, that most of the attacks on renewables had no basis in reality and were straight up PR=B$ attacks paid for by the fossil fuellers to keep the profits up and fuck everyone and everything else.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
13. Re:Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  First off, the last finished coal plant was over 5 years ago. And the last planned one was in 2010 (?) or sometime around then. America's CO2 continues to go down.That is not the major issue.
  However, loads of ppl are defending building new coal plants for 3rd world nations. Rather than have them put in far more AE (wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal) or nukes, China and somewhat Japan, is pushing for other nations to add their coal plants. NEW ONES, not replacements. And CHina is getting them to buy their coal. For example, they are having Pakistan add a lot of new coal plants and china will supply 100% of the coal. Stupid.
  Some of CHina's new plants ARE replacements of old ones and would be great if they were limited to burning no more coal than what the old plants did. BUT, that is not the case. Not only are they bigger, they will be capable of burning 2-5x as much coal as the old ones. Basically, this is a losing idea.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
14. Re:Give me a break by BlueStrat · 2018-09-02 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  the current administration is attempting to keep the existing ones [eg. coal plants] in service longer.
  This is because it's taking longer than expected to bring alternatives online and the engineers in charge of balancing the grid are telling the government the grid is already very precarious and further loss of generation capacity, especially quick-response generation, will pose a major hazard to the national power grid network.
  Would you prefer major blackouts and brownouts now, or a stable grid and a delay while the alternative capacity is added over the objections of NIMBYs, anti-nuke, and anti-natural-gas/fracking lobbyists and activist groups?
  Of course, we could just toss all our tech and transportation and live like Amish. Even then, however, unless the other major-population nations reduce their CO2 output drastically, even the entire US partying like it's 1799 won't have that much effect on climate trends worldwide.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
15. Re:Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  In july 2017, it was known that CHina would continue building new coal plants.
  In Oct, 2018, it was known that CHina would build over 700 new power plants. And that is 700, out of 1600 world-wide.
  In august of 2018 (i.e. less than a month ago from when this was posted), this was posted
  
  Satellite imagery reveals that many coal-fired power projects that were halted by the Chinese government have quietly restarted.
  ...
  
  Analysis by CoalSwarm estimates that 46.7 gigawatts of new and restarted coal-fired power construction is visible based on satellite imagery supplied by Planet Labs. The coal-fired power plants are either generating power or will soon be operational. If all the plants reach completion they would increase China’s coal-fired power capacity by 4 per cent.
  So, what happened?
  Well, their economy is coming back, and CHina was lying about having their AE producing too much power. They are adding coal-based energy to deal with economy improving as well as moving to electric cars.
  Sadly, we are going to see trolls here defending CHina on this, claiming that they are owed it. Of course, one of them claims that CHina is not a communist nation. Yeah.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
16. Re:Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  They already attempted national security on that.
  Perry has it right that we need base-load poewr, but that does not need to include coal. Coal can be replace by hydro, geo-thermal, or nuclear. All of these are base-load capable.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
17. Re:Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  they have tried it already. Turned out to be too expensive.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
18. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  He managed to increase your coal exports 60%.
19. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's going down so slowly that it isn't making a dent in the fact America is twice as polluting as China and much of the EU.
  America increased coal exports 60% under Trump.
  Capacity isnt use Windy. How much extra coal is actually being burned? show some numbers. You keep claiming (lying) that it's 'increasing massively' show your source.
20. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 17:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Do you even understand the links you are posting?
  
  China increased about 3.1 per cent in the first half of 2018 compared with the same period last year. The main driver of that was coal-fired power generation. Figures from the National Bureau of Statistics show a leap of 9.4 per cent in electricity use across the same period.
  So electricity is up 9% but coal is only up 3%...
  Coal's % of electricity is decreasing. Other sources are rising twice as fast as coal.
  As we know from your previous comments, only America is entitled to use so much coal.
  You remember , that country with twice the per capita CO2 emissions.
21. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  What is base load power? Some nonsense made up to keep slow plants around and give them subsidies.
22. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Who is defending coal plants?
  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people like you who use more coal powered electricity than a Chniese person, complaining that they are catching up to you.
  Why are you entitled to twice the CO2 as a Chinese person, or European?
23. Re:Give me a break by that+this+is+not+und · 2018-09-02 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  In Indiana you can put a 'Friends of Coal' licence plate on your car.
24. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  Where's your bacon?
  "America is twice as polluting as China and much of the EU."
  Wikipedia says that USA emitted 5 Gigatons of CO2 in 2017.
  China did 10 Gigatons of CO2 in 2017.
  The EU did 4 Gigatons of CO2 in 2017.
  Your numbers are incorrect.
  So why are you asking the other dude for correct numbers?
  Healer, heal thy self!
25. Re:Give me a break by Harlequin80 · 2018-09-02 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Your Australian example is nothing to do with local generation. Ackland is an export coal mine that exports thermal coal via Abbot Point coal terminal.
  There are no new coal fired power stations on the drawing board anywhere in australia currently. There are, however, a significant number of solar farms currently under construction.
  The primary issue facing australian electrical generation is a total lack of bi-partisan policys. The NEG which was used as the excuse for the crazies in the liberal party to role Malcolm Turnbull was going to bring in some stability to generation policy. However the 'tards decided it was better to completely self destruct in a failed attempt to lurch to the right instead.
  Net outcome is that the 10 years of electrical generation policy vacuum will continue. But now all those old power plants are 10 years closer to EOL.
26. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  Try per capita.
27. Re:Give me a break by Kjella · 2018-09-02 20:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Those who think we can reduce total emissions are delusional.
  1. The world population is growing
  2. More people get access to electricity/cars
  3. As they get richer, they use it more
  That we're making cleaner power and cleaner cars is only reducing that impact a bit. There's a billion Indians wishing they were rich enough to run AC. It's more like do you want 2x or 3x today's emissions, not how big the reduction will be.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
28. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 20:37 · Score: 0
  
  Idiot. Step away from that computer and never return, because facts are clearly more than your simplistic brain can handle.
  What happened? Production capacity goes up, significantly more than the coal does. What happened? CHINA LIES OMG!
  No, what happened was that they replaced a bunch of old, really nasty plants with newer, more effective and cleaner ones, because short term that's the easiest and most effective thing to do. They don't have the capacity to neither produce all the clean energy they need, nor build the capacity to produce it in a flash. So, they are going big on clean energy, but they combine it with improving their old coal stuff too, and making sure they at least are as clean as possible.
  Now go see your shrink about that paranoia.
29. Re:Give me a break by aaarrrgggh · 2018-09-02 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, I agree. It is a thermodynamics problem linked to a consumerism problem.
30. Re:Give me a break by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-02 23:36 · Score: 2
  
  You are begging the question by making two faulty assumptions.
  1. Technology never gets more efficient. Clearly modern cars are more efficient, electronics have got orders of magnitude more efficient (not least because we want to run on battery power). Modern homes require less heating and cooling and there are still big improvements that can be made there.
  2. Renewable energy can't provide a significant proportion of the energy we need. Clearly it can, especially in areas of high growth like India and China and Africa.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re:Give me a break by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-02 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  China hit peak coal about five years ago. The new plants are actually reducing emissions by replacing older, less efficient ones.
  People made the same mistake when looking at Germany building new coal plants, while either not noticing or wilfully ignoring the fact that they were closing even more old ones.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
32. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Bull, the question you fail to address is *why*? All coal isn't equal, just like all coal powered power plants aren't.
  Building two new coal powered plants and importing coal can still be a net gain, if you at the same time close five old really dirty and inefficient plants and cease to use low quality coal.
  Numbers pulled out of the air, but you get the idea, which is the point. You can't just look at what's built and bought, that way you're missing half the picture.
33. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  "Those who think we can reduce total emissions are delusional."
  Those who think power generation requires massive CO2 emissions are delusional, especially in countries with the sophistication to develop nuclear weapons programs. If people are concerned about global warming they should support maximum use of clean renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal,
  hydroelectric) and an international commitment to nuclear fission power generation to replace carbon-emitting plants. Something like a SALT treaty, a strategic emissions limitation treaty. It creates jobs in the nuclear & green power industries and jobs requiring less education in tight security to prevent fissile material from falling into the wrong hands. We have the technology - time to use it.
34. Re: Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Uh yes and no. As long as we accept that ANY nation can ADD new fossil fuel plants OR increase a replacement plant to the point where it burns more fuel than the old one, then yes, you are correct. All in all, unless we stop growing fossil fuel capacity, we will lose.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
35. Re:Give me a break by that+this+is+not+und · 2018-09-03 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, we need to do what we can as individuals, and the cheapest (and maybe most important) thing there is voting to get people of sound mind into government.
  Is that cheap? It sounds very expensive. These people will then ram through no-cost-too-high restrictions on private industry.
  Yes, it's 'cheap' when all you have is a megaphone and all you want to do is burn things down.
36. Re: Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get to be the dirtiest Windy, just because you were first...
37. Re: Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, the 3 issues that you put out there is exactly why I have said that the solution is America to put an increasing tax all our consumed goods and services, based on where the WORST part/service comes from. America is the world's largest importers ( not a good thing, but that is why this works ).
  
