Soon they will pull harvesting in(like in dune2 and its successors, or warcraft1,2). I can see the range of possible weapons increase : chaingun, laserbeam, rocketlauncher, scythe, pick, hammer, spade,... My mousewheel will wear out FAST !
the article point out that current definitions are inadequate... so they try to come up with new ones. a language is not static, but dynamic, otherwise we would still speak assyrian or something similar...
So, you're serious about doing nothing but wait until we are 100% sure before adressing our CO2 output, while you do link to the IPCC, which gives us a very high probability of climate change due to CO2-emissions? this boggles my mind.
A series of detailed modelling studies by Dr. Gregor Czisch, which looked at the European wide adoption of renewable energy and interlinking power grids the European super grid using HVDC cables, indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present. This proposed large European power grid has been called a "super grid."
capacity by an order of magnitude
the backbone of the grid is just a very small percentage of the complete grid; the last mile is 90% the cost of the grid.
the science isn't exactly clear, but it might be bad so let's do something.
yes, it's not 100% clear, but the direction in which the climate evolves is for more than 95% sure. you need to look at this guy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Let's examine the situation until the science IS clear, and THEN do something that is actually effective.
we're doing something right now : putting more CO2 in the experiment until it breaks... doing nothing=stopping CO2 output.
i had it wrong, the 60m is not due to thermal expansion, the 60m is the antartic melting; it probably won't happen at a 2-3C increase; but we don't know when it will. Let's hope we have still some time to prevent it. That's really the problem : we don't know, but I think we can't gamble with our own home(Nature will rebound eventually, with or without humans).
Only in the context of anti-nuke sentiment replacing a nuclear plant with a traditional one. There was no suggestion that a single nuclear plant, with no backup or connection with the grid, would be an acceptable base-load supplier.
So you're saying that a single plant can't supply base load ? that's EXACTLY what the pro-nuclear lobby is saying about wind. if you're building x nukes for base load, then you'll also need to compare with the same capacity in wind-turbines.
Forgive me, but that seems absurdly optimistic. It would take a grid with several thousand miles of cable just to reach every country in the EU
most EU countries are already connected through HVDC. it only needs some extra cabling across seas. (most of which are already planned.) (the canal, the mediterrennean and the baltic sea)
the melting of greenland alone will lead to a rise of 7m(this will happen (gradually) when we hit an average increase of about 2-3C). due to thermal expansion of the ocean, we can have another 50-60m on top of that (but that takes a lot longer)
we know with certainty that CO2 concentration has changed drastically due to us more info here : http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm and CO2 has an effect on global temperature (without CO2 temp would be about 18-19 C lower than it would be now) you say somehow a larger concentration has not a greater effect ? explain.
I propose you give me an alternate theory that predicts WHY all those changes in nature happen. (rising temperatures, rising sea-levels, changing birdtrek-paterns, migrating insects...)
Any gamer who's pulled out a GFX card and replaced it with a better model will say the same.
wrong. did you ever try the wii out ? the controller is at least half what it makes interesting, and i'm waiting for "red steel 2" to come out, it will blow your mind...
Not in the post I originally replied to: "Nuclear can NOT supply base-load." This is a statement about an entire type of power generation, not a single plant.
the original poster talked about one single power plant.
True in the black-and-white sense, but those sources may require vastly different grids to make them good supplies of base power, and those different requirements may make one much more practical than the other.
No. it needs HVDC connections. a few thousand miles of them for europe. considering europe already has a million miles of regular high voltage connections....
Slashdot Mirror
Soon they will pull harvesting in(like in dune2 and its successors, or warcraft1,2). I can see the range of possible weapons increase : chaingun, laserbeam, rocketlauncher, scythe, pick, hammer, spade, ... My mousewheel will wear out FAST !
the article point out that current definitions are inadequate ... so they try to come up with new ones. a language is not static, but dynamic, otherwise we would still speak assyrian or something similar ...
that doesn't even dignify an answer.
