Government can only be bought off if it's allowed to regulate the private industry. What is needed is more private involvement into everything and less government, what we need is to get innovation and invention back,
them not being able to get what they want for free.
as opposed to the upper class who DO get what they want for free. THAT's the problem : a very WIDE gap between the working poor(look up what that means) and the very rich.
wait for another generation or 2 and all our 100 thousands of different toxic-indestructible-in-biodegradable shit will be diluted so thoroughly in the food chain... anything thrown away will eventually end up on our plates.
we are responsible for a rise of CO2 concentrations, from about 250ppm in 18 century to about 388 ppm now. no one else did that. CO2 drives the greenhouse effect. (if it didn't, it would be colder on earth) so : AGW.
if you can destroy AGW in a paper, be my guest, the oil- and coal- industry can help you finance the research.
burning oil for electricity, transporting that electricity to a battery-power car, leads to more miles per gallon than burning the oil in a car. That's because the ICE is horribly inefficient, it gets at most 25% off the energy in the oil into kinetic energy. burning oil in a power plant gives you 40% or more energy from the oil converted into electricity, the losses in transmission, storing in a battery and taking it out of the battery again doesn't compensate for the loss the ICE makes.
plants absorb the normal release of CO2 by volcanoes and animals. what humans put in the air has lead to an increase of CO2by more than 50% since the industrial revolution.
attacking me personally, while not being able to refute my claims ? again here are the facts:
1/ CO2 drives the greenhouse effect (see youtube for an experiment, or do it yourself)
2/humans have been putting billions of tons into the atmosphere ABOVE the normal release of CO2 by volcanoes, animals,... (see the annual usage of coal and oil, you can calculate the amount of CO2 released)
give me a good reason or explanation how this could not lead to anthropomorphic climate change.
you lose sight of the 2 only facts involved: 1/ CO2 drives the greenhouse effect (see youtube for an experiment, or do it yourself) 2/humans have been putting billions of tons into the atmosphere ABOVE the normal release of CO2 by volcanoes, animals,... (see the annual usage of coal and oil, you can calculate the amount of CO2 released)
furthermore : the people making money are NOT the climatologists, but people from the oil- coal-... industry.
we have nearly 50% above 1750's concentration, and based on our current lifestyle, we will hit 1000 ppm. somewhere early next century. That's 2 doublings... which is BAD, not only for nature, but also for us.
riddle me this : a/ CO2 induces the greenhouse effect this is a fact that you can test for yourself. b/ we have gone from 250 ppm CO2 in the air to 388ppm in just a few years, and we are the source of the CO2. (burning wood, oil, coal...)
you know that means removing about a gazillion tons of CO2 out of the air, and planting billions of trees, right ? since the industrial revolution we have been doing the opposite... and knowing that CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, it should be a big surprise that adding more CO2 does not lead to more heating, and global cooling can only be achieved by lowering CO2 levels to pre-industrial times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Slashdot Mirror
Cutting costs is not about letting the reactor stand there - rot in the dust, it won't make you any profit.
yes it will. how about letting it run a bit longer than planned, replacing parts a little bit later than the specs say ?
capitalism FAIL.
Government can only be bought off if it's allowed to regulate the private industry. What is needed is more private involvement into everything and less government, what we need is to get innovation and invention back,
Self-regulation is a MYTH.
The IRS making US citizens pay their taxes ? the nerve !
1:CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, TEST THIS YOURSELF.
-->here is the wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
-->and here are the youtube links showing HOW to do an experiment showing CO2 induces the greenhouse effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
2:Humans emit a LOT of CO2 (oil or coal + O2 + ... = energy + CO2 + soot + ...
1+2 = default position is AGW, you need to provide proof of NOT-AGW
maybe not raped. but sweatshops = slavery.
them not being able to get what they want for free .
as opposed to the upper class who DO get what they want for free. THAT's the problem : a very WIDE gap between the working poor(look up what that means) and the very rich.
As such I would say it's failure in capitalism more than failure in nuclear power that the plant is late and over budget.
communistic nuclear power isn't better ...
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/renewable-power-booms-in-developing-world-as-it-tops-nuclear-in-the-us.ars
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?pagewanted=all
nuclear power provides only a tiny amount of electric energy compared to other types, so no nuclear power does not mean a permanent blackout. In fact, wind and solar alone can provide enough electricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid
It does not matter. nuclear power does not make economic sense. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
The solution to pollution is dilution.
wait for another generation or 2 and all our 100 thousands of different toxic-indestructible-in-biodegradable shit will be diluted so thoroughly in the food chain ... anything thrown away will eventually end up on our plates.
playing the game "normally" came to mean playing on Battle.net for most of the fanbase
On what basis do you make that assumption?
blizzard, permanent network connection needed ? That's a deal breaker.
If !A -> B
Therefore A -> !B
get your maths right.
from !A -> B you can only infer !B -> A
we are responsible for a rise of CO2 concentrations, from about 250ppm in 18 century to about 388 ppm now. no one else did that. CO2 drives the greenhouse effect. (if it didn't, it would be colder on earth) so : AGW.
if you can destroy AGW in a paper, be my guest, the oil- and coal- industry can help you finance the research.
putting the power plant into the car makes it a series-hybrid. (wheels are driven only by the electric engines)
burning oil for electricity, transporting that electricity to a battery-power car, leads to more miles per gallon than burning the oil in a car. That's because the ICE is horribly inefficient, it gets at most 25% off the energy in the oil into kinetic energy. burning oil in a power plant gives you 40% or more energy from the oil converted into electricity, the losses in transmission, storing in a battery and taking it out of the battery again doesn't compensate for the loss the ICE makes.
plants absorb the normal release of CO2 by volcanoes and animals. what humans put in the air has lead to an increase of CO2by more than 50% since the industrial revolution.
attacking me personally, while not being able to refute my claims ? again here are the facts:
1/ CO2 drives the greenhouse effect (see youtube for an experiment, or do it yourself)
2/humans have been putting billions of tons into the atmosphere ABOVE the normal release of CO2 by volcanoes, animals,... (see the annual usage of coal and oil, you can calculate the amount of CO2 released)
give me a good reason or explanation how this could not lead to anthropomorphic climate change.
you lose sight of the 2 only facts involved: 1/ CO2 drives the greenhouse effect (see youtube for an experiment, or do it yourself) 2/humans have been putting billions of tons into the atmosphere ABOVE the normal release of CO2 by volcanoes, animals,... (see the annual usage of coal and oil, you can calculate the amount of CO2 released)
furthermore : the people making money are NOT the climatologists, but people from the oil- coal- ... industry.
we have nearly 50% above 1750's concentration, and based on our current lifestyle, we will hit 1000 ppm. somewhere early next century. That's 2 doublings ... which is BAD, not only for nature, but also for us.
riddle me this : a/ CO2 induces the greenhouse effect this is a fact that you can test for yourself. b/ we have gone from 250 ppm CO2 in the air to 388ppm in just a few years, and we are the source of the CO2. (burning wood, oil, coal ...)
How is this NOT gonna warm the planet.
Man made attempts [...] induces global cooling
you know that means removing about a gazillion tons of CO2 out of the air, and planting billions of trees, right ? since the industrial revolution we have been doing the opposite ... and knowing that CO2 induces the greenhouse effect, it should be a big surprise that adding more CO2 does not lead to more heating, and global cooling can only be achieved by lowering CO2 levels to pre-industrial times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
That's because electric cars make no financial sense at this point in time and
95% of all the vehicles on the road don't make financial sense. what's the financial point of a porsche ? a VW jetta/golf can carry more ...