1) loan guarantees are not subsidies. They are loans. They have to be repaid.
2) federal research into making cleaner nuclear energy is minimal - less than 150 million.year. There are TRILLIONS in green subsidies (and they aren't loans). Besides, it is only because the regulations on nuclear are so tight that the govt has even taken over all research. If the private sector was encouraged, the govt could stop research altogether.
There are only two US oil companies. They control less than 10% of the global oil market. They are the only private oil companies in the world. All the rest of the oil companies on the planet - and all the ones mentioned in this report - are state-owned, essentially socialist, enterprises. This isn't the "corruption of Big Oil", this is the corruption of crony-capitalist, government interference in the market.
Sure, sure.....no one is in favor of air pollution. And to be fair, we've made huge strides in the last 30 years. Anyone else here remember what L.A. used to look like? But, let's get this clear: CO2 is not a pollutant. It's the plants' biosphere.
Sorry, but it's not happening. That's the problem. If any of the predictions Al Gore had made had come true, I'd be with you. But all I see is a relatively stable climate, and a lot of crazy people screaming about massaged numbers...despite there not being any warming in the last 20 years. And before you start screaming that there is warming, I suggest you start looking at the RAW satellite data, not the massaged and adjusted NASA/NOAA releases. If the same instrument, over the same period of time, shows no warming - then that is a consistent result, and cannot be ignored. ALL of the satellites agree that for the last 17 years, there is now warming. Nada. Zero. And during that time, human-caused CO2 almost doubled. So your hypothesis that CO2 affects temperature is simply wrong.
but the 96% isn't in equilibrium. That's kind of the point. It's not a digital system. There are wild fluctuations every year. there have been times when CO2 was several times what it is now. When that 96% can fluctuate as much as the entire human carbon footprint over time, the system is a lot more stable than you'd hope.
...and just because you think you can imagine this "hair trigger tipping point", doesn't mean the climate is that sensitive to CO2. In fact, all the actual IPCC reports have had to continually downgrade this sensitivity. Even if I bought the idea that the entire climate was hanging like a sword of damocles for hundreds of thousands of years until man came along - there is no reason to believe that the climate system cannot accommodate several times the CO2 it is now; as it has many times in the past.
now, if only the earth's atmosphere was a funnel. We know so little about the carbon cycle. The oceans, for example, absorb and burp enormous amounts of CO2 every year - equivalent to those extra few percent coming down "the funnel" - and we have zero idea how much or how fast or by what process. Once climate science answers those questions instead of just running around with their hair on fire, I'll start taking it seriously.
If you believe in cleaner energy, then nuclear is the only energy that is carbon neutral with the output to rival gas and coal. Despite almost 50 years of fearmongering by the environmental Left, China and France have developed very advanced reactors that are meltdown-proof and produce zero waste. The only reason it is as expensive as it is, is because of the enormous initial outlay in capital required and an overly-complex regulatory review. As for waste disposal...maybe the Democrats shouldn't have made it a priority to shut down Yucca mountain after billions spent on it. Jus' sayin'.
Not true at all. Nuclear power does not get subsidies. Name them, please. They take the same standard business deductions they all do. Green energy, however, gets beyond-lavish subsidies. Nuclear energy actually costs more than it should because of the enormous outlay of capital and regulatory red tape that has to be waded through.
That's great to hear! Because I know every time the FBI offers immunity for my tech guy to testify, and has over 150 career officers working my case...it's usually a a bad sign...good thing you know the truth. Keep up the good work!
This site is biased? Because you felt the need to come and defend her for some reason?
The FBI would have charged anyone else long ago - especially a Republican. The reason it took so long, which you seem to forget, is that Hillary literally spent years fighting the release of any of her emails, the state dept trying to cover for her, and people like you who refuse to see the obvious.
Everyone here on Slashdot knows the reason one sets up a private email server and routes all your official mail through it, is to avoid oversight. Everything else - especially anything she says about the matter - is just a distraction.
I - like many people - just want better energy. When Green energy is actually better energy, give us a call. Until then, these constant participation awards, massaged data and overly-optimistic expectations aren't helping anyone. When you actually find Better Energy, you will be amazed at how fast and cheaply it will be optimized and spread around the planet by the capitalist system. It won't take decades and suck up TRILLIONS in subsidies doing it.
And, please: 50 years? There are so many other viable sources of energy that can be developed over that time. In fact, there are already better technologies than windmills...did you know that someone built a kite flying robot that cables the kite to a flywheel that creates energy? Not only is it airborne 24/7, stuck in the jetsream, generating power 24hