It takes 15 Terawatts to power the world and each fission reactor apparently provides about 1 gigawatt, so to furnish 50% of the world's energy needs of today with nuclear, we'd need to build 1 billion nuclear fission reactors.
What?
We need 1.5 x 10^13 W One reactor can give us 10^9 W
So we need 1.5 x 10^4 reactors to meet all current engergy needs, thats 15,000 not a billion.
I love how soccer matches and Rugby games all end with everyone in the stands hugging over there in europe. There have never been any riots after or during games.
Well, in the case of Rugby that is what actualy happens. There is no violence associated with Rugby (off the pitch).
Contrary to inaccurate media reports, no taxpayer funds were loaned to Solar Trust of America. The company withdrew from the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program in August 2011 foregoing any government funding for the Blythe Solar Power Project.
Crap, at my high school, as I later found out (it wasn't common knowledge at the time), three of the four P.E. teachers had married students, and that a fifth, who had moved to middle school but who had been part of the faculty at the time had also married a student.
Carbon cycle is not the only thing that can change the amount of atmospheric CO2, you know:)
I agreed with you. There is another thing - burning all the available fossil fuel.
You seem to be imagining that there is some mechanism other than the existing carbon cycle for getting CO2 out of the atmosphere.
There doesn't seem to be. We know this because we know that the existing carbon cycle is taking about half of the CO2 that we're emitting. None of this is hard, it's just double entry bookeeping.
There are (hopefully) experiments on the effects of CFCs on O3 molecules, that made us come to the conclusion that CFC damages the ozone layer. That was simple in my opinion. AGW/ACC on the other hand is far from being simple. I for one am very sceptical about the pace and the amount of global warming happening because of humans.
Uh, the science of AGW is so simple that it has been known since the 19th century. It's way simpler than the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer.
so what about them? do you think they indicate global warming isn't occurring? where do they say that (with any scientific credibility)? you and i probably wouldn't have the expertise to interpret said data even if we had access to it all.
So, I don't have the expertise to read a curve, and say if it goes up or down? COME ON !!!
Well, no. You don't.
You're not reading a curve. You're reading a collection of superimposed curves. If you want to know what the warming effect due to CO2 increase is you've got to remove other effects.
You've got +3 informative for a post that includes no information.
Slashdot moderation - the herd mind in action.
but we don't know what'll happen to it -- will it just sit there in the atmosphere? Will the changing climate affect how CO2 is released or absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere? Questions, questions, questions abound.
Good catch, consider me corrected. It makes me wonder why they didn't just make a different connector so they didn't have to worry if it was DisplayPort or Thunderbolt though.
The original plan was that the Thunderbolt connector would be compatible with USB and the cable would be passive optical. You can buy machines with that implementation of Thunderbolt from Sony.
Apple decided to stick it to Sony at the last moment by replacing the optical cable by an active copper cable and the USB connector by a displayport connector.
I've seen the inside of an Apple Thunderbolt cable - UGH!
Slashdot Mirror
It takes 15 Terawatts to power the world and each fission reactor apparently provides about 1 gigawatt, so to furnish 50% of the world's energy needs of today with nuclear, we'd need to build 1 billion nuclear fission reactors.
What?
We need 1.5 x 10^13 W
One reactor can give us 10^9 W
So we need 1.5 x 10^4 reactors to meet all current engergy needs, thats 15,000 not a billion.
I love how soccer matches and Rugby games all end with everyone in the stands hugging over there in europe. There have never been any riots after or during games.
Well, in the case of Rugby that is what actualy happens. There is no violence associated with Rugby (off the pitch).
temporary marshall law
Temporary what?
Martial. As in Mars, god of war. Not Marshal or Marital.
Sorry, it was Solar Trust that got the 2.1 billion loan and the closed their doors. Wrong solar company.
RU Sure?
http://solartrustofamerica.com/
Contrary to inaccurate media reports, no taxpayer funds were loaned to Solar Trust of America. The company withdrew from the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program in August 2011 foregoing any government funding for the Blythe Solar Power Project.
Didn't Solyndra get 2 billion?
Well, not as far as I can tell, no.
