The article I presented is in reference to the corrupt management culture that is in charge of nuclear assets. No they did not cause the earthquake nor did they cause the tsunami, I didn't realize I had to explicitly say that for you to follow my argument. What they did do was falsify safety reports. The same safety reports that nuclear proponents like yourself toss around to demonstrate how safe and wonderful nuclear power is. These are the same safety reports that they use to lobby congress to back loans and bonds on nuclear equipment. My contention is your argument is based on faulty information, as has been clearly demonstrated by your own post. Consequently, the idea that an educated person would naturally take at face value the pronouncement of the nuclear industry and always support the growth of nuclear power is false.
Pardon me for stopping your stream of bullshit here
You realize you're arguing with TEPCo management and the Japanese government right? I din't rate this nuclear incident at a 5. The parties involved with mitigating this disaster did. Further, the rating of 6 was determined by governing bodies of the appropriate nations I indicated. Its not my bullshit, its the bullshit coming from the industry you're trying so hard to promote.
And there are several medical radiotherapy accidents which caused more casualties (deaths and injuries) than Fukushima. Then there are military accidents such as nuclear sub accidents which are a mite bit worse. In other words, you can call Fukushima the "second worst nuclear accident" only if you are completely ignorant of nuclear history.
Lets forget that Fukushima is an ongoing incident; 11 days ago 3 of the failed reactors were rated as a 5 on the INES scale by the Japanese government. If all radiation release halted at that moment it would have likely been the second worst nuclear disaster in history. And you keep going back to deaths. Nuclear incidents are not rated solely by number of casualties:
If it were only by casualties, then by your estimate Chernobyl wouldn't be on the list would it? And by your own scale of casualties Kyshtym had none.
Well, I guess I need to point out that Fukushima has a touch less than 6% of all nuclear reactors on Earth.
No, you don't need to point that out, it was clear in my post I was refering to all the reactors on earth, I said that explicitly. Earth includes japan. Its strange to me I have to point out such simple facts to an "educated" individual.
And saying Fukushima 1 and 2 have a failure rate of 50%? Do you realize how stupid an assertion that is? First, they both "failed". They are contaminated with salt water, boric acid, and radioactive products, and everyone is saying they won't ever run again even if they weren't.
Second, if you had looked at it at the beginning of March, then both reactors had "succeeded" for 35 to 40 years. It's not like falling off a 40 story building and saying as the ground rushes up that you've been "successful" so far. Each year of operation is productive and gives something to society. Instead it's like saying a car "failed" because it gets wrecked in 40 years, completely ignoring how much it was driven around.
Once again, the context of my statement was clear, these reactors failed in the sense that they moved catastrophically far outside of their operating range and as consequence their failure will greatly impact the world economy and the ecology of Japan. My argument, which you are so charmingly obtuse to, is that the inherent flaw of nuclear power is the culture that employs it. This argument is beautifully demonstrated by the fact that the most technologically advanced culture on the planet extended the operational license of a 40 year old plant, managed by a c
The power yield is 2GW avg(that's including night hours when the plant is using the thermal mass for power generation) / sq mile. The maintenance requirements are little more than cleaning some mirrors. You are absolutely right. The amount of power we can extract from sunlight dwarfs any other terrestrial power source we could possibly exploit.
Renewable power sources coupled with voluntary conservation are the only realistic solutions that don't involve gigadeaths. Everything else requires unsustainable growth models and a belief in technological solutions that borders on magical thinking. Nuclear was never the answer. Even if you feel that the fukushima disaster is some amazing-never-gonna-happen-again far outlier, this accident demonstrates that nuclear plants in general are soft military targets. Unless you think war will be abolished in the near term, the odds of a nuclear plant being targeted during military maneuvers is approaching 1.
I propose we develop distributed, locale specific, renewable energy sources that use whatever energy is most abundant in the area: tidal/wave +solar and wind on the coasts, wind in northern climes, geothermal and hydro where available. Concurrently we curtail excessive waste and voluntarily reduce consumption. The western world has done it before during war drives. Its not wishful thinking. The magnitude of the world's environmental problems need to be framed in terms that the general population can understand, and the message from our representatives and leaders needs to reflect the meaningful actions that the average person can take to help. The elite class needs to be reigned in and forced to accept the same privations the rest of us have to. Thats my proposal. What is yours?
This culture wasn't responsible for the magnitude 9 quake and accompanying tsunami waves. So the fundamental cause of the Fukushima accident was not due to corruption, bureaucracy, etc.
A scandal which ended with the Senior Officers all stepping down. So we have a company running this plant with a history of safety violations and document falsification, but I'm sure the current disaster was completely unforeseeable.
Centralization does seem to be a problem since there were six reactors in one location,
In this context I was referring to centralized power as being power plant based, not just highly localized on site. For instance, the nature and distribution of most renewable power resources necessitate distributed systems.
So what makes you think the accident calls this into question? I look at the accident and I see a business promptly working with government to successfully keep a serious accident from getting much worse.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The japanese government is clearly upset with TEPCo's handling of the situation. The released information is routinely questionable. The disaster response at this point is kabuki theatre at best. And this serious accident has gone from "nothing to see here folks" to second worst nuclear accident in history.
Not by deaths caused. Chernobyl and Kyshtym were worse. There's also medical radiation accidents such as Costa Rica, Zaragoza, and several in the US. I think your characterization of this accident as being the "second worst" nuclear accident is pretty weak given the lack of casualties.
Once again, just a few minutes of research would demonstrate that the INES classifies nuclear accidents not just by deaths but by radiation release and environmental effects. The Japanese government itself rated it at 5 (the same as 3-mile island) on March 18th. Since then radiation release has increased. France, Finland and the USA have rated them at 6 on the INES scale. And as of this writing, there has been essentially no improvement at the plant. Incidentally, each reactor is being rated separately at 5, I wonder how they aggregate.
We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent
From one magnitude 9 quake and one country. That's pretty damn good. Note that this is also the first core melt since Chernobyl, 25 years ago.
The 6% figure is in reference to all 436 commercial reactors on earth, and it is a conservative estimate. Some have calculated over 115 nuclear incidents since 1960. The failure rate between Fukushima 1 and 2 is 50%.
whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial.
If it prevents tragedy, then it becomes far more material than whatever argument you were trying to make.
No it becomes indicative. It means every time someone says "1 in a billion chance" they're talking out of their ass. If we are having routine safety failures with 1000 reactors? Or 2000? It points to massive scaling issues that are not being addressed. We've had significant nuclear accidents every 15 years with the relatively small amount of nuclear plants we have. If we were to ramp that number up, how can we possibly say future incidents won't increase?
The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste
The risk to the multi-billion dollar nuclear power industry and their 42billion dollar stimulus is pretty great considering the events in Japan. All of you posters are arrogantly speaking about nuclear power as if it is a closed issue for any 'educated' person. It is not. An hour of unbiased research demonstrates that the nuclear industry suffers from significant corruption within their corporate culture, as do all highly subsidized, centralized power generation industries. All of the tech nerds running around stroking themselves off about the beauty and wonder of nuclear engineering need to realize quickly that what is at issue is the ability of for profit corporations to implement safe nuclear reactor designs, not whether safe nuclear reactors can be designed. According to the relevant experts (TEPCO and the IAEA) this is rated as the second worst nuclear accident in history. We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent, whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial. The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste storage, waste transport, or waste disposal. A responsible industry would figure out its supply and maintenance infrastructure before implementation, not afterwards when they have to store 64,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.
Serious researcher= agrees with my preconceived notions about how nature behaves. Crackpot= Produces research that challenges those notions and must be wrong. I don't even know why humanity pursues science at this point. 250+ comments aptly demonstrate that slashdot commentators know exactly how the universe behaves at all levels and surprising or preliminary research is clear wooery of the basest and most brain-dead sort.
You're the one who seems to have trouble with comprehension. A google search doesn't reveal anything about the veracity of Michael Moore's claims. Just list a few of the glaring lies that you know of personally to illustrate what a worthless scumbag Michael Moore happens to be.
If your conclusion to the above thought experiment was "most likely" murder, than you are accepting conclusions based on faith in your ability to intuit causes. If you haven't vetted that ability through rigorous experimentation, than yes, you are operating under a faith based belief system. There is a large gulf between an internet skeptic and a scientist. An interesting recent illustration was posted on the makezine blog wrt to DDWFTTW (Dead Down Wind faster than the Wind) vehicles just today. Internet skeptic after skeptic railing about what an obvious hoax they are, how against the basic rules of physics they are, etc etc. But in the end, the proof was in both videos and mathematics. The point is this, science may not be faith based, but those who apply the results of science outside of the specific instances the scientific results are describing are basing that application on various levels of faith.
I may be going out on a limb here, but average class sizes have been creeping up for 30 years now. I read one report stating that in California high school class sizes average in the high 30's to low 40's. If we spent money for more teachers to reduce class size and offer more time for individual attention to each student we'd probably see a marked improvement in education standards across the board. I tutor SAT students on the side, and while I use a fixed curriculum, I see a marked difference in my score improvements for a small class (4-8 students) vs a large class (15-20students). Its obvious how the improvement comes about; in a smaller class I have much more time to address specific concerns of my students. So in light of my admittedly anecdotal evidence, I suggest that as a society we invest in training and deploying more teachers with the goal of reducing class size.
I liked both those games, but they weren't very difficult. You always had a straight line drawn to the next mission/quest objective and for the most part every quest is "go here and kill/talk to this guy, come back here and I'll give you something." It was like a highly graphical game of fetch. As far as battles, get close, go into VATS, shoot in face. Repeat ad naseum. I got through the entire Fallout 3 game using one tactic. I didn't even see a point in upgrading. I used a chinese assault rifle from practically hour 2 to 30 when I finished the game.
they made a military product that was similar to the solargorilla that could charge any battery the military uses. Impressive engineering goes into military products. Shame it couldn't go in to more helpful civilian products.
Depends on if you are eating in or eating out. If you are making food for yourself $200 can last over a month where I live (Orange County CA.) If you eat out expect to spend about $7 / meal at a cheap eatery. $14/day if you skip breakfast so $200 will last about a half a month.
Hey guess what, Rackspace has the RIGHT to freely associate with whoever they want! Rackspace is a business and is under NO obligation to be the fall guy for this idiot church. They can get hosted somewhere else, perhaps the same servers that host stormfront.org? Or better yet, all the internet tough guys on slashdot today can probably scrape together enough to put the church's site up on some ubuntu LAMP stack and host the site themselves? You think its vital that the book burning message gets out? Fine, host it yourself. Its not difficult from a technical standpoint and its not difficult from a monetary standpoint. But don't think your insipid bigotry is moral justification to tell Rackspace how to run its business.
What Rackspace is doing is legal. What you're doing is justifying hatespeech and using that justification to force a business to behave in ways it does not want to.
The dumb law is part of the patent process. If you are applying for a patent you are agreeing to follow certain rules. If you do not follow those rules you get fined as you should.
If he were to design a system that generated energy without CO2 production and used that energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere the total CO2 in the system would go down (the GP's desired outcome) while the output of energy at a distant coal plant would remain unchanged (no thermodynamic issues.)
What energy source could he use? Well, plants figured out they could use the sun to fix atmospheric carbon into solid forms (polysaccharides) and somehow thermodynamics never crapped out as a consequence. The GP never said the energy created by the coal plant would be used to remove CO2, you did. You are projecting your short-sighted myopia and being pointlessly critical of an effective idea.
If we accept that the currently most worrying pollutant coming from hydrocarbons is CO2 and we further accept that solar energy suffers from logistic considerations that prevent solar energy's wide-spread implementation (not my opinion but accepted for purposes of discussion) we can still use that solar energy to mitigate the negative effects of hydrocarbon based energy production (CO2 emissions) while leaving the benefits of hydrocarbons (portability and on demand power) intact.
Try to use that beautiful brain of yours to come up with solutions.
Watch the video you asshole. That's not "clearly" an RPG, it could just as easily have been an extended camera tripod or some other professional camera equipment. You're a twit.
So what? Increased demand for goods will just cause manufacturing to move back over to the states. And do you really think China is going to tell the largest market in the world to shove it? We are the single largest economy on earth. Selling here is EVERY nations dream. Why do you think geopolitics are so heavily skewed towards an American view? I have yet to hear a dire economic warning that had a tenth of a percent of the observational evidence behind it that the various models of the effects of global warming have. Why do all you supposedly rational climate skeptics cleave so strongly to "our economy will be in ruins and mankind will be forced into prehistoric conditions" without a shred of evidence to support that outcome? There is a mountain of evidence supporting the dire predictions coming from climate scientists. There ain't jack shit supporting right-wing economists.
Slashdot Mirror
The article I presented is in reference to the corrupt management culture that is in charge of nuclear assets. No they did not cause the earthquake nor did they cause the tsunami, I didn't realize I had to explicitly say that for you to follow my argument. What they did do was falsify safety reports. The same safety reports that nuclear proponents like yourself toss around to demonstrate how safe and wonderful nuclear power is. These are the same safety reports that they use to lobby congress to back loans and bonds on nuclear equipment. My contention is your argument is based on faulty information, as has been clearly demonstrated by your own post. Consequently, the idea that an educated person would naturally take at face value the pronouncement of the nuclear industry and always support the growth of nuclear power is false.