  To keep things honest and fair, we would use multiple co2 measuring SATs that would show co2 floating in/out of area. This way, we would know total production of Co2, but not care about causes. By applying taxing on a region based on being the worst, of a product/service, will lower their exports, thereby lowering gdp. Otoh, a region that lowers and keeps it low, or is already low ( look at norway, France, Switzerland ), they will be rewarded.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
38. Re: Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Red herring on your part. The issue is that China is back to growing the number of coal plants. They claimed otherwise and sat are proving that your nation, and you, are lying.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
39. Re: Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, his point is spot on, and is exactly what I'm gripping about. As long as we continue to ADD new fossil fuel plants, it will only worsen things. China is replacing some, but adding more capacity to it, to the point where they will burn more coal. They are also adding new coal plants as well. This will only increase emissions. What you speak of is the ideal situation, which we are not close to doing. The west has dropped our total yearly CO2 over the last 20 years (10 years for America ) but we need to drop more AND most importantly, we need all nations to drop, not increase. At the very least, all nations/states need to quit growing emissions.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
40. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in China (6 years in Shanghai, another two in Southern China - mainly Guangzhou) and the US. I know which one has the cleaner air...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
41. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I see this claim quite a bit, but I always wonder about it... If these nations are committed to "clean energy", then why replace the coal plant with a slight better coal plant? Why not go all-in on renewables, and just replace a shuttering coal plan with wind, solar, or hydro? Why the half-step? Is it because you cannot build a reliable grid with enough capacity via renewables only?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
42. Re: Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  So if my family of two each adds 1 liter of cyanide to the water supply, and my neighbor's family of 8 each adds 0.7 liters of cyanide to the water supply, I'm the bad guy?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
43. Re: Give me a break by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, another BTW, I looked up AC sales the other day. And yes, it is going to increase electricity usage just like EVs. Just 3 years, Europe's residential sales were higher than north America's. Interesting, their commercial side remained low. But it is Asia, esp China, that was interesting. Both resident and commercial, were several times higher than north america. As temps increase, these nation, esp developed nations, will add AC everywhere.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
44. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  China managed to double coal imports from 2016 to 2017...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
45. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  We already are AT the EU levels! Luxembourg - firmly in the heart of the EU - emits more CO2 per capita than the US. So we're in the EU range - near the top, but in the range.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
46. Re:Give me a break by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-03 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's mostly due to economics. Coal is still very cheap, even compared to renewables.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
47. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  Completely impractical
  Even in some fantasy where people actually agreed to it. It would be impossible to measure fairly.
  Even if in some fantasy it was possible to measure. It would be impossible to allocate where every little part of a product was made. Global supply chains are quite efficient. Your 'solution' would make them more inefficient. And make bean counters quite happy.
  Even if some fantasy you could get all that to work. It wouldn't stop Americans from just making their own crappy inefficient things and waste the CO2 at home anyway.
  Sounds like you are just trying to be protectionist.
  Wouldn't sole anything, just force all dirty production to be local. Lot's of places wouldn't care.
  Pollution doesn't really care about GDP either. Again you are just being protectionist for high GDP countries, allowing them to pollute more.
48. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's almost as if some idiot started a trade war with them and their economy was in danger of slowing. So they do what they always do and boot spending on infrastructure to compensate.
  Everyone knows coal in China is way over useful capacity. Some of it is regional. 1) Their long distance grid is 'pretty shit', so some places may need the coal in the short term until the infrastructure is more developed. 2) The regions aren't as easy to control from Beijing. Much like your states, they kind of do their own thing, even if that doesn't match what the boss wanted. Jobs are local, protests are local, good numbers make you look good even if it's for bad reasons.
  Coal just isn't cost competitive anymore. Its a solved problem already, just a timing problem and bureaucratic problem now.
49. Re: Give me a break by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  So if my family of two each adds 1 liter of cyanide to the water supply, and my neighbor's family of 8 each adds 0.7 liters of cyanide to the water supply, I'm the bad guy?
  You're both bad guys, he's just done more damage than you have.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
50. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  So the refrain we hear about renewables being cost effective really isn't true, then? They are more expensive to deploy as well as being more expensive to run?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
51. Re: Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not according to CaffienatedBacon! I'm much worse, because my "per capita" emission is worse... I'm sure he'll be along to correct me soon enough...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
52. Re: Give me a break by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not according to CaffienatedBacon! I'm much worse, because my "per capita" emission is worse... I'm sure he'll be along to correct me soon enough...
  Don't feed the trolls, especially the ones who already have coffee and bacon. They're clearly being overfed already.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
53. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  And who are YOU to make such a declaration?
  Oh yes. Some blind ideologue asshole with an opinion on the Internet.
  Grow the fuck up child.
54. Re:Give me a break by will_die · 2018-09-03 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  Trump was not looking at selling coal in the USA, natural gas is cheaper.
  The market for that coal is other countries. Since the start of 2016 over 1600 new coal plants have started construction or have funding and they need coal. In 2017 the USA increase exports of coal by 50% and is now producing around 15% of all coal.
55. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  We've cut emissions by taking out 100 coal plants!
  We've also cut emissions by installing new 700 new coal plants, each of which only produce half the emissions of the old ones!
  So.
  100*A
  vs
  700*(A/2)
  Math?
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
56. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  In the US, solar cannot be base load. Wind cannot be base load.
  And it's logistically impossible to create enough power storage capacity.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
57. Re: Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes Windy. Pat yourself on the back yet again for dropping 5, 10, 20 years.
  But continue to fail to realize you are still over twice as polluting per person as China and most of Europe.
  Do you seriously expect other countries who never were as polluting as you to drop by similar amounts?
  Let's see here. America dropped say 10 t per person. Do you think it's possible for India, Brazil, Sweden, France, Spain, UK, China, Germany, Japan or the Netherlands to drop 10 t per person?
  You only drop a lot because you were so so very very dirty.
  You expect India and Brazil to stay at their current consumption levels? Why or why not? Are they 'allowed' to borrow your term, to increase? Where are you going to draw your line and say who is allowed to increase and who isn't? Or do you really think that all the countries that aren't already as developed as you, shouldn't be allowed to develop?
  Expecting the rest of the world to stop developing, while you slowly over the course of the rest of the century, drop down to something even remotely approaching the average. Is just not realistic in the slightest.
  You just will not get all nations to drop. You need a more realistic goal if you want people to take you seriously.
58. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. And on average, a US citizen's input for GDP is over 3x that of your average Chinese citizen.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
59. Re:Give me a break by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-03 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Except in Germany they built two new ones and closed six old ones, so there were 4 fewer than before... And the new new ones were more efficient too boot.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
60. Re:Give me a break by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-03 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Coal is insanely cheap because the costs are externalized. Renewables are cheaper than coal in countries that don't allow costs to be completely externalized that way, at least for onshore wind. Offshore wind will need another few years.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
61. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  I would argue that everyone that has opposed nuclear power since the 1970's has directly contributed to global warming. Well meaning or not, opposing nuclear power in the absence of sufficient green energy alternatives has meant countenancing oil, gas & coal for decades.
62. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  The biggest problem with making progress is that the solutions put forward by the environmental movements simply reek of fascism in its purest sense. Impose drastic taxes on the population against their will, to hell with democracy or individual rights. Choose for people how they will live, and what they will do, and what they will eat, and what kind of services they can get. Silence and oppress those who might question the viewpoint of the scientific hegemony. Ugh. It's enough to make you want to cheer on global warming to see them defeated.
63. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Correction: believed costs are externalized. Real costs are almost always accounted for - no one likes to lose money. And renewables still need alternate sources of backup power - that's why the cost of electricity in Denmark and Germany is so high - they are building redundant power systems, one renewable one "dirty", but they cannot forgo the latter. Only the former is optional.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
64. Re:Give me a break by thegarbz · 2018-09-03 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Those who think we can reduce total emissions are delusional.
  And yet we have reduced total emissions several years. The population, economy and wealth grew then too.
  Don't let your shitty energy policy get in the way of the rest of the world. Many countries would be fairing quite well if it weren't for dumbfuck decisions like like installing coal power, shuttering perfectly fine nuclear plants, approving newer and bigger coal mines.
  You don't need to sit in your stupidly wasteful house running the AC in the middle of the day when no one is home. The top emitters per capita (USA, Australia) could learn a lot from the middle of the average emitters.
65. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Which is laudable. And I'm not talking to actual situations like that. Because they ARE working to reduce emissions via efficiency.
  Some people here seem to be arguing that their increased emissions are "okay" because there's more people to spread out the per-person impact.
  They're also ignoring the exact situation I described. Because you can't tell them ANYTHING.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
66. Re:Give me a break by blindseer · 2018-09-03 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Except in Germany they built two new ones and closed six old ones, so there were 4 fewer than before... And the new new ones were more efficient too boot.
  That means nothing. I'll give an example from my growing up on a dairy farm. Dad had four corn wagons but sold three of the wagons to buy two to replace them. How much more or less corn can he move at a time? You don't know because I gave no indication on the size of the wagons. If I now add that the wagons sold could carry 8 tons, and the new ones can carry 16 tons, and the one he kept could carry 12 tons, you now have a much clearer picture on how he's increased his ability to move corn.
  How big were the six plants that were closed? How big are the two new ones that were opened? If the old ones were 250 MW and the new ones 1500 MW then how does that help in their CO2 production? Maybe they burn more efficiently, and produce less soot, and provide for district heating, and all kinds of other benefits, but that doesn't necessarily mean less CO2 will be produced. I'm sure Germany will see cleaner air and less expensive electricity with shiny new coal plants, but that's not the issue here. At least not the only issue.
  Germany talks big about their CO2 reduction plans but it's easy to see that their CO2 reductions in recent years have been minimal to nothing. Also, they've created an energy plan that makes them increasingly dependent on foreign trade (in electricity itself, or in coal, natural gas, oil, and other fuels). Germany is not some model to follow, because if everyone followed their model of relying on their ability to buy and sell electricity with neighboring nations to manage the intermittent power they get from wind and solar then everyone would see their electrical grid collapse.
  So, again, tell me how big these coal plants are and maybe I'll believe you that Germany is serious about reducing their reliance on coal for electricity.
  Oh, and I know the USA isn't exactly a model on CO2 reduction either. In fact no one is really taking CO2 reduction seriously. If they were then they'd be building nuclear power plants to replace coal. There are nations building nuclear power and most of these nations are exporters of coal and oil, and by building nuclear power to replace the coal and oil they burn domestically for electricity the more coal and oil they can export. Of course they will claim it's all about "going green", but it's really about making more money. I don't much care why they build more nuclear power, only that they do so because that means cleaner air and stronger economies in the long run.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
67. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Australia is ripe for solar -- lots of empty land area with strong sunlight.
  They actually have interesting solar research projects.
  Towers surrounded by a kind of greenhouse, creating an upwind in the tower. They put water basins below the ground of the "greenhouse" and on top of that black stones/rocks. That stores enough heat to run over night, and even a few days under cloud cover.
  There is a kind of prototype in Spain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
68. Re: Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or do you really think that all the countries that aren't already as developed as you, shouldn't be allowed to develop?
  That is exactly what many americans think.
  And on top of that they think if they reduce their CO2 footprint, they drop to the level of those countries (not realizing that most "developing countries" are on a far higher level than the average US citizen or city or area ... despite being yearly hit by a tropical storm)
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
69. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Many reasons:
  a) the coal plant was actually planned 20 years ago, started construction 15 years ago and got finally finished 2 or 5 years ago.
  b) the plants belong to different companies, one company replaces one of their plants in a scenario like described in a)
  c) Off-Shore wind farms are relatively recent, on shore is considered extremely inferior
  d) on shore needs space ... at least "available space" to go there and put up a windmill
  e) same for solar, believe it or not, most of Germanies solar power is roof top solar (PV) on small houses, owned by the home owner, that was obviously pushed by government programs, other solar projects make not much sense (I mean thermal, except small local for hot water, but not for electricity) because of snow in winter (but that time might be over for good)
  There are surely more reasons.
  Grid problems you only get when you produce around or more than base load from fluctuating sources. Because when demand is at base load level and you have a wind power spike you need to get rid of the power. But that is manageable, just tilt the rotors, or put some wind mills off grid.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
70. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  that's why the cost of electricity in Denmark and Germany is so high - they are building redundant power systems
  No, that is not the reason why cost for power is high.
  The reason are:
  - taxes
  - guaranteed feed in tariffs for renewables
  hey are building redundant power systems, one renewable one "dirty",
  That is complete nonsense.
  The dirty ones we already have, that is a no brainer ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
71. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Germany talks big about their CO2 reduction plans but it's easy to see that their CO2 reductions in recent years have been minimal to nothing.
  In electricity? wrong
  In other CO2 sources? COLD WINTERS!!!
  Get a damn clue.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
72. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because they have nukes and carriers and Trump ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
73. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on which metric you use :D
  GDPs are not comparable. Wait a moment, I call the Chinese president and tell him to change all prices by a factor of ten -> suddenly he has a 10x GDP ... that was simple.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
74. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure, you already have enough power to cover your "base load".
  Base load is a line on a graph, not a property of a power plant.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
75. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, solar cannot be base load. Wind cannot be base load.
  Base load is a line on a graph, not a property of a power plant.
  Oh you mean those power plants that produce the cheapest kind of energy and run 24/7/365 above 90% ??? That are cheap power plants, that is all. You can replace them by anything that produces the power you need in the graph above. No one ever defined base load as "24/7/365 above 90%" ... well, american wikipedia authors did a few years ago, but it should be long fixed.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
76. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  If someone says "EU level" he obviously means average EU versus average american.
  Or do you want me to single out a very bad US example state?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
77. Re:Give me a break by blindseer · 2018-09-03 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  2. Renewable energy can't provide a significant proportion of the energy we need. Clearly it can, especially in areas of high growth like India and China and Africa.
  For me to take this seriously I'll need to hear how you define renewable energy. Here's the definition of renewable energy I found in my dictionary app:
  