Crap, at my high school, as I later found out (it wasn't common knowledge at the time), three of the four P.E. teachers had married students, and that a fifth, who had moved to middle school but who had been part of the faculty at the time had also married a student.
You went to the same school as Newt Gingrich?
The next billion use Series 40 (Symbian), not Maemo.
S40 is not Symbian. S40 is dumbphone, not smartphone.
I'm not claiming another mechanism
Oh, no? You didn't say:
Carbon cycle is not the only thing that can change the amount of atmospheric CO2, you know :)
Pah. you are a troll.
Come on, you understand. Tizen is a total succes. Tizen killed Meego. Meego killed Maemo.
Maemo was a mostly free Debian based Linux smartphone platform - it could not be allowed to live.
Outrage?
You said:
Carbon cycle is not the only thing that can change the amount of atmospheric CO2, you know :)
I agreed with you. There is another thing - burning all the available fossil fuel.
You seem to be imagining that there is some mechanism other than the existing carbon cycle for getting CO2 out of the atmosphere.
There doesn't seem to be. We know this because we know that the existing carbon cycle is taking about half of the CO2 that we're emitting. None of this is hard, it's just double entry bookeeping.
How convenient of you to pretend that the oceans are not there. Oh, and the soil, although that probably plays a lesser role.
What makes you think that the oceans and the soil are not part of the carbon cycle?
Ow.
Flaming error indead.
CO2 isn't colourless.
It's that colour you get when you remove infra-red. (infra-blue?)
I can't think of any polite way of dealing with your suggestion that odorless blankets are somehow strange.
I said it wasn't chaotic, not that it was stable.
So, why didn't these "credible" scientists conspire together to discredit him years ago?
Because that's not their job.
Climate scientists study climate. They don't "conspire together to discredit" people.
Projection. much?
Witness the latest insult by the UN that basically taxes the hell out of leading nations to support "green project" in third-world countries.
Oh, do tell us more.
UN taxes? Please review your drug intake.
No. Weather is chaotic. Climate isn't.
There are (hopefully) experiments on the effects of CFCs on O3 molecules, that made us come to the conclusion that CFC damages the ozone layer. That was simple in my opinion. AGW/ACC on the other hand is far from being simple. I for one am very sceptical about the pace and the amount of global warming happening because of humans.
Uh, the science of AGW is so simple that it has been known since the 19th century. It's way simpler than the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer.
Carbon cycle is not the only thing that can change the amount of atmospheric CO2, you know :)
Well, no.
There's also burning a shitload of fossil fuels.
Turning into C02 and Water.
Both GHG's.
Bummer.
Don't waste your time arguing why I'm wrong or stupid, just go download that data and draw it for yourself. I dare you.
If you're just drawing straight lines don't bother downloading the data, just head on over to wood for trees.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2012/trend
It's was already apparent that both sides have their own talking points, their own debunkers, their own pejoratives, even their own scientists.
Well, one side has scientists. The other has a weatherman.
so what about them? do you think they indicate global warming isn't occurring? where do they say that (with any scientific credibility)? you and i probably wouldn't have the expertise to interpret said data even if we had access to it all.
So, I don't have the expertise to read a curve, and say if it goes up or down? COME ON !!!
Well, no. You don't.
You're not reading a curve. You're reading a collection of superimposed curves. If you want to know what the warming effect due to CO2 increase is you've got to remove other effects.
Fantastic.
You've got +3 informative for a post that includes no information.
Slashdot moderation - the herd mind in action.
but we don't know what'll happen to it -- will it just sit there in the atmosphere? Will the changing climate affect how CO2 is released or absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere? Questions, questions, questions abound.
Maybe you want to go read about the carbon cycle.
Good catch, consider me corrected. It makes me wonder why they didn't just make a different connector so they didn't have to worry if it was DisplayPort or Thunderbolt though.
The original plan was that the Thunderbolt connector would be compatible with USB and the cable would be passive optical. You can buy machines with that implementation of Thunderbolt from Sony.
Apple decided to stick it to Sony at the last moment by replacing the optical cable by an active copper cable and the USB connector by a displayport connector.
I've seen the inside of an Apple Thunderbolt cable - UGH!