Saying that it is part of the carbon cycle as if it meant anything at all is not only false, but ridiculous. Even if the flooded plants and trees had survived enough to keep sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (which they did not), they wouldn't do it faster than before and they will certainly release far more while rotting under the water.
The Carbon cycle isn't a fail proof invulnerable system, it is a system that can and have been disturbed by excessive combustion (as in thermoelectrics and vehicles), induced decomposition from artificially flooding large areas (as in hydroelectrics) and excessive numbers of animal life (including cattle and humans) breathing.
The only way to do that is to completely remove the organic material before inundating the area. That requires a huge amount of money and energy (and consequently CO2 emissions from other sources of energy) to be accomplished even for a relatively small barrage. Doing it "right" isn't always possible or economically viable.
That is utterly and completely false. For instance, you could plant successions of bamboo irrigated with sewage water, it doesn't give a shit — in fact, it loves it. Then after curing (which gives ample opportunity for the death of any pathogens) you build things out of the bamboo that you would have ordinarily built out of steel, which does in fact reduce carbon release as well as sequestering environmental carbon.
THAT is your great solution? Sorry, my friend, but that wouldn't make a dent on the current discharge rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. Apparently you have absolutely no knowledge about the scale of the problem, and still insist in spewing stupidities here. All your solution are orders of magnitude short of what would be necessary to even mitigate the problem a little.
Nope, we do not fail. Not even close. It has been done for quite some time in France, which has 80% of all its energy coming from nuclear power plants and they manage it just fine. They actually export energy to Germany currently and have the cleanest air of all developed countries .
USA has around 25% of its power coming from nuclear power plants too, by the way, and it is doing just fine as well.
You are at best ignorant, and possibly a dirty liar.
You are the ignorant one, and completely. It is impossible to control or even significantly affect the CO2 emissions at the volume generated by Thermo and Hydroelectrics no matter what you do, and forests actually generate about as much CO2 as they sequester by the way. There is simply no way to control the damage CO2 emissions do except by not emitting it.
Sure just remove everything else in the surface of Japan and you may have enough solar potential to provide the power currently needed. On the other hand if you do so you won't really require the power anymore...
Basically everything else. That is why they do have 50 or so Nuclear Plants and will likely build more in the future, as will every single country in the world.
It is not economically viable to take the biomass and use it for anything, much less energy production. It will stay there underwater and rot, as it has happened with every single Hydroelectric dam made in History. Unlike in thermoelectrics, hydroelectric rotting rotting releases CH4 which is several times worse for green house effect than CO2. That said huge hydroelectrics are in general less pollutant than thermoelectrics per Watt. Smaller are usually not, not until it is biomass is exhausted. Both of them are very pollutant, though.
Tidal turbines produce too little power per area to be economically viable as a main source of energy in the same very way as eolic turbines and solar generators are not. They are all nice complements but the bulk of the energy has to come from somewhere and it will not be from these sources.
Although storing radioactive waste is expensive and requires a lot of planning and effort it is doable. Controlling CO2 emissions, on the other hand, is impossible. I don't know about you but between hard and impossible I personally prefer the former.
Hydroelectrics release a huge amount of CO2 and CH4 because of biomass decomposition in the flooded area. Because of that most hydroelectrics are more pollutant than the equivalent Oil thermoelectrics in the first half century or so of their operation (after which most of the biomass is already degraded), and certainly much much more than Nuclear plants, which do not produce CO2 emissions at all, and unlike CO2 emissions, radioactive waste is manageable and containable.
Additionally Hydrelectric potential is limited and most of it is already being used to its limit in countries that have rivers with both fall and volume to make it usable.
Eolic potential isn't sufficient to provide any significant percentage of the required energy in most countries.
Energy saving, which has brought Japan to this seemly comfortable position grants just a temporary relief. They will be hard pressed to turn the reactors again sooner or later. More likely sooner. Nuclear energy is not an option, either for Japan or any other country, it is an unavoidable path.