Pardon me for stopping your stream of bullshit here
You realize you're arguing with TEPCo management and the Japanese government right? I din't rate this nuclear incident at a 5. The parties involved with mitigating this disaster did. Further, the rating of 6 was determined by governing bodies of the appropriate nations I indicated. Its not my bullshit, its the bullshit coming from the industry you're trying so hard to promote.
And there are several medical radiotherapy accidents which caused more casualties (deaths and injuries) than Fukushima. Then there are military accidents such as nuclear sub accidents which are a mite bit worse. In other words, you can call Fukushima the "second worst nuclear accident" only if you are completely ignorant of nuclear history.
Lets forget that Fukushima is an ongoing incident; 11 days ago 3 of the failed reactors were rated as a 5 on the INES scale by the Japanese government. If all radiation release halted at that moment it would have likely been the second worst nuclear disaster in history. And you keep going back to deaths. Nuclear incidents are not rated solely by number of casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale
If it were only by casualties, then by your estimate Chernobyl wouldn't be on the list would it? And by your own scale of casualties Kyshtym had none.
Well, I guess I need to point out that Fukushima has a touch less than 6% of all nuclear reactors on Earth.
No, you don't need to point that out, it was clear in my post I was refering to all the reactors on earth, I said that explicitly. Earth includes japan. Its strange to me I have to point out such simple facts to an "educated" individual.
And saying Fukushima 1 and 2 have a failure rate of 50%? Do you realize how stupid an assertion that is? First, they both "failed". They are contaminated with salt water, boric acid, and radioactive products, and everyone is saying they won't ever run again even if they weren't.
Second, if you had looked at it at the beginning of March, then both reactors had "succeeded" for 35 to 40 years. It's not like falling off a 40 story building and saying as the ground rushes up that you've been "successful" so far. Each year of operation is productive and gives something to society. Instead it's like saying a car "failed" because it gets wrecked in 40 years, completely ignoring how much it was driven around.
Once again, the context of my statement was clear, these reactors failed in the sense that they moved catastrophically far outside of their operating range and as consequence their failure will greatly impact the world economy and the ecology of Japan. My argument, which you are so charmingly obtuse to, is that the inherent flaw of nuclear power is the culture that employs it. This argument is beautifully demonstrated by the fact that the most technologically advanced culture on the planet extended the operational license of a 40 year old plant, managed by a c
The power yield is 2GW avg(that's including night hours when the plant is using the thermal mass for power generation) / sq mile. The maintenance requirements are little more than cleaning some mirrors. You are absolutely right. The amount of power we can extract from sunlight dwarfs any other terrestrial power source we could possibly exploit.
Renewable power sources coupled with voluntary conservation are the only realistic solutions that don't involve gigadeaths. Everything else requires unsustainable growth models and a belief in technological solutions that borders on magical thinking. Nuclear was never the answer. Even if you feel that the fukushima disaster is some amazing-never-gonna-happen-again far outlier, this accident demonstrates that nuclear plants in general are soft military targets. Unless you think war will be abolished in the near term, the odds of a nuclear plant being targeted during military maneuvers is approaching 1.
I propose we develop distributed, locale specific, renewable energy sources that use whatever energy is most abundant in the area: tidal/wave +solar and wind on the coasts, wind in northern climes, geothermal and hydro where available. Concurrently we curtail excessive waste and voluntarily reduce consumption. The western world has done it before during war drives. Its not wishful thinking. The magnitude of the world's environmental problems need to be framed in terms that the general population can understand, and the message from our representatives and leaders needs to reflect the meaningful actions that the average person can take to help. The elite class needs to be reigned in and forced to accept the same privations the rest of us have to. Thats my proposal. What is yours?
This culture wasn't responsible for the magnitude 9 quake and accompanying tsunami waves. So the fundamental cause of the Fukushima accident was not due to corruption, bureaucracy, etc.
The corporate culture was responsible for this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/02/japan.tepco/index.html?related
A scandal which ended with the Senior Officers all stepping down. So we have a company running this plant with a history of safety violations and document falsification, but I'm sure the current disaster was completely unforeseeable.
Centralization does seem to be a problem since there were six reactors in one location,
In this context I was referring to centralized power as being power plant based, not just highly localized on site. For instance, the nature and distribution of most renewable power resources necessitate distributed systems.
