If they do it that way, sure - Frank Miller distilled the essence out of panamax supertanker loads of crap - and ended up with something decent. I like my comics, but I never really got into the DC or Marvel settings. They may be too American for this European here, dunno.
I fear that in the next decades we will hit deep, deep shit. I am at an age where I still have the option, but at the moment, I think that putting children into this world would not do them a favour.
Given the usual reasoning as to why scientist do anything around here lately, they probably do it for the funding. Also, to establish a communist world government. Of course, taking your tax money is part of it, but that is a given. There might be some other conspiracies involved, but I am not enlightened enough to see through those. I am sure, though, that someone will open my eyes soon...
Yep. Citing xkcd indeed introduces massive amounts of bullshit into the discussion. Basement dwelling dorks like Munroe don't seem to get that the Drake equation is not for actually calculating something, but a summation of identified parameters needed for the emergence of life. You gotta define the framework before you can work on the actual details. But hey, fapping off to your own perceived wit is so much easier, and that seems to be all Munroe does lately. He used to be good - 3 years ago or something. These days, he just got his head so far up is ass that he can lick is own tonsils from down below.
If you just take the flooding into account, true for the first scenario. You can mitigate that. However, a more serious problem with sea level rise would be increasing salinity of the water table, which can reach quite a bit inland. Brackish water tables can cost us way more usable land than plain flooding.
Solar PV is intensely useful to locally supply air conditioning. AC is a huge part of electricity demand, and it is needed most under conditions where PV is at its optimum. Of course that is only a partial solution - but lots of partial solutions make up the whole. But, as you said, I do not believe that we can develop the political will for that.
To be honest, I used to be one of the staunchest "Curb CO2 emissions NOW!"-proponents. Taking a realistic look at the world lead me to the belief that the best we can do is put all efforts into mitigation of the effects. We will burn the rest of the economical extractable oil and we will burn the rest of the accessible coal and we will burn the rest of the economical extractable gas. I can't see the global political will to change that develop in any timeframe that would actually allow commitment to lesser warming. I don't really belief that we can reach any scenario below about 600-800 ppm CO2 equivalent. And that might very well be the tipping point for permafrost methane release and critical ocean acidification.
To elaborate on the ideal scenario: Base load is provided by solar- and geothermal and distributed over a HVDC grid. Peaking is handled locally, with whatever works locally. Pumped storage hydro in the mountains, wind on the shore, biomass in the country, solar PV wherever air-conditioning causes lots of peak load when the sun shines. Smart appliances optimize the load pattern. That would be my scenario.
Coal or nuclear? Neither. For baseline needs that can't be fulfilled until we get a European HVDC grid and put up solarthermal around the Mediterranean, they way to go is gas.
You group yourself. You haven't made a single argument. You are butthurt about Al Gore, you are scared of the greens because they are about "taking your money", you blame the failings of nuclear power on those who oppose it, you blanket every opposition with the ad hominem of "hysteria" and "fear". You have not made a single argument at all. And then you dare to get righteous? Please - bring forth any argument that is actually based in physical reality. Until then, yes, you are a minion praying at the nuclear altar. You might not consider yourself part of any particular group, but yours are the talking points of a vocal group here that drones on and on in every discussion regarding nuclear power. You actually might not realize that you are just a puppet of some weird groupthink I cannot fathom at all. If you want me to meet you with any rebuttal, please, go ahead, bring forth any rational argument.
Of course, the hippies did it. Got any real argument or shall we end this debate here, because, to be honest, for me it would be more productive to talk to a piece of rock. They seem to be intellectually more flexible that the faction of nuclear apologists you belong to and who repeat their same old tired "arguments" since ages. Your Al Gore quip in the other subthread pretty much showed what you are and to whom you belong.
You can dance around with your fingers in your ears and shout "FEAR! HYSTERIA!" as much as you want when someone makes a decision that you do not like. It doesn't change reality. We'll be happily running on mostly renewables when your last sacred nuclear plants blows up in your face.
You might want to consider that we are doing this due to our logical reasoning skills. Your tsunami in germany-quip at least proves that yours are severely underdeveloped. Take the latest security reevaluation for example - for decades we got told that every containment would withstand an airliner crash. Turns out, most are not even able to resist a small plane. Yet another lie in an endless string of lies, downplays, bribery. It's perfectly reasonable to put this crap where it belongs.
You mean the coal ash that is so incredibly toxic that it gets used as building material all over the place in a country with one of the highest environmental standards in the world? That ash?
It probably will be as soon as the CDU/FPD think it left the public awareness far enough so that they can shove some more money up the asses of their corporate cronies. Where's the Red Army Faction when you really need them?
Because there never was any study. The ultimate source for this bullshit is a NEWSLETTER by some pretty random guy with no scientific background to speak of. The fact that by EPA numbers, the radioactivity of coal ash is in the same order of magnitude as that of soil or K-based fertilizer doesn't matter to the fanboys when they feel the need to spout some bullshit. The fact alone that this gets repeated in every single discussion regarding nuclear energy tells me all I need to know about to pro-nuclear crowd here. Uninformed, condescending and lying basement dwellers without a hint of a clue. At least they parade it in front of themselves for the whole world to see.
Not remotely accurate. The greens have been on a constant upward trend before Fukushima even came up. The moderate left has been betrayed and fucked over by the social democrats, which is paying dearly for it now. The disappointed wander off to the Greens for years now. Well, given your general opinions, I can only encourage you to seek for that exit strategy. It might make both sides happier.
You might consider that we do it because of our track record for engineering. Besides, the imports from France are marginal now with the majority of German reactors down for maintenance and due to a moratorium. Until 2020, we'll have that capacity easily replaced by renewables and move on into decent tech while France still has its waste problem tied to its feet. As a final note - Godwining this is beyond retarded.
Slashdot Mirror
If they do it that way, sure - Frank Miller distilled the essence out of panamax supertanker loads of crap - and ended up with something decent. I like my comics, but I never really got into the DC or Marvel settings. They may be too American for this European here, dunno.
I fear that in the next decades we will hit deep, deep shit. I am at an age where I still have the option, but at the moment, I think that putting children into this world would not do them a favour.
Given the usual reasoning as to why scientist do anything around here lately, they probably do it for the funding. Also, to establish a communist world government. Of course, taking your tax money is part of it, but that is a given. There might be some other conspiracies involved, but I am not enlightened enough to see through those. I am sure, though, that someone will open my eyes soon...
Fascinating, yes, but also depressing. All this vastness for nothing? It should be teeming with life - everything else seems like so much of a waste.
Yep. Citing xkcd indeed introduces massive amounts of bullshit into the discussion. Basement dwelling dorks like Munroe don't seem to get that the Drake equation is not for actually calculating something, but a summation of identified parameters needed for the emergence of life. You gotta define the framework before you can work on the actual details. But hey, fapping off to your own perceived wit is so much easier, and that seems to be all Munroe does lately. He used to be good - 3 years ago or something. These days, he just got his head so far up is ass that he can lick is own tonsils from down below.
And we are not far from that. Fischer-Tropsch will become economical at about 150$ per barrel, iirc. We will see coal conversion within the decade.
If you just take the flooding into account, true for the first scenario. You can mitigate that. However, a more serious problem with sea level rise would be increasing salinity of the water table, which can reach quite a bit inland. Brackish water tables can cost us way more usable land than plain flooding.
Solar PV is intensely useful to locally supply air conditioning. AC is a huge part of electricity demand, and it is needed most under conditions where PV is at its optimum. Of course that is only a partial solution - but lots of partial solutions make up the whole. But, as you said, I do not believe that we can develop the political will for that.
To be honest, I used to be one of the staunchest "Curb CO2 emissions NOW!"-proponents. Taking a realistic look at the world lead me to the belief that the best we can do is put all efforts into mitigation of the effects. We will burn the rest of the economical extractable oil and we will burn the rest of the accessible coal and we will burn the rest of the economical extractable gas. I can't see the global political will to change that develop in any timeframe that would actually allow commitment to lesser warming. I don't really belief that we can reach any scenario below about 600-800 ppm CO2 equivalent. And that might very well be the tipping point for permafrost methane release and critical ocean acidification.