Yes, because the Chinese government wouldn't ever identify a fake design. You overestimate your country and underestimate your enemies too much.... It is much more likely that someone in management messed up and left classified information where it shouldn't be.
As there is no Chinese mafia, no crime, and nothing outside of the government's control. Please...
We are talking about a country whose population is 1.3 billion people. Total control is impossible no matter how bully you are.
Commercial embargos more often than not start wars, they don't prevent them. Sometimes the threat of receiving greater violence than you are capable of inflicting due to economical limitation does, though. Keeping your potential enemies in the stone age kind of does it too, but you can't really do it to everyone and forever.
You can`t always run from violence, and many times you can you have to pay the price of having things taken from you and people you care about harmed. And please, not antagonizing a person who is inflicting physical harm in you is certainly not a very good idea. As you are you would make a great slave, my friend. Learn to man up an stand for yourself.
Quite the opposite. Firing Charlie Sheen's regardless of what he said was a very bad mistake. Same would apply to Google in this case. Fortunately Google is a lot smarter than that, and than you...
Nope USA never had economical interest in Vietnam. From the start it was a political proxy war between the two power blocks in the cold war.
On the other hand, British domination over India had very strong economical motives. After WWII UK was devastated and trying to pick its pieces together. It couldn't force control over a country as big as India anymore. India become independent simply because UK couldn't afford trying to control it anymore. And after UK recovered it wasn't viable, conducive to UK political interests or even possible to try and enforce rule over India again.
He didn't free anything, my friend. UK gradually lost political and economic interest in India. That granted them independence, not any pacifist sweet talk. Had UK still interests in India it would only achieve independence through blood war, just like US.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you need to leave it to the last moment then your options will certainly be more limited.
I say it right back at you.
Saying that it is part of the carbon cycle as if it meant anything at all is not only false, but ridiculous. Even if the flooded plants and trees had survived enough to keep sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (which they did not), they wouldn't do it faster than before and they will certainly release far more while rotting under the water.
The Carbon cycle isn't a fail proof invulnerable system, it is a system that can and have been disturbed by excessive combustion (as in thermoelectrics and vehicles), induced decomposition from artificially flooding large areas (as in hydroelectrics) and excessive numbers of animal life (including cattle and humans) breathing.
The only way to do that is to completely remove the organic material before inundating the area. That requires a huge amount of money and energy (and consequently CO2 emissions from other sources of energy) to be accomplished even for a relatively small barrage. Doing it "right" isn't always possible or economically viable.
That is utterly and completely false. For instance, you could plant successions of bamboo irrigated with sewage water, it doesn't give a shit — in fact, it loves it. Then after curing (which gives ample opportunity for the death of any pathogens) you build things out of the bamboo that you would have ordinarily built out of steel, which does in fact reduce carbon release as well as sequestering environmental carbon.
THAT is your great solution? Sorry, my friend, but that wouldn't make a dent on the current discharge rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. Apparently you have absolutely no knowledge about the scale of the problem, and still insist in spewing stupidities here. All your solution are orders of magnitude short of what would be necessary to even mitigate the problem a little.
In theory, it is doable. In practice, we fail.
Nope, we do not fail. Not even close. It has been done for quite some time in France, which has 80% of all its energy coming from nuclear power plants and they manage it just fine. They actually export energy to Germany currently and have the cleanest air of all developed countries .
USA has around 25% of its power coming from nuclear power plants too, by the way, and it is doing just fine as well.
You are at best ignorant, and possibly a dirty liar.
You are the ignorant one, and completely. It is impossible to control or even significantly affect the CO2 emissions at the volume generated by Thermo and Hydroelectrics no matter what you do, and forests actually generate about as much CO2 as they sequester by the way. There is simply no way to control the damage CO2 emissions do except by not emitting it.
Sure just remove everything else in the surface of Japan and you may have enough solar potential to provide the power currently needed. On the other hand if you do so you won't really require the power anymore...