  energy from a source that is not depleted when used
  Taken strictly nothing meets this definition since even solar energy is being depleted when used, as is it's derivative forms in wind and water, since the sun is expected to run out in a few billion years. If we mean "renewable" to mean energy that is so plentiful that we could not expect to run out in millions of years then that means wind, sun, water, and nuclear.
  Yes, I include nuclear power as a renewable energy source.
  Just in the seawater alone there are billions of tons of uranium, and meeting all the energy needs of the planet today would mean several thousand tons of uranium per year. There's far better places to get uranium than from the sea but for any nation with access to the sea means access to an effectively unlimited supply of energy in uranium. Any nation that can mine coal can also mine uranium and thorium for nuclear power. In fact in many cases just mining coal ash for uranium and thorium would mean getting far more energy than was obtained from burning the coal.
  Take a look at the charts on this web page:
  http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
  From there I can see that nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output of any other energy source available. Nuclear power takes far less resources than any other energy source. Also, from those charts, you can see that nuclear power causes far fewer fatalities per energy produced. From there I can also see that solar power is a very bad idea.
  I like wind and hydro because at least those are relatively inexpensive compared to solar. When talking about developing nations, where they lack much in the ability to produce and maintain the electronics needed for photovoltaic systems, they can at least build wind and hydro in spite of the extra resources needed over nuclear. Wind and hydro are very low tech energy sources, with low CO2, relatively reliable, and far safer than coal or oil. Solar power compared to any other energy source is very complex, resource intensive, expensive, and unreliable. Hydro power is also has by it's very nature the means to store energy inexpensively. Wind power doesn't have to turn a generator to produce useful work, it can pump water to a reservoir behind a dam for drinking water and/or electricity, and do so with centuries old technology.
  When considering a country that is just now learning how to harness energy from coal, oil, and hydro, it seems to me that nuclear is far easier of an energy source to harness than solar. If a nation can build massive concrete dams to hold back a river, build boilers for coal, harness steam and running water to turn a turbine, then they have most everything they need technologically and in infrastructure to harness nuclear power.
  Solar power is near worthless for a developing country. With solar power we'd be handing them a bunch of batteries and PV panels like fish, from which they can eat for a day. Hand them wind, hydro, and nuclear, and they can get their own fish and eat forever.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
78. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. The thing is, a per-capita count on output is pointless masturbation.
  The overall amount is what's important. The atmosphere doesn't go "Oh! That's CHINESE CO2! It's less per person! ALL GOOD BRAH!"
  And right now, China is out-outputting the US by a factor of two.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
79. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Solar is not 24x7.
  Wind is not 24x7.
  They are not stable, predictable power sources.
  It is logistically IMPOSSIBLE to build in enough storage to stabilize their output.
  As such, they CANNOT BE BASE LOAD.
  Any solar/wind plant promising 24x7 power is a solar plant with another form of power generation (generally natgas) picking up the slack.
  I'm sorry that facts hurt.
  But rolling blackouts because some dumbass thought he was going to hook a Tesla battery up to the grid and run every AC unit in the country will hurt far worse.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
80. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-03 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  You wanna translate that from SoundByte into English?
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
81. Re:Give me a break by blindseer · 2018-09-03 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Get a damn clue.
  Then clue me in. I asked a very honest question with sincere curiosity. Germany has stated an intent to reduce its CO2 output by closing coal fired power plants. I see that is happening. What is also happening is the construction of new coal fired power plants. What is the capacity of these old plants compared to the new? Is this just closing down two coal plants only to build a new one that's twice their size, and therefore changing nothing in how much coal is burned?
  I cannot take a nation's commitment to reduce CO2 output when that same nation has a commitment to abandon nuclear power. While it may be possible to do both it will be quite difficult as shown on this web page:
  http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
  And this website:
  http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
  And this website:
  https://www.withouthotair.com/
  And here:
  https://www.brightnewworld.org...
  I see plenty of people on Slashdot talking about how solar power is inexpensive today, but no one seems to actually say how much it costs. Let's see some numbers. But first I'd like to see the numbers on coal power, because that's the biggest producer of CO2. Replace coal with most anything else and CO2 output is reduced. I'm not seeing Germany even doing that, and if someone could help me find some numbers then I'd appreciate that. Numbers of plants closed and opening is meaningless without knowing the size of the plants. Put it numbers my 11 year old nephew can understand, he wants to be an engineer some day.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
82. Re:Give me a break by hey! · 2018-09-03 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  The US is moving away from coal because of natural gas; if Poland would do the same, it'd have to turn to Russian, which they do not want to do.
  One of the reasons the Obama administration was so fracking friendly was the goal of becoming a gas exporter, thus limiting the influence of Russian in Europe.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
83. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  The reason are: - taxes - guaranteed feed in tariffs for renewables
  Italy pays a higher tax rate on electricity that Germany or Denmark, yet their power is lower. Perhaps they do not subsidize renewables as heavily?
  