To elaborate on the ideal scenario: Base load is provided by solar- and geothermal and distributed over a HVDC grid. Peaking is handled locally, with whatever works locally. Pumped storage hydro in the mountains, wind on the shore, biomass in the country, solar PV wherever air-conditioning causes lots of peak load when the sun shines. Smart appliances optimize the load pattern. That would be my scenario.
Coal or nuclear? Neither. For baseline needs that can't be fulfilled until we get a European HVDC grid and put up solarthermal around the Mediterranean, they way to go is gas.
You group yourself. You haven't made a single argument. You are butthurt about Al Gore, you are scared of the greens because they are about "taking your money", you blame the failings of nuclear power on those who oppose it, you blanket every opposition with the ad hominem of "hysteria" and "fear". You have not made a single argument at all. And then you dare to get righteous? Please - bring forth any argument that is actually based in physical reality. Until then, yes, you are a minion praying at the nuclear altar. You might not consider yourself part of any particular group, but yours are the talking points of a vocal group here that drones on and on in every discussion regarding nuclear power. You actually might not realize that you are just a puppet of some weird groupthink I cannot fathom at all. If you want me to meet you with any rebuttal, please, go ahead, bring forth any rational argument.
Ahh, here we go, took you long enough. Go, go, bury brigade. When you can't handle the truth, mod it troll. Well done, getting a bonus for this?
Of course, the hippies did it. Got any real argument or shall we end this debate here, because, to be honest, for me it would be more productive to talk to a piece of rock. They seem to be intellectually more flexible that the faction of nuclear apologists you belong to and who repeat their same old tired "arguments" since ages. Your Al Gore quip in the other subthread pretty much showed what you are and to whom you belong.
You got any argument except being still butthurt by Gore's Nobel? No? Thought so, that about sums up the usual argument.
You can dance around with your fingers in your ears and shout "FEAR! HYSTERIA!" as much as you want when someone makes a decision that you do not like. It doesn't change reality. We'll be happily running on mostly renewables when your last sacred nuclear plants blows up in your face.
You might want to consider that we are doing this due to our logical reasoning skills. Your tsunami in germany-quip at least proves that yours are severely underdeveloped. Take the latest security reevaluation for example - for decades we got told that every containment would withstand an airliner crash. Turns out, most are not even able to resist a small plane. Yet another lie in an endless string of lies, downplays, bribery. It's perfectly reasonable to put this crap where it belongs.
You mean the coal ash that is so incredibly toxic that it gets used as building material all over the place in a country with one of the highest environmental standards in the world? That ash?
It probably will be as soon as the CDU/FPD think it left the public awareness far enough so that they can shove some more money up the asses of their corporate cronies. Where's the Red Army Faction when you really need them?
Obviously the steady growth of renewables in Germany will stop right now. But please, stay in the nuclear stone age while we move on.
Because there never was any study. The ultimate source for this bullshit is a NEWSLETTER by some pretty random guy with no scientific background to speak of. The fact that by EPA numbers, the radioactivity of coal ash is in the same order of magnitude as that of soil or K-based fertilizer doesn't matter to the fanboys when they feel the need to spout some bullshit. The fact alone that this gets repeated in every single discussion regarding nuclear energy tells me all I need to know about to pro-nuclear crowd here. Uninformed, condescending and lying basement dwellers without a hint of a clue. At least they parade it in front of themselves for the whole world to see.
Careful with that strawmen. Don't hurt yourself setting em to flames.
Not remotely accurate. The greens have been on a constant upward trend before Fukushima even came up. The moderate left has been betrayed and fucked over by the social democrats, which is paying dearly for it now. The disappointed wander off to the Greens for years now. Well, given your general opinions, I can only encourage you to seek for that exit strategy. It might make both sides happier.
You might consider that we do it because of our track record for engineering. Besides, the imports from France are marginal now with the majority of German reactors down for maintenance and due to a moratorium. Until 2020, we'll have that capacity easily replaced by renewables and move on into decent tech while France still has its waste problem tied to its feet. As a final note - Godwining this is beyond retarded.
Translation: I didn't effect me, so what do I care. Nice way of pissing on the victims graves.