Basically everything else. That is why they do have 50 or so Nuclear Plants and will likely build more in the future, as will every single country in the world.
It is not economically viable to take the biomass and use it for anything, much less energy production. It will stay there underwater and rot, as it has happened with every single Hydroelectric dam made in History. Unlike in thermoelectrics, hydroelectric rotting rotting releases CH4 which is several times worse for green house effect than CO2. That said huge hydroelectrics are in general less pollutant than thermoelectrics per Watt. Smaller are usually not, not until it is biomass is exhausted. Both of them are very pollutant, though.
Tidal turbines produce too little power per area to be economically viable as a main source of energy in the same very way as eolic turbines and solar generators are not. They are all nice complements but the bulk of the energy has to come from somewhere and it will not be from these sources.
Neglectable next to the amounts produced in an Hydroelectric or Thermoelectric construction and operation.
Although storing radioactive waste is expensive and requires a lot of planning and effort it is doable. Controlling CO2 emissions, on the other hand, is impossible. I don't know about you but between hard and impossible I personally prefer the former.
Hydroelectrics release a huge amount of CO2 and CH4 because of biomass decomposition in the flooded area. Because of that most hydroelectrics are more pollutant than the equivalent Oil thermoelectrics in the first half century or so of their operation (after which most of the biomass is already degraded), and certainly much much more than Nuclear plants, which do not produce CO2 emissions at all, and unlike CO2 emissions, radioactive waste is manageable and containable.
Additionally Hydrelectric potential is limited and most of it is already being used to its limit in countries that have rivers with both fall and volume to make it usable.
Eolic potential isn't sufficient to provide any significant percentage of the required energy in most countries.
If it is expensive depends on the price of the alternatives and if you have alternatives. To Japan there are very few options left.
Energy saving, which has brought Japan to this seemly comfortable position grants just a temporary relief. They will be hard pressed to turn the reactors again sooner or later. More likely sooner. Nuclear energy is not an option, either for Japan or any other country, it is an unavoidable path.
Yes, because the Chinese government wouldn't ever identify a fake design. You overestimate your country and underestimate your enemies too much.... It is much more likely that someone in management messed up and left classified information where it shouldn't be.
As there is no Chinese mafia, no crime, and nothing outside of the government's control. Please... We are talking about a country whose population is 1.3 billion people. Total control is impossible no matter how bully you are.
Commercial embargos more often than not start wars, they don't prevent them. Sometimes the threat of receiving greater violence than you are capable of inflicting due to economical limitation does, though. Keeping your potential enemies in the stone age kind of does it too, but you can't really do it to everyone and forever.
You can`t always run from violence, and many times you can you have to pay the price of having things taken from you and people you care about harmed. And please, not antagonizing a person who is inflicting physical harm in you is certainly not a very good idea. As you are you would make a great slave, my friend. Learn to man up an stand for yourself.
Not really. Submission to aggression leads only to further abuse. Fighting back even if unsuccessfully is always better.
If that was sarcasm that was a very poor attempt at that.
Quite the opposite. Firing Charlie Sheen's regardless of what he said was a very bad mistake. Same would apply to Google in this case. Fortunately Google is a lot smarter than that, and than you...
Nope USA never had economical interest in Vietnam. From the start it was a political proxy war between the two power blocks in the cold war.
On the other hand, British domination over India had very strong economical motives. After WWII UK was devastated and trying to pick its pieces together. It couldn't force control over a country as big as India anymore. India become independent simply because UK couldn't afford trying to control it anymore. And after UK recovered it wasn't viable, conducive to UK political interests or even possible to try and enforce rule over India again.
He didn't free anything, my friend. UK gradually lost political and economic interest in India. That granted them independence, not any pacifist sweet talk. Had UK still interests in India it would only achieve independence through blood war, just like US.
Always. The only assured counter to violence is violence.
"Reasonable" is so far removed from your personal experience that you wouldn't likely recognize it even if it bit you in the ass, my friend.