  hey are building redundant power systems, one renewable one "dirty", That is complete nonsense. The dirty ones we already have, that is a no brainer ...
  Then why is Germany build new coal power stations? I guess they don't need the backup for renewables? Sure - maybe they are replacing "old/dirty" plants - but why use new "less dirty" coal plants, if renewables can do it?
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
84. Re:Give me a break by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, our emissions are dropping - how about yours? And some of our States are bad; some are good. Much like in the EU.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
85. Re:Give me a break by blindseer · 2018-09-03 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Who is defending coal plants?
  I'm guessing the people that have to choose between coal power and no power.
  I'll defend coal because it is cheap, reliable, plentiful, very low tech, and therefore the only choice for many people all over the world. If you don't want people to burn coal you'll have to do better than hand out solar panels and batteries. These people will also have to be able to maintain these on their own or they will simply be abandoned in no time.
  Much of the world today has technology much like the USA and Europe had somewhere in between 1850 and 1950. That means coal, hydro, wind, but not much for solar power. The USA didn't see solar power as anything practical until at least the 1970s, and that's being generous. We saw practical nuclear power before we saw practical solar power.
  If we want to lift people out of poverty, and do so without coal, then it's not going to be with solar power. Hydro will only work if there is enough water flowing to build a dam. Wind is pretty good at a lot of things but without cheap storage, like perhaps a water reservoir to pump water to a higher potential energy, this energy is not reliable. You can't have a modern society without reliable energy supplies.
  If it's not coal then it's going to have to be nuclear. Whatever you have to say against nuclear means nothing if the alternatives are not reliable, inexpensive, and cannot be maintained with hammer and wrench technology. It would be nice we we could just drop in a silicon PV fabrication plant, gobs of high tech chemical production plants to make batteries, and all the electronics needed to run them, but that's not going to happen overnight. Nuclear power won't happen overnight either but if you have a society that can manage coal power and hydroelectric dams then you got people and infrastructure real close to building nuclear power. That's really really close to having nuclear power.
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
86. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  As you idiots all drive fossil cars and live a lifestyle dependent on electricity from the cheapest provider.
  Even Algore is buying beachfront property now.
87. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  > since he was elected America has added zero new coal plants, and has no new coal plants in the pipeline or even being planned.
  So what's the problem?
88. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  > America increased coal exports 60% under Trump.
  Coal exports under Obama for years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 were higher yet
  So did you bitch about him then?
89. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  So how did Trump increase coal exports 60%?
90. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, i agree with your basic premise.
  You have to read between the lines and realise Windy meant I personally was defending coal.
  With both those things said, there are a lot of places that don't have only 'hammer and wrench technology' who can afford to do a better job. Lets hope batteries and other storage technologies continue to improve, and make renewable more of a viable alternative for stable power.
91. Re: Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  And who are you to question it?
  Oh an Anonymous Coward. I'm convinced.
92. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  You mean some kind of carbon tax or price for carbon, like Europe China and all the countries you like to complain about already have.
  Good luck getting Americans to go for it.
93. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why we need proper nukes. ASAP.
94. Re:Give me a break by Darkling-MHCN · 2018-09-03 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  A large majority of them are not idiots, they just don't give a flying fk what successive generations have to do deal with... simply not their problem... therefore carry on plundering and wringing every last ounce of life out of the planet. They don't care if it dies after they're dead.
95. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  With over 4x as many people.
96. Re:Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Trump did that too did he. No wonder the coal people love him.
97. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  And which tiny cities in the US are you comparing to?
98. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  But what is it? What is it from and why is it a base? If it's at base and I turn off my AC does that make a new base, or are we now below base?
  'Base load' is just an invention of coal companies who knew their plants wouldn't be flexible enough to switch off overnight. So a base amount of power was included in their contracts to allow them to run 24/7. It used to be kind of ok, the market was rigged to have off peak overnight power to keep the coal plants making less of a loss by at least being paid something for all the useless energy they were producing.
  But now coal is no longer the cheapest, so continuing to subsidize them is just wasting consumers/taxpayers money.
  tldr: they can't be base load, because there is no base amount of power used.
99. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Of course they can't...there is no such thing.
  If I'm charging my Tesla and we are at your imaginary base load, what happens when I finish or unplug it? A new base? And the next person? The one after that?
  You just want to subsidize the coal when demand is low and cheaper power is available. Why do you love coal so much?
100. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  CO2 doesn't care about GDP
  Burn a ton of coal in America, whats the GDP?
  Burn a ton of coal in China, whats the GDP?
  Burn a ton of coal in Turkey, whats the GDP? Well it depends on the week considering their currency and high inflation.
  Each one though, the CO2 is the same.
  Unless you think it's ok to use more CO2 because you are rich?
  Oh you're American are you, sorry for being too subtle.
101. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, you don't have any notion of what you're talking about. Or you're trolling.
  Education time.
  With base load/brown power, the grid has to be carrying a certain amount of capacity to meet off-peak demand.
  It's called many things and YES, IT EXISTS.
  It's not a subsidy to coal. It's a fact of running a power grid.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
102. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  how about yours?
  Ours started dropping much earlier.
  Ours dropped much more than yours, too.
  So the accumulated "saving" is orders of magnitudes higher than yours.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
103. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Italy pays a higher tax rate on electricity that Germany or Denmark, yet their power is lower. Perhaps they do not subsidize renewables as heavily?
  No they don't pay higher taxes.
  The tax on energy in Germany is 50% (electricity) to 80% (oil) depending what it is.
  You seem to talk about "VAT" ... that is only 19% in Germany, what about oil tax, coal tax, CO2 tax, and concessions for transfer?
  Sure - maybe they are replacing "old/dirty" plants - but why use new "less dirty" coal plants, if renewables can do it?
  Because building the plants started 15 or 20 years ago, and were supposed already at that time to replace another plant.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
104. Re: Give me a break by atrex · 2018-09-04 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Expecting the rest of the world to stop developing, while you slowly over the course of the rest of the century, drop down to something even remotely approaching the average. Is just not realistic in the slightest. You just will not get all nations to drop. You need a more realistic goal if you want people to take you seriously.
  One of the points of the Paris agreement - the one were already heavily developed nations like the US pledged money too - was to use the pledged money to assist those countries in developing using clean power sources, rather than resorting to dirty sources like coal.
  
  But of course it was so easy for right-wing messaging to demonize the idea of giving money away to these countries - despite the fact that heavily developed nations have afflicted the entire world (including those countries) with the containments of their dirty development. After all, what does the average US citizen care about some fly spec undeveloped nation that's going to find itself under water, destroyed by storms, or otherwise devastated because we've been burning coal night and day for the last hundred years?
105. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  /. is full with posts about cheap solar.
  And if you would be interested in it you would google for solar power instead for nuclear power.
  But first I'd like to see the numbers on coal power, because that's the biggest producer of CO2. Replace coal with most anything else and CO2 output is reduced.
  We reduced coal power by 40% ... or how exactly do you think we produce now 40% of our power by renewables if we had not reduced "the other powers"?
  Numbers of plants closed and opening is meaningless without knowing the size of the plants. Put it numbers my 11 year old nephew can understand, he wants to be an engineer some day.
  Super easy: google "wiki german coal plants" and you get a wikipedia page of all plants. Build date. Closing date. Capacity. etc. Can't be so hard to educate yourself.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
106. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, an off peak subsidy to keep coal plants profitable, because otherwise they would lose even more money burning coal, for electricity no one even wants to use at the time.
  And when demand drops below the "base" then what?
  Pay the coal plant even more for it's wastage?
  It doesn't seem you really understand what you are talking about.
107. Re: Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. You don't need to tell me that. Tell WindBourne, he's the one who doesn't realise.
108. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  /. is full with posts about cheap solar.
  Yes, it is. What is not there are any numbers. Especially no numbers with the costs of the storage needed for wind and solar to provide reliable electricity.
  
  And if you would be interested in it you would google for solar power instead for nuclear power.
  I did. Solar costs too much to bother with. If you want me to think otherwise then show me your numbers!. Just telling people to "google it" and expect them to come to the same conclusion as you is idiotic. The internet is a font of knowledge but you can't make anyone drink from it. You'll need to lead people where you want them to go, with actual data and sources.
  
  But first I'd like to see the numbers on coal power, because that's the biggest producer of CO2. Replace coal with most anything else and CO2 output is reduced.
  We reduced coal power by 40% ... or how exactly do you think we produce now 40% of our power by renewables if we had not reduced "the other powers"?
  By reducing nuclear power. All gains in renewable energy capacity was to offset loss of nuclear. I googled it myself.
  This is why the reduction of CO2 has stagnated recently. Germany isn't replacing coal with renewable energy any more, they are simply swapping out nuclear and swapping in wind and solar. That means that to balance out reliable nuclear with unreliable wind and solar will mean increased CO2 from burning natural gas and coal. Germany hit a wall on the reductions on CO2 emissions per person a decade ago and hasn't made any gains since. I googled it myself.
  History shows that getting beyond 30% wind and solar, and still seeing a reduction in CO2 emissions, has been impossible. I googled that myself too. Germany will not see any further reductions in CO2 after they've shut down the last 10% of electricity from nuclear. After that needs for natural gas backup for more wind and solar will cause CO2 output to climb. Just getting beyond 20% wind and solar is difficult without access to massive supplies of storage in hydro dams. Germany has run out of places to dam a long time ago. I googled that too.
  
  Numbers of plants closed and opening is meaningless without knowing the size of the plants. Put it numbers my 11 year old nephew can understand, he wants to be an engineer some day.
  Super easy: google "wiki german coal plants" and you get a wikipedia page of all plants. Build date. Closing date. Capacity. etc. Can't be so hard to educate yourself.
  I'm too lazy for that. Put that in a format an 11 year old can understand or I'm not reading it. I google this stuff like you tell me and I'm not seeing solar power as a good idea. Wind might work. Hydro is almost always a good idea. Nuclear is just awesome. Awesome!
109. Re: Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  1 person puts 1 liter in.
  2 people put 1/2 a liter in each.
  You have 1 bullet. Which of the 3 do you shoot?
110. Re: Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  If you think it's ok to be putting in 1 liter, why exactly are you complaining about them putting in 0.7?
  Are you complaining about the cyanide? Or just complaining that they have a bigger family than you?
111. Re:Give me a break by Chas · 2018-09-04 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  You don't seem to understand. Baseline IS the minimum plus a safety margin to prevent blackouts or brownouts for momentary bumps in demand.
  If you need to rapidly add power to the grid, you move to peaking plants.
  But you need a stable source of power for baseline.
  Nuclear, hydro, geothermal, coal. All of these are stable sources of power output,
  Wind, solar are time and condition sensitive.
  Oil and gas fired turbines are dependable if more expensive forms of fuel used for peaking.
  Power storage, flywheels, pumping water upstream/uphill, solar thermal reservoirs and battery storage can help smooth over the humps between baseline and when peaking comes online. But such things are limited by geography (lots of places in the US have no "uphill" to pump water to), situation (you can't just drop a solar thermal farm ANYWHERE), or expense (grid-scale battery capacity is RECOCKULOUSLY EXPENSIVE).
  This really isn't that hard to grok. I'm unsure why you're having trouble (though I have a few guesses).
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
112. Re:Give me a break by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Base load has nothing to do with predictability or stability.
  Base load is a line on a graph, that is all. Why don't you read the wikipedia article?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
113. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-05 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  You are just handwaving. What is the baseline? There is no minimum amount of power used. Someone could always turn something off and use less. You are just making stuff up.
  "momentary bumps in demand". Coal is the absolute worst for this. Why try and link the two? You just show further that you don't understand.
  It's often hard to grok something that another person believes with no reason (religion for example). It may seem quite real to the person who 'believes'.
  Have you tested your idea against reality to check if it's just a 'belief'?
  Doesn't work with religion, so it probably won't work here either. People are fond of their delusions.
  But does explain why people won't grok what you think is obvious.
  Coal plants have a minimum level that they can run at. Coal plants are very slow to restart if they have to shut down. So coal plants are subsidized, as in their power output is used preferentially in times of low demand, even when other sources of power are cheaper. Otherwise they would have to shut down and restart again later. (some places they aren't subsidised as much, and have to pay other people to take their power when demand is too low. Note again no base) Change them to gas or use any of the storage methods you already mentioned to smooth out supply/demand imbalances, they are all better methods.
114. Re: Give me a break by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-15 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Americans win again.
  
  Put another way, the 328 million people living in the US consume more energy for cooling than the 4.4 billion people living in all of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia (excluding China) combined, according to the IEA report.
  America uses about 4-5 times as much electricity for cooling as the EU.
Lmao who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:17 · Score: 0

I live on the coast in south Florida and I do it give a shit. Iâ(TM)m paying engineers (real ones, not sad sack wannabe programmers) to design the appropriate barriers, drainage and sumps to eventually give me a perfect home in the ocean.
Flooding Miami is for the best, honestly. Itâ(TM)ll take out the tent cities full of homies addita that move here beause itâ(TM)s warm year round. I assume somewhere like Green Bay or Billings does not have this problem as it self corrects in the winter. But you are kidding yourself if you think I have any interest in going to either of those hell holes.
1. Re:Lmao who gives a fuck? by hey! · 2018-09-03 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  As for Billings, climate change projections of the mountain states like Montana is less winter snowpack, which translates to more water in the winter but less in the summer. This will have a patchwork of effects, many of which will be most pronounced states downstream in the Missouri River basin.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
That boat sailed ... by CaptainDork · 2018-09-02 15:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

... 40 years ago.
We passed the deadline and there's no catching up.
So it is written, so let it be done.

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
1. Re:That boat sailed ... by archer,+the · 2018-09-02 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  No. While we may be on the path to catastrophic events today, giving up is the best way to guarantee that outcome. Doing what we can today may delay those events enough that someone figures out cheap, large scale carbon capture.
2. Re:That boat sailed ... by CaptainDork · 2018-09-03 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
  We could have.
  We didn't.
  We could.
  We won't.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

They'd rather have climate change than nuclear power. Apparently climate change isn't a major issue and it's much more important to prevent the development of nuclear power and to block the construction of more modern nuclear power plants.
1. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by b0s0z0ku · 2018-09-02 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, the anti-nukes are a bunch of cowards. I'd sooner live down the street from a nuke plant than a coal-belcher.
2. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:34 · Score: 0
  
  Cowards, I am not sure Stupids. Liars. For sure. Liars as using "nuke" for something which cannot explode, and is safer than coal, gaz (No AWG, diseases/deaths statistics are better to every single metrics than for coal, ...).
3. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Cowards, I am not sure Stupids. Liars. For sure. Liars as using "nuke" for something which cannot explode
  Fukushima and Chernobyl both exploded.
4. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  If you had ever worked on the construction of a nuclear power planet when it was being built you would NEVER say that. Atleast with a coal plant the CO2 will be consumed by the plant life which inturns produces more food for people and animals to eat.
  Besides the coal plants now being constructed are alot cleaner than the old-coal plants.
5. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by Chas · 2018-09-03 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  They're saying that reactors are not nuclear bombs.
  The reactors themselves didn't explode.
  The cooling systems are what exploded.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
6. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by xtal · 2018-09-03 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  If they cared about emissions, nuclear is of course the right option and something we could do immediately. It also provides lots of great jobs.
  That isn't as satisfying as other parts of the leftist agenda, most of which revolve around them telling you the best way to live your life. That's what the ACC deniers actually push back against; it's obvious change is happening, but it's being used to further political goals on each end.
  Thermodynamics always wins, though, so buy oil.
  Nobody will agree on nuclear until the easy energy is all gone.
  
  --
  ..don't panic
7. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Rofl ...
  The short sighted idiots again ...
  If you plan a nuke now, when will it be finished?
  If you plan 1000 nukes now, where will the fuel come from?
  If you have to supply 1000 nukes with fuel, how do you transport it?
  What has that to do with "lefties"?
  Someone does not agree with you on a topic, so he is a lefty?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
8. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by blindseer · 2018-09-03 12:06 · Score: 2
  
  Fukushima and Chernobyl both exploded.
  Those were nuclear power plants built in the 1960s and 1970s. You know what was also built at that time? A lot of things, I know that. What comes to mind are the De Haviland Comet and Ford Pinto. The Comet was known to fall from the sky without explanation, and the Ford Pinto of the time was known to burst into flames with minor accidents. Does this mean we should stop flying jets and driving cars?
  We don't build nuclear reactors today like we used to in the 1970s, just like the planes and cars we build today aren't like what we used to build in the 1970s. There's a lot of old nuclear reactors from the 1970s operating today, and it would be nice to see them replaced with something more efficient and safer. It would be so much easier to do so if we didn't have idiots that thought nothing has changed in nuclear power since Bee Gees released "Stayin' Alive".
  Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. Safer than even wind and solar. That doesn't mean we should rely on nuclear as our only energy source, but it does mean we should make it part of our energy solution.
  Why I like nuclear power:
  http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
  
  --
  I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
9. Re:Tell that to the anti-nuclear body by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Not me, I'd rather have the warming... All the liberal dives would be under water and I'd have oceanfront property - As a bonus it'd be warmer too so I'd save money on heating.
  It's a win for me all the way around.
Climate Refugee Countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 15:36 · Score: 0

I don't think there has ever been a whole country formally requesting refugee status from another. Would a sovereign country have to be dissolved some how? This is not a corporation we are talking about.
Not surprised by scdeimos · 2018-09-02 15:48 · Score: 1

Not that the movie was any good, but...

Dr. Quinn Burchenal: Man's a party animal. If he is doing okay nothing else matters. That's not going to change.
Re:Good! Man made GW is hogwash by b0s0z0ku · 2018-09-02 15:59 · Score: 1

Walk on a dark surface, then walk on a light-colored one, barefoot, on a summer day. Any 5-year-old child can notice that temperature has as much to do with ability to absorb heat as with the strength of the sun.
Go fuck yourself Windy by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 16:02 · Score: 1

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Far too many trolls here will not care about facts.
Thats so funny Windy. I nearly fell off my chair.

this post explains who doesn't care about facts.

You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time. You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
I often point out your lies and lies more lies more lies even more lies lies and lies When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up that is in no way believable, and lying.
1. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:46 · Score: 0
  
  Ah yes. It was you.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
read the IPCC report by ooloorie · 2018-09-02 16:03 · Score: 1

Patricia Espinosa, head of the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which steers the climate talks, said both the public and private sector need to act with urgency to avoid "catastrophic effects"
Sorry, but that's not what the UN's own IPCC report says.
1. Re: read the IPCC report by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  You do realise the IPCC reports are the most watered down version?
2. Re:read the IPCC report by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  "U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare"
  At a news conference last week (2-2015) in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
  https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
3. Re:read the IPCC report by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  At a news conference last week (2-2015) in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
  That's an editorial, not an article, son. But we probably do have to destroy capitalism before it destroys us. Capitalism means that money controls the means of production. What kind of idiot thought it made sense for money to be in charge? Money doesn't have any morals.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:read the IPCC report by iggymanz · 2018-09-03 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  news for you, the non-capitalist systems also have wealth and power grubbing humans. some of them were and are the most ruthless and cruel systems there ever were
5. Re:read the IPCC report by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but my money is not immoral either!!!
  It simply sits in the bank!! Lazy! Lazy as hell!
  Or is under my pillow!
  Or even under the bed!
  Actually it often tries to hide from me!
  And the worst thing is: when I try to be nice to my money, and take it with me into the pub ... you won't guess it!! Suddenly its gone!!!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsunami by WindBourne · 2018-09-02 16:48 · Score: 2

And yet, America continues to drop our coal faster than other nations.
However, we are not dropping as fast as your nation is adding coal plants.
And Go fuck yourself, as you like to say.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 16:51 · Score: 0, Troll

But coal isn't the reason idiot. You are still twice as bad, even with all that coal.
Cap temperatures? by jrumney · 2018-09-02 17:09 · Score: 1, Flamebait

2 deg C (35.6 deg F) is kinda cold. I'd prefer not to have my temperature capped that low thank you very much.
(I know they probably mean temperature increase vs some arbitrarily chosen base, but the same mistake is made in several places in TFS, so it isn't just an isolated typo).
Give me a break? NO by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 17:12 · Score: 1

In Oct, 2018, it was known
Quick tell me the lottery numbers while you're here.
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 17:17 · Score: 0

I only tell you to go fuck yourself when you falsely accuse me of lying.
Strange that you see it quite often isn't it Windy...
It's becoming more and more common isn't it.
Shanghai "Blathering Old Fool" Bill does it again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:23 · Score: 0

That was going to be my question. Bill thinks oil companies going after US sources of fossil fuels somehow counts as alternative renewable fuels, because money was lost when oil prices fell. You said it nicer than I.
He's a fucking moron.
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:25 · Score: 0

You're supposed to pronounce it 'fluck you!'
I mean, show some national pride.
like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 17:27 · Score: 0

fuck you too asshole
Go fuck yourself Windy again by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-02 17:30 · Score: 0

Still notice you still don't dispute all your lies ...
1. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  This is straight up harassment from CaffeinatedBacon. Is slashdot going to do something about this before or after reception of a subpoena?
2. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Actually asshole. I disputed all of your lies/false accusation already. There is no sense continuing with you because you are neither honest, nor care about honesty, nor do you care about what is ahppening. All you do is lie constantly and simply harass. You are, a troll with nothing of value.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
3. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  its funny. 10 years ago, /. would not have allowed this. Now, this is a trolls paradise.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
4. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Just click the links and look idiot.
  1 you admitted you were wrong, even though you lied about if for years and didn't bother to check.
  The rest you just ran away.
  And continued with the same lies again next time.
5. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  The only harassment is him constantly calling me a liar and a Chinese troll, with not the slightest bit of evidence.
6. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  I noted before you got away with your lies for a very long time. When will you finally stop?
7. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Trolls of a certain type.
  If BeauHD, msmash, and (to a much lesser extent) EditorDavid agree with their politics they get to stay. If not, their account is banned or they go around their own system like with cdreimer where everything he posted started and stayed at -1 moderation until he stopped coming back.
  But if you actively harass people of the "wrong" political slant, well those same editors might just give away their unlimited mod points and ignore constant flagging of ToS breaches. The proof is in this thread. CaffeinatedBacon is getting moderated up while harassing, while adding nothing to the conversation, while nearly everything he has said has been flagged as harassment.
  Pathetic. Immoral. Unsustainable. This has cut slashdot's market value in half for the new owners and will do so again.
8. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Oh you are funny. And stupid.
  Go back up this very thread and see who started it all, I'll wait.....
  That's right. A baseless accusation from WindBourne. And then CaffeinatedBacon responding. You are as full of it as WindBourne. Assuming you aren't him.
9. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  One minute you say the US does more pollution than China, the next minute you agree China does twice as much pollution.
  So what are you arguing? No one knows. Apparently not even you.
  Maybe switch to doing a random Trump screed or something?
  Perhaps you are a broken AI chat-bot. Maybe a Chinese or Russian one.
10. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Did you forget to take some medication?
11. Re:Go fuck yourself Windy again by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  If you are all circle jerking in your echo chamber. Pointing out your lies and trying to get you to actually think for a change is definitely adding to the conversation.
  Some people clearly don't like it. But those people need to wake the fuck up and face reality.
  If not, then find some private safe space so you can continue lying to yourselves.
  PS: Have you been flagging everything as harassment with no justification? Cause that's not harassment is it...
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 18:17 · Score: 0

But coal isn't the reason idiot. You are still twice as bad, even with all that coal.
China’s Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising
To solve problems with science we can't ignore facts that refute moral judgement we want.
The worst part by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:20 · Score: 0

This may seem odd, but probably the worst part of all this is that all the head-in-the-sand, humans-could-not-possibly-have-caused-this, goddamned-fucking-fucktards are going to ask us, as they finally realize how fucked we truly are, why we neglected to warn them.
Well, okay, not actually the worst part, obviously, but the most irritating and maddening part, almost certainly. As the planet melts, burns, and floods, they might even suggest after-the-fact, that we should have bitch-slapped the dog shit out of them, if that is what it would have taken to get their damned stupid attention, and that argument will seem to have, I think, considerable merit.
Makes me wish we had never come down from the trees. In fact, the trees were probably a mistake, and none of us should have ever left the oceans. SMDH
Fear by DanielTanner · 2018-09-02 19:29 · Score: 1

We are defiantly in a pickle. And as long as we continue basing our judgements and "progressiveness" on fear then we will not go very far. It may seem an odd sort of approach but I think we would have a better chance of doing things if we actually did things that are proven to work. Right now most of the offerings that are being laid out, and done, are for profiteering and don't actually work. The Paris Accord is just another example of this backward way of doing things.
Not our problem by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 19:36 · Score: 0

This a 3rd world problem, not ours. Their food production will dwindle and their lands will be eaten by the ocean, but who cares? It's their fault that they're multiplying like rabbits. Take Bangladesh, for example. Its population is over 160 million, which is a totally insane figure. Their land just cannot feed so many people sustainably, and their capital is even now almost underwater. Nigeria, the "giant of Africa" is the same thing. They found oil and decided that it gives them a pass to multiply uncontrollably. What will they do when the oil depletes and/or becomes obsolete? Who will feed them? But have no fear, this global warming is just a way for the nature to correct the imbalances our species created. More CO2 emissions -> flood -> less land -> less food -> famine -> less people -> less CO2 emissions. Negative feedback has a stabilizing effect, as everyone knows. By the way, did I say that less people means less CO2 emissions? I cannot stress this enough.
1. Re:Not our problem by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  It becomes your problem when the rabbits start landing on your beaches. Take a look at Europe, it already started over there.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Not our problem by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's only a problem if you let the invasive species in. When it comes down to protecting your own, or protecting others, you're a fool for not protecting your own.
  Before someone runs off thinking this is cold hearted thinking, they should think again. Letting in groups of people who share nothing similar with you culturally and tend to cause undue tensions and crime is well, "cold hearted" to the people who are already living there peacefully under the norms that have been established over thousands of years.
  In essence, you have to be "cold hearted" to one group of people to be nice to the other. There's no middle ground here. Foreign invaders should be shot on sight, otherwise your borders are meaningless and you will be invaded whether you like the changes or not.
Re:Good! Man made GW is hogwash by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 20:07 · Score: 0

Then if we cover the Earth surface with white bed linens, the problem will be solved?
Let's do the Soviet solution by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:08 · Score: 1

Back when Chernobyl blew up, they only hat dosimeters that could measure up to 3.6 R/h. Which was fine.
All we have to do is develop thermometers that can only measure up to 2 degrees in change and we're set.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Let's do the Soviet solution by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Dosimeters in hats? Wow! You mean tin foil hats by any chance?
Re:Impossible! Only the USA can be missing its goa by Opportunist · 2018-09-02 20:27 · Score: 1

Jeesh, if you make the announcer at buzzword bingo the first person calls BINGO before you're halfway through your speech.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm still waiting by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 22:08 · Score: 0

for someone to tell me exactly what the correct temperature the world is supposed to always be, how that number is derived, how we get there, and more importantly, how we stay there.
All this wailing and gnashing of teeth because the world continues to heat up, as it has been doing since the end of the last ice age, and man, specifically the wealthy industrialized societies, is making it heat faster, but not one time has anyone said exactly what temperature is it supposed to be and why.
The BS that we're going to trigger a run away greenhouse is pure hyperbole as are the statements that the Earth will turn into a desert. The Earth has had higher temperatures in the past and life thrived.
If all the land locked ice melted it would wash away a few miles of coastline on the major continents and perhaps some islands all together but then all of Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic land would be opened up. So the net usable land mass available would actually increase.
So please, tell me which climate overlords have dictated the perfect temperature, what it is and how it was determined.
1. Re:I'm still waiting by SqueakyMouse · 2018-09-03 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  As far as mankind is concerned, the ideal temperature is anything in the range it has been over the last 10,000 years since we phased out the nomadic lifestyle and started living more in towns and cities. One reason why, is that we built them under the assumption that sea will not rise significantly, and if it does it will be expensive to deal with.
  Life did indeed thrive during the eocene epoch around 50 million years ago, when it was hotter and early primate ancestors were well equipped to deal with it. We have evolved since then however, to be more suited to cooler temperatures. Note that the human race evolved during an ice age, and that we are still in that same ice age. If all we care about is that some life survives somewhere, then global warming is not an issue. The reason lots of people do care is because of its impact on mankind, particularly future generations.
  Eventually the earth will turn into a desert regardless of whether we act or not. This is not hyperbole but a consequence of the sun getting continually hotter. This is expected to happen of the order of one billion years from now. Regardless of what we do, we can be sure the ice age will end eventually and we will have to deal with it. If it happens over millions of years then not only do we have time to plan and deal with it effectively but we have time to evolve into another species. If it happens over the next 100 years this is not the case, making it very much a plan B.
Not even 5Celsius by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 22:44 · Score: 0

We should be having 2-4 degrees Celsius by 2030-2040 and way more up to 2100. Because as we get warmer more hidden and once locked gases, start to be released in our atmosphere. Also is known that less ice, means more gases and less solar reflections, oceans are already getting more acid and with huge parts without life. The funny thing is that the people in power seem to be expecting a miracle. One thing is for sure, this will cap the human growth and make more wars, making everything harder for us humans.
Stage 5 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 22:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Psssst - there's another stage: The Democrats could've stopped this twenty years ago, why didn't they do nothing?
1. Re:Stage 5 by Opportunist · 2018-09-03 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think we were in phase 1 back then. Some maybe even in phase 2. But as I said, it doesn't matter, no matter what phase you're in, you needn't do anything.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Stage 5 by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  They did do nothing.
  Ahh now I get it.
Moving goal posts again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-02 23:13 · Score: 0

What was the immediate problem, back in 1988, which Man Made Global Warming was apparently supposed to affect and kill us all immediately with?
Melted Arctic.
Did the Arctic melt? No. It was supposed to melt 10 years ago.
This hoax conspiracy theory must die one day, its only been 30 years!
1. Re:Moving goal posts again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  I remember reading about the global cooling crisis that was supposed to happen in the 70's. Then not long after the script was flipped and "things are getting too hot! The Sky is literally falling!"
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

China emits twice the CO2 as the US. I'm not sure how that translates into the US being worse. Supposedly, the climate doesn't care about how much CO2 each person emits individually, it's the entire total that matters. And right now - that is China. Unless you want to create CO2 rations for everyone? How about wealth rations? Food rations? Time rations?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Good! Man made GW is hogwash by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 02:52 · Score: 1

Any 5-year-old child can notice that temperature has as much to do with ability to absorb heat as with the strength of the sun.
That same 5-year-old can comprehend that our climate forcing has led to more of that heat being absorbed because the ice is melting, and the ice is more reflective than the ocean. Like you, however, they might find the idea that human activity has been causing the changes that are melting the ice to be challenging. That's why we are supposed to listen to the scientists that know the most about this stuff, and not just imagine how we would like things to be.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 03:07 · Score: 0

... Gub'mnt is not-on-track to raise median nibber IQs to 75.
They are not on track but by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 03:16 · Score: 0

The reduction in CO2 is nor linear. It is exponential. It will be slow are the start but will quickly diminish.
interesting? did you misspell obvious? by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 03:22 · Score: 1

Of course you complete idiot. Asia has literally a couple billion more people. Americans obviously have a lot of AC already being a rich developed country. A lot of Asia is still too poor to be able to afford AC. As they get richer, they buy more AC !!
It's not like I haven't told you this over and over again. As people get richer their lifestyle changes and they become more like typical western lifestyles.
Please don't also be 'surprised' when they buy more cars. Or eat more meat, buy bigger houses, use more electricity, take more holidays, consume more crap.
Remind us all again though how it's OK for you to do those things, but not them.
1. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  As they get richer, they buy more AC !!
  1) not necessarily
  2) there are efficient ACs and inefficient ones ...
  Even in countries like Thailand you can build houses that don't need AC. Basically every house older than 70 - 100 years is build that way. Of course, that means "rural" style ... forget the big cities :D
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  1) It's already happening
  2) You are right. New efficient ones that Asians are buying will be better that most of the old ones other countries use. And that will help them stay under the electricity usage of 'those countries'. Still even the most efficient AC isn't going to be more efficient than 'being too poor to afford an AC'.
3. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the "poorness thing" is greatly overestimated.
  E.g. parts of India don't even have electricity. As soon as they have, they also will have AC. Because poor is relative.
  And then again: the need for AC, or the demand/want for AC is also greatly overestimated by americans.
  E.g. in Thailand, people you would consider poor, rather buy a car for $40,000 than an AC for $1000 and a bit electricity every month for $20.
  Of course, I have not been in other asian countries, yet. And not for more than 2 month anyway. So I have no clue how e.g. Bangkok over the course of a year is.
  Anyway, AC will always only be a small fraction of electricity consumption. So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
4. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway, AC will always only be a small fraction of electricity consumption.
  So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
  What makes you say that? 18% is a pretty significant amount. And thats in power hungry America.
  
  EIA estimates that 18% of annual household electricity use is for air conditioning.
  Just have a look here to see what the experts predict.
  
  So putting up that straw man makes no sense.
  It was an example of growing wealth causing a growing use of electricity (and consumption in general)
  It was also directly in resopnse to Windy's post about AC sales.
  How on earth is that a strawman?
5. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  The strawman is that AC is or will bd the biggest power consumer.
  However one of your other links showed that this is indeed the case in Singapore.
  Lets see how that evolves for China and India.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
6. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't have to be the biggest to make a meaningful difference.
  That would be the strawman.
  If America dropped 18% of their CO2, half of them would probably wet themselves in excitement.
  I think a certain someones arm would break off from patting himself on the back so hard.
  America could remove all AC and go back to developing countries standards in that area and save a lot of CO2. But of course they won't.
  I wouldn't expect them to. What I don't see as fair though, is complaining about developing countries starting to have AC like them and emitting the CO2 like they do. If it's ok for them, why not everyone else?
  Last bit isn't directly aimed at you.
  But Windy's troll army will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. (without actually explaining why they are more entitled)
7. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-04 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  The demand for AC can be greatly reduced if you change the architecture.
  Family houses in the US do not need to look like an north european one. They could be inspired by Persian or south Asian architecture, e.g. roofs that extend far enough to provide shadow. More trees would help, too.
  Modern office buildings, e.g. could have "core cooling", that means the concrete structures are cooled with water. Energy wise such systems are much cheaper.
  There are plenty of "modern" AC concepts that cut energy usage down to a tenth. New buildings should be forced to use them, or other way around: the typical "fridge like" ACs that hang outside of the houses, should be banned from sale.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
8. Re:interesting? did you misspell obvious? by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I agree with you. Hopefully they do all those things.
  Still it's hard to go below zero, which is what a hell of a lot of people currently use...
This is how we know nuclear is shit by drinkypoo · 2018-09-03 03:37 · Score: 1

Nuclear's proponents have to use lies and dirty tricks (like abuse of moderation) to oppose the truth.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re: Good! Man made GW is hogwash by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 04:25 · Score: 0

Oh My God! No one before you has ever realized the planetary climate is exactly like light and dark colored surfaces in summer!
Astounding! You are brilliant! Nobel material like Obama and Gore!
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 04:34 · Score: 1

Caffinated Bacon/Crimson Tsunami is simply a troll. s?he has no real interest in what is happening to the planet or care about how to solve. China continues to grow their emissions and Pork continues to defend it as those it is ok to continue stabbing a victim.
The individual is a very twisted person who thinks that by knocking one nation that has cut their emissions by 30% already, that it somehow justifies another nation growing their emissions by 500%. Just amazing the logic that trolls have.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Caffinated Bacon/Crimson Tsunami; QUIT LYING. by WindBourne · 2018-09-03 05:12 · Score: 1

Wrong. Porky, you continue to lie.
They do NOT need coal to escape it. That is what CHina is claiming and it is a lie. Wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal and nukes are plenty good. I will say that nat gas is even cheaper than coal since CHina is exporting coal with all the new coal plants that they are forcing on other nations.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsu by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 05:27 · Score: 0

China is bigger.
Re: Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsu by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-09-03 05:53 · Score: 1

No, it isn't. It is more populous, but it is just slightly smaller than the USA, which itself trails Canada and Russia.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re: Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson ts by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 06:20 · Score: 0

Lord allmighty christ, that's a pathetic rejoinder.
We don't need you either by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 07:03 · Score: 0

Iâ(TM)m (sic) paying engineers (real ones, not sad sack wannabe programmers) to design the appropriate barriers, drainage and sumps to eventually give me a perfect home in the ocean.
None of that will mean shit when you're overrun and killed for your resources. Live like an island, die like one.
Solution: plant trees by elcor · 2018-09-03 07:50 · Score: 1

India lost their rivers to deforestation South France is losing the Rhones to deforestation Solution is simple, stop deforesting, replant around rivers, this will cool off plenty.
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-03 09:34 · Score: 0

The individual is a very twisted person who thinks that by knocking one nation that has cut their emissions by 30% already
Which is close to pointless when you see that the citizens of that nation individually still produce more than most other citizens of other nations.
You simply don't accept the most simplest law of human beings:
Q) who has the difficult things to do?
A) who, who can!
Why the fuck do you demand stuff from China they are unable to do, but don't be an example and simply do it?
Because you are an imperialistic nation of assholes wrecking the planet and laughing about the rest of its inhabitants who suffer. That is why.
Oh sure, on /. are two or three exceptions ... and I guess you can even find inside of america some decent people ...