So what makes you think the accident calls this into question? I look at the accident and I see a business promptly working with government to successfully keep a serious accident from getting much worse.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The japanese government is clearly upset with TEPCo's handling of the situation. The released information is routinely questionable. The disaster response at this point is kabuki theatre at best. And this serious accident has gone from "nothing to see here folks" to second worst nuclear accident in history.
Not by deaths caused. Chernobyl and Kyshtym were worse. There's also medical radiation accidents such as Costa Rica, Zaragoza, and several in the US. I think your characterization of this accident as being the "second worst" nuclear accident is pretty weak given the lack of casualties.
Once again, just a few minutes of research would demonstrate that the INES classifies nuclear accidents not just by deaths but by radiation release and environmental effects. The Japanese government itself rated it at 5 (the same as 3-mile island) on March 18th. Since then radiation release has increased. France, Finland and the USA have rated them at 6 on the INES scale. And as of this writing, there has been essentially no improvement at the plant. Incidentally, each reactor is being rated separately at 5, I wonder how they aggregate.
We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent
From one magnitude 9 quake and one country. That's pretty damn good. Note that this is also the first core melt since Chernobyl, 25 years ago.
The 6% figure is in reference to all 436 commercial reactors on earth, and it is a conservative estimate. Some have calculated over 115 nuclear incidents since 1960. The failure rate between Fukushima 1 and 2 is 50%.
whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial.
If it prevents tragedy, then it becomes far more material than whatever argument you were trying to make.
No it becomes indicative. It means every time someone says "1 in a billion chance" they're talking out of their ass. If we are having routine safety failures with 1000 reactors? Or 2000? It points to massive scaling issues that are not being addressed. We've had significant nuclear accidents every 15 years with the relatively small amount of nuclear plants we have. If we were to ramp that number up, how can we possibly say future incidents won't increase?
The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste
That's interesting, how many people were evacuated from their homes because of ponies?
per hour
The risk to the multi-billion dollar nuclear power industry and their 42billion dollar stimulus is pretty great considering the events in Japan. All of you posters are arrogantly speaking about nuclear power as if it is a closed issue for any 'educated' person. It is not. An hour of unbiased research demonstrates that the nuclear industry suffers from significant corruption within their corporate culture, as do all highly subsidized, centralized power generation industries. All of the tech nerds running around stroking themselves off about the beauty and wonder of nuclear engineering need to realize quickly that what is at issue is the ability of for profit corporations to implement safe nuclear reactor designs, not whether safe nuclear reactors can be designed. According to the relevant experts (TEPCO and the IAEA) this is rated as the second worst nuclear accident in history. We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent, whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial. The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste storage, waste transport, or waste disposal. A responsible industry would figure out its supply and maintenance infrastructure before implementation, not afterwards when they have to store 64,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.
Perhaps ironically, all of my PE coaches in highschool had kinesiology degrees. Two of them taught History outside of Phys. Ed. Funny
Serious researcher= agrees with my preconceived notions about how nature behaves. Crackpot= Produces research that challenges those notions and must be wrong. I don't even know why humanity pursues science at this point. 250+ comments aptly demonstrate that slashdot commentators know exactly how the universe behaves at all levels and surprising or preliminary research is clear wooery of the basest and most brain-dead sort.
You're the one who seems to have trouble with comprehension. A google search doesn't reveal anything about the veracity of Michael Moore's claims. Just list a few of the glaring lies that you know of personally to illustrate what a worthless scumbag Michael Moore happens to be.
Way to totally miss and hit mind-blowing.
If your conclusion to the above thought experiment was "most likely" murder, than you are accepting conclusions based on faith in your ability to intuit causes. If you haven't vetted that ability through rigorous experimentation, than yes, you are operating under a faith based belief system. There is a large gulf between an internet skeptic and a scientist. An interesting recent illustration was posted on the makezine blog wrt to DDWFTTW (Dead Down Wind faster than the Wind) vehicles just today. Internet skeptic after skeptic railing about what an obvious hoax they are, how against the basic rules of physics they are, etc etc. But in the end, the proof was in both videos and mathematics. The point is this, science may not be faith based, but those who apply the results of science outside of the specific instances the scientific results are describing are basing that application on various levels of faith.
I like lawyers. You folk help people at their most vulnerable time. I appreciate it, and fuck the rest of the drooling mouth-breathing hicks.