So, you're serious about doing nothing but wait until we are 100% sure before adressing our CO2 output, while you do link to the IPCC, which gives us a very high probability of climate change due to CO2-emissions? this boggles my mind.
while wind doesn't because of fairly unpredictable and unchangeable weather
you're simply wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid
A series of detailed modelling studies by Dr. Gregor Czisch, which looked at the European wide adoption of renewable energy and interlinking power grids the European super grid using HVDC cables, indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present. This proposed large European power grid has been called a "super grid."
capacity by an order of magnitude
the backbone of the grid is just a very small percentage of the complete grid; the last mile is 90% the cost of the grid.
no one believes reasonably could happen
WTF???? NAS, AAAS doesn't ring a bell ?
the science isn't exactly clear, but it might be bad so let's do something.
yes, it's not 100% clear, but the direction in which the climate evolves is for more than 95% sure.
you need to look at this guy :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Let's examine the situation until the science IS clear, and THEN do something that is actually effective.
we're doing something right now : putting more CO2 in the experiment until it breaks ... doing nothing=stopping CO2 output.
i had it wrong, the 60m is not due to thermal expansion, the 60m is the antartic melting; it probably won't happen at a 2-3C increase; but we don't know when it will. Let's hope we have still some time to prevent it. That's really the problem : we don't know, but I think we can't gamble with our own home(Nature will rebound eventually, with or without humans).
that's the prediction for this century ... you really think it will stop at that ? Après nous le déluge?
Only in the context of anti-nuke sentiment replacing a nuclear plant with a traditional one. There was no suggestion that a single nuclear plant, with no backup or connection with the grid, would be an acceptable base-load supplier.
So you're saying that a single plant can't supply base load ? that's EXACTLY what the pro-nuclear lobby is saying about wind. if you're building x nukes for base load, then you'll also need to compare with the same capacity in wind-turbines.
Forgive me, but that seems absurdly optimistic. It would take a grid with several thousand miles of cable just to reach every country in the EU
most EU countries are already connected through HVDC. it only needs some extra cabling across seas. (most of which are already planned.) (the canal, the mediterrennean and the baltic sea)
the melting of greenland alone will lead to a rise of 7m(this will happen (gradually) when we hit an average increase of about 2-3C). due to thermal expansion of the ocean, we can have another 50-60m on top of that (but that takes a lot longer)
It's happened before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
cumulatively smaller effect on the global temperature.
yes. and a few degrees is enough to add 60m of ocean in the end. (melting ice + thermal expansion of water)
we know with certainty that CO2 concentration has changed drastically due to us more info here : http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
and CO2 has an effect on global temperature (without CO2 temp would be about 18-19 C lower than it would be now) you say somehow a larger concentration has not a greater effect ? explain.
There just isn't enough evidence to show that CO2 is having a significant effect on global temperature.
IDIOT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
get with the times, will you?
from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Reactions_to_the_incident
the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem"
I propose you give me an alternate theory that predicts WHY all those changes in nature happen. (rising temperatures, rising sea-levels, changing birdtrek-paterns, migrating insects ...)
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/falsifiability-falsification-and-conspiracy-theories/
Are you in the trade of delivering organs across Western Europe ?
ah. The telegraph. A beacon of science in a medieval world? And an article from Dr Mörner? you say ? this person perhaps ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_dowsing ?
indeed. GW leads to much colder winters in western Europe. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-88092634.html
for red steel 2, the motionplus is required ... the motionplus is indeed a big step forward.
that's 'wiife'.
Any gamer who's pulled out a GFX card and replaced it with a better model will say the same.
wrong. did you ever try the wii out ? the controller is at least half what it makes interesting, and i'm waiting for "red steel 2" to come out, it will blow your mind ...
Not in the post I originally replied to: "Nuclear can NOT supply base-load." This is a statement about an entire type of power generation, not a single plant.
the original poster talked about one single power plant.
True in the black-and-white sense, but those sources may require vastly different grids to make them good supplies of base power, and those different requirements may make one much more practical than the other.
No. it needs HVDC connections. a few thousand miles of them for europe. considering europe already has a million miles of regular high voltage connections ....