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And governing entities don't care by RogueWarrior65 · 2018-09-03 09:56 · Score: 1

Neither the UN nor the governments really care if the problem gets solved or not as long as they maintain or increase their power over people's lives.
mark my words - solution will be nuclear winter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 10:30 · Score: 0

we're not going to be interested until it's too late. good thing we have a drastic weapon. it may be with conventional means... but we're not going to solve this with subtlety. we're going to dick with it with active countermeasures.
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by judoguy · 2018-09-03 12:52 · Score: 1

China emits twice the CO2 as the US. I'm not sure how that translates into the US being worse. Supposedly, the climate doesn't care about how much CO2 each person emits individually, it's the entire total that matters. And right now - that is China. Unless you want to create CO2 rations for everyone? How about wealth rations? Food rations? Time rations?
Isn't that specifically the "progressive" holy grail? To have an authority of some sort dictate what people can and cannot have?
Climate change is less a problem to solved, than an opportunity to be taken advantage of to make progress towards a totalitarian State.

--
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Here comes the LynnwoodTroller by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 14:12 · Score: 1

So the solution is what I've told you numerous times. Split China into 4 countries North, South, East and West China. Done. Solved.
Now America is the biggest polluter at twice the next 4 countries (the 4 Chinas). How will you now solve your problem?
You had no solutions, just trolling?
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 14:20 · Score: 1

Don't you get a sore arm from patting yourself on the back so often?
Facts are facts, America per capita produces over twice the CO2 as China. The problem is clearly you.
How much higher must you have been in the past if even after decreasing 30% you are still twice China's levels?
How much lower must China have been if after growing 500% (probably another made up number but who is counting at this stage) they are still only up to 1/2 your levels?
You can't be remotely serious that countries should only be able to be like they were some arbitrary number of years ago and never develop.
You're just an apologist for your filthy ways. You think you must be somehow entitled to pollute the most because you got dirty first.
Ahh LynnwoodTroller is joining in by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 14:24 · Score: 0

So you have more land to absorb CO2. That just makes you worse.
It's people who make CO2, not square meters of dirt.
Go fuck yourself Windy by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 14:33 · Score: 1

and you, are lying.
Show where?
Go fuck yourself Windy by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 15:18 · Score: 1

Again, you run a red herring and lie.
Where is the lie?

America is 1/5 of the population of CHina.
Clear and obvious lie by you.
You clearly didn't read or understand my links. maybe basic logic was too hard for you?
The only reason America buys more EV cars is simply because they buy many many more cars in total.
As a percentage of new cars bought, China buys more electric cars that America. As shown in my post and link. Almost twice the level.
2017
2.1% of new cars in China were EV.
1.13% of new cars in America were EV
in 2016 they beat you 1.31% vs 0.9%
in 2015 they beat you 0.84% vs 0.68%
in 2014 they had less 0.23% vs 0.72%
China is higher and growing faster.
Exactly like I already said.
Someone could just as easily jump up and down screaming Americans per capita buy twice as many ICE cars as China. CO2 ! CO2 !
We wont stop global warming until ALL countries stop buying ICE cars Grrr *waves fist*
Remind me again why you are entitled to twice as many cars? Is it related to the reason you have and are entitled to twice the level of pollution?

And with ICE sales PER CAPITA and IN TOTAL, give me a BREAK. You nation China is the winner on that amongst ALL NATIONs.
That was your next lie. My link clearly showed per capita America buys over twice the number of cars.

Basically, your nation is getting worse. Hell, your gov allowed the manufacturing of CFCs even though you agreed to stop it. Now, you are dumping HUGE quantities in the air.
And your last lie, China's % is clearly growing ie getting better. Growing faster than yours even.
(lie #4 that hardly even counts compared to the others. China is not my nation.)
How the fuck CFC's are related to electric cars is something you may need to explain...
I'd better tell you that I think it's a discrace bla bla. Just to stop you coming up with lie #5 next time claiming I support it, like you claim I support coal.
Go fuck yourself Windy by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 15:36 · Score: 1

More baseless accusations.
Why didn't you at least attempt to discuss the points raised in the post you replied to? You just have to reply to everything I say and call me a liar without the slightest bit of proof.
And you have the nerve to say I'm harassing you?
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 16:01 · Score: 0

I'm not sure how that translates into the US being worse.
Easy, the U.S. is cutting off the rest of the world's free gravy train of our money, so U.S.-bashing has become fashionable. Perhaps they think it'll get us to reopen our wallets...
I'll try to channel my inner Hitler by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 16:20 · Score: 1

You can't be at all serious.
So allow me to respond in kind.
You are right, it's not like Chinese carry around a bag with 7.5 t of CO2 in it and Americans carry around a bag with 15 t of CO2. It all gets mixed together.
You want China to cut back to American levels. Fine, good target, saves the world 5 million kt of CO2.
Well one efficient way would be to kill off 1/2 their population.
Killing 700 million Chinese will save 5 million kt of CO2 from being emitted.
But wait, if the goal is to reduce CO2 by 5 million kt. Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just kill 330 million Americans instead?
Far more humane.
More Windy lies? by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 16:45 · Score: 1

What evidence do you have that China is 9.
Facts are facts Windy, China's % of renewable electricity is much much higher than America's.25% vs 14%. Per capita you might be growing faster. But your electricity use is also much much higher. So your electricity still makes more CO2 per person than China's.
Simple example of why what you claim is good is actually meaningless.
Country A installs 1 unit of solar electricity capacity per person.
Country B installs 3 units of solar electricity capacity per person.
Which is greener?
Which produces the most CO2?
Thats right, there is no way to tell without also knowing how much electricity the 2 countries use.
Country A uses 1 unit of electricity per person.
Country B uses 6 units of electricity per person.
Country A produces zero CO2
Country B produces 3 units worth of CO2
America is country B in this example...
Same for cars btw. Per person you may buy more electric cars, but you buy twice as many cars. As a percentage of cars you are worse than China.
The other cars are the problem, just like the other electricity is what causes the CO2.
(Tap out Windy, the logic just isn't with you.)
Go fuck yourself Windy by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 17:04 · Score: 1

Again random AC's are me.
Again you accuse me of lying with no evidence whatsoever.
When will you learn Windy?

You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time. You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
I often point out your lies and lies more lies more lies even more lies lies and lies When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up that is in no way believable, and lying.
2nd reply to address your 'points' by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-03 17:16 · Score: 1

America increased it's coal exports 60%. But that's OK isn't it...
America also exports a lot of gas.

International Energy Agency: while top exporters Qatar and Australia will remain formidable competitors, the U.S. could be the largest LNG exporter by 2025 if new projects achieve their final investment decision over the next two years.
Yes gas isn't as bad as coal, but it's no wind or solar.
I wonder who exports the most wind and solar...?
Anyone building hydro or nukes in other countries...?
More pointless trolling from Lynnwood troller. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-03 23:11 · Score: 0

More pointless trolling from Lynnwood troller.
More pointless trolling from Lynnwood troller. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 00:06 · Score: 0

More pointless trolling from the Lynnwood troller.
Governments are largely incompetent by sproketboy · 2018-09-04 00:44 · Score: 1

Governments are largely incompetent - leave this to markets. The issues are being worked on. Just get these idiot bureaucrats out of the way.
The capital must flow by WillAffleckUW · 2018-09-04 05:12 · Score: 1

I still my climate by renewables.
Renewables leave a green stain
The green stain is a warming.
It is by capital that I set renewable investment in motion.
Let the capital flow!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The only solution by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-04 11:27 · Score: 0

Is for you to give me, your money!!!
missed a link by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 13:13 · Score: 1

Missed a link before.

The people living in the hottest places on the planet are the least likely to have air conditioners
Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun by CaffeinatedBacon · 2018-09-04 14:22 · Score: 1

You "dropped your coal", but like I showed you hereyou still use more of it per person than the Chinese person you are complaining about.

Maybe a picture will help explain it for the slower people.
It's a bit out of date (2014) but shows Americans per person use 3x as much power.
30% of 3 is 0.9
69% of 1 is 0.69
You can probably figure out which one is bigger...
Despite your drop and their increase, you still use more.
We were just too incompatile by eneville · 2018-09-04 16:55 · Score: 1

Humans are not compatible with the planet. Self greed ranks higher than off spring preservation, which is crappy and I suppose we deserve to fail. Creating heat through bitcoin mining, stupid, but proves my point. Burning fossil fuels, not only exhausting supply but puts the burden on future generations to sort out just so that the current generation can make a quick profit.

--
Why UNIX?