I may be going out on a limb here, but average class sizes have been creeping up for 30 years now. I read one report stating that in California high school class sizes average in the high 30's to low 40's. If we spent money for more teachers to reduce class size and offer more time for individual attention to each student we'd probably see a marked improvement in education standards across the board. I tutor SAT students on the side, and while I use a fixed curriculum, I see a marked difference in my score improvements for a small class (4-8 students) vs a large class (15-20students). Its obvious how the improvement comes about; in a smaller class I have much more time to address specific concerns of my students. So in light of my admittedly anecdotal evidence, I suggest that as a society we invest in training and deploying more teachers with the goal of reducing class size.
I'm just going to leave these search results here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=scholarship+programs+for+art&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/search?q=scholarship+programs+for+theatre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I liked both those games, but they weren't very difficult. You always had a straight line drawn to the next mission/quest objective and for the most part every quest is "go here and kill/talk to this guy, come back here and I'll give you something." It was like a highly graphical game of fetch. As far as battles, get close, go into VATS, shoot in face. Repeat ad naseum. I got through the entire Fallout 3 game using one tactic. I didn't even see a point in upgrading. I used a chinese assault rifle from practically hour 2 to 30 when I finished the game.
Good game, but still not all that tough.
My roommate was an engineer who worked for theses guys:
http://www.iristechnology.org/
they made a military product that was similar to the solargorilla that could charge any battery the military uses. Impressive engineering goes into military products. Shame it couldn't go in to more helpful civilian products.
Depends on if you are eating in or eating out. If you are making food for yourself $200 can last over a month where I live (Orange County CA.) If you eat out expect to spend about $7 / meal at a cheap eatery. $14/day if you skip breakfast so $200 will last about a half a month.
Hey guess what, Rackspace has the RIGHT to freely associate with whoever they want! Rackspace is a business and is under NO obligation to be the fall guy for this idiot church. They can get hosted somewhere else, perhaps the same servers that host stormfront.org? Or better yet, all the internet tough guys on slashdot today can probably scrape together enough to put the church's site up on some ubuntu LAMP stack and host the site themselves? You think its vital that the book burning message gets out? Fine, host it yourself. Its not difficult from a technical standpoint and its not difficult from a monetary standpoint. But don't think your insipid bigotry is moral justification to tell Rackspace how to run its business.
What Rackspace is doing is legal. What you're doing is justifying hatespeech and using that justification to force a business to behave in ways it does not want to.
The dumb law is part of the patent process. If you are applying for a patent you are agreeing to follow certain rules. If you do not follow those rules you get fined as you should.
There is no problem.
If he were to design a system that generated energy without CO2 production and used that energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere the total CO2 in the system would go down (the GP's desired outcome) while the output of energy at a distant coal plant would remain unchanged (no thermodynamic issues.)
What energy source could he use? Well, plants figured out they could use the sun to fix atmospheric carbon into solid forms (polysaccharides) and somehow thermodynamics never crapped out as a consequence. The GP never said the energy created by the coal plant would be used to remove CO2, you did. You are projecting your short-sighted myopia and being pointlessly critical of an effective idea.
If we accept that the currently most worrying pollutant coming from hydrocarbons is CO2 and we further accept that solar energy suffers from logistic considerations that prevent solar energy's wide-spread implementation (not my opinion but accepted for purposes of discussion) we can still use that solar energy to mitigate the negative effects of hydrocarbon based energy production (CO2 emissions) while leaving the benefits of hydrocarbons (portability and on demand power) intact.
Try to use that beautiful brain of yours to come up with solutions.
Watch the video you asshole. That's not "clearly" an RPG, it could just as easily have been an extended camera tripod or some other professional camera equipment. You're a twit.
The H means hydrogen ATOM smart-ass.
So would you be willing to say that free markets work in theory? Sounds a lot like communism to me.
So what? Increased demand for goods will just cause manufacturing to move back over to the states. And do you really think China is going to tell the largest market in the world to shove it? We are the single largest economy on earth. Selling here is EVERY nations dream. Why do you think geopolitics are so heavily skewed towards an American view? I have yet to hear a dire economic warning that had a tenth of a percent of the observational evidence behind it that the various models of the effects of global warming have. Why do all you supposedly rational climate skeptics cleave so strongly to "our economy will be in ruins and mankind will be forced into prehistoric conditions" without a shred of evidence to support that outcome? There is a mountain of evidence supporting the dire predictions coming from climate scientists. There ain't jack shit supporting right-wing economists.