Mutant baby birds dying agonizing deaths as their parents hover over then in the nest helplessly trying to feed then radioactive worms. http://www.motherjones.com/blu...
As a recent example, people around the Limerick plant don't know how serious a big security problem is because of post 9-11 secrecy. http://www.mainlinemedianews.c... Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
As I say, you are a denier. You even deny what comes straight from the horse's mouth, which is what makes your posts what comes from the other end of the horse,
"...except for meetings on security subjects that include sensitive information..." TRUST US! Sleeping guards, sweep it under the rug.... http://www.nrc.gov/security/fa...
RTFA: "A report (PDF) on attacks against government computers noted that there was a 35 percent increase between 2010 and 2013." http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/...
After 9-11 a lot of information became secret, making public efforts to understand nuclear safety difficult or impossible. TRUST US is the NRC motto. Now hackers have access while the public does not.
Usually, reducing carbon dioxide comes under climate change mitigation. So, air capture of carbon dioxide for sequestration would be a mitigation effort already covered by treaty just like planting forests. It would be a big engineering undertaking, yes, but the aim is mitigation. The geoengineering ideas have more to do with changing albedo while leaving the carbon dioxide high. So, pumping sulphates into the stratosphere or putting dust in an orbit between the Earth and the Sun come in as geoengineering. Now, ocean fertilization is aimed at removing carbon dioxide but is often called geoengineering rather than mitigation so it is not cut and dry.
You have no complaint
You are what your are and you ain't what you ain't
So listen up Buster, and listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
In light of reporting in the July-August issue on Harvard’s position on fossil fuel divestment, we wrote Messrs. Paul J. Finnegan and James F. Rothenberg [members of the Harvard Corporation, and Treasurer and past Treasurer, respectively], expressing the perspective summarized below.
Harvard currently holds substantial investments in fossil fuel. The past is no longer prologue for this asset class.
The scientific community—including Harvard’s distinguished climate-related faculty—assert the world must hold global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C above the preindustrial figure. Governments agree. And, yet, we have already gone half the distance to this ceiling, and are actually accelerating our rapid approach to it. We face an existential planetary threat.
By investing in fossil fuel companies that cling to the outdated business model of measuring success by discovery of new reserves, Harvard is encouraging (and expecting to profit from) the search for more fossil fuel—which will become unburnable if we stabilize global temperatures at levels necessary to sustain life as we know it. When the lid is put on, and carbon emissions are severely limited—as they must be—Harvard will be left holding stranded and devalued assets that can never be burned. (Proven reserves are three to four times what’s needed to transition to renewables by 2050.)
Across the country, hundreds of student organizations work to persuade their institutions’ endowments to divest. Sooner or later, as in the case of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa, divestment from fossil fuel companies will occur. Harvard should be among the first to do so. There are strong, independently sufficient arguments beyond the financial one of stranding to justify divestment. They include the moral (it is repugnant to profit from enterprises directly responsible for carbon emissions or to allow shareholder funds to be deployed in searching for more fossil fuel), the practical (a well-led institution should not wound itself by permitting endowment holdings to demoralize faculty and students, with adverse effects on quality of education, enrollment, and campus environment) and, in Harvard’s case, the unique opportunity (and corresponding duty) it has, as one of a handful of world leaders in education, to lead on this planetary issue.
We support these other arguments for divestment. However, we wanted to bring the financial argument, in particular, to Harvard’s attention. Over the past three years, equities in the coal industry declined by over 60 percent while the S&P 500 rose by some 47 percent. Coal, we submit, is the “canary in the oil well.” Disinvestment now, before this opinion becomes commonplace, is just sound, risk-averse investment judgment, fitting well within the duties of a fiduciary.
Bevis Longstreth, J.D. ’61
Retired partner, Debevoise & Plimpton; former member, Securities and Exchange Commission
Timothy E. Wirth ’61
Former U.S. Senator, president of the United Nations Foundation, and Harvard Overseer http://harvardmagazine.com/201...
Slashdot Mirror
As usual you deny the plain facts.
Nuclear power is an enemy of bird life. http://www.motherjones.com/blu... It is horrible for fish as well. http://www.riverkeeper.org/cam...
It turns out that storage may not be needed for renewable energy. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
Carbon fuel cells and carbon dioxide capture can replace coal and biomass plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... Methane fuel cells can replace gas plants. http://www.technologyreview.co... Nuclear has no options and must shut down.
Keeping birds away might help with this. http://birdcontrol.net/html/He...
Mutant baby birds dying agonizing deaths as their parents hover over then in the nest helplessly trying to feed then radioactive worms. http://www.motherjones.com/blu...
As a recent example, people around the Limerick plant don't know how serious a big security problem is because of post 9-11 secrecy. http://www.mainlinemedianews.c... Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
As I say, you are a denier. You even deny what comes straight from the horse's mouth, which is what makes your posts what comes from the other end of the horse,
You are obviously just exploiting a deep sea disaster for your own ends. How biased!
"except for meetings on security subjects that include sensitive information" http://www.nrc.gov/security/fa...
"...except for meetings on security subjects that include sensitive information..." TRUST US! Sleeping guards, sweep it under the rug.... http://www.nrc.gov/security/fa...
Iran, North Korea? A dirty bomb with no return address sits in Buchanan, NY.
So, show us a link? Don't be coy....
Obviously not a John Prine fan.
You'll have to dig deeper. I was asked about refereed publications. There were plenty. Some are engineering. You can find out from the link I gave.
Slashdot is powered by your submissions. If you don't want to contribute, maybe it is better to stop trolling all the time.
RTFA: "A report (PDF) on attacks against government computers noted that there was a 35 percent increase between 2010 and 2013." http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/...
Why not submit some fanboi stories? Maybe there is no good news about nuclear power....
After 9-11 a lot of information became secret, making public efforts to understand nuclear safety difficult or impossible. TRUST US is the NRC motto. Now hackers have access while the public does not.
Usually, reducing carbon dioxide comes under climate change mitigation. So, air capture of carbon dioxide for sequestration would be a mitigation effort already covered by treaty just like planting forests. It would be a big engineering undertaking, yes, but the aim is mitigation. The geoengineering ideas have more to do with changing albedo while leaving the carbon dioxide high. So, pumping sulphates into the stratosphere or putting dust in an orbit between the Earth and the Sun come in as geoengineering. Now, ocean fertilization is aimed at removing carbon dioxide but is often called geoengineering rather than mitigation so it is not cut and dry.
Are bouncing around "assets" really the sort of thing the endowment should be involved with?
You have no complaint
You are what your are and you ain't what you ain't
So listen up Buster, and listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
Perhaps you are unaware of the Pacific Intertie? It bring power from the North West to LA.
In light of reporting in the July-August issue on Harvard’s position on fossil fuel divestment, we wrote Messrs. Paul J. Finnegan and James F. Rothenberg [members of the Harvard Corporation, and Treasurer and past Treasurer, respectively], expressing the perspective summarized below.
Harvard currently holds substantial investments in fossil fuel. The past is no longer prologue for this asset class.
The scientific community—including Harvard’s distinguished climate-related faculty—assert the world must hold global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C above the preindustrial figure. Governments agree. And, yet, we have already gone half the distance to this ceiling, and are actually accelerating our rapid approach to it. We face an existential planetary threat.
By investing in fossil fuel companies that cling to the outdated business model of measuring success by discovery of new reserves, Harvard is encouraging (and expecting to profit from) the search for more fossil fuel—which will become unburnable if we stabilize global temperatures at levels necessary to sustain life as we know it. When the lid is put on, and carbon emissions are severely limited—as they must be—Harvard will be left holding stranded and devalued assets that can never be burned. (Proven reserves are three to four times what’s needed to transition to renewables by 2050.)
Across the country, hundreds of student organizations work to persuade their institutions’ endowments to divest. Sooner or later, as in the case of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa, divestment from fossil fuel companies will occur. Harvard should be among the first to do so. There are strong, independently sufficient arguments beyond the financial one of stranding to justify divestment. They include the moral (it is repugnant to profit from enterprises directly responsible for carbon emissions or to allow shareholder funds to be deployed in searching for more fossil fuel), the practical (a well-led institution should not wound itself by permitting endowment holdings to demoralize faculty and students, with adverse effects on quality of education, enrollment, and campus environment) and, in Harvard’s case, the unique opportunity (and corresponding duty) it has, as one of a handful of world leaders in education, to lead on this planetary issue.
We support these other arguments for divestment. However, we wanted to bring the financial argument, in particular, to Harvard’s attention. Over the past three years, equities in the coal industry declined by over 60 percent while the S&P 500 rose by some 47 percent. Coal, we submit, is the “canary in the oil well.” Disinvestment now, before this opinion becomes commonplace, is just sound, risk-averse investment judgment, fitting well within the duties of a fiduciary.
Bevis Longstreth, J.D. ’61
Retired partner, Debevoise & Plimpton; former member, Securities and Exchange Commission
Timothy E. Wirth ’61
Former U.S. Senator, president of the United Nations Foundation, and Harvard Overseer
http://harvardmagazine.com/201...
Perhaps you did not notice that it was an NREL study he was citing. Your problem is with the gvnmnt, not him. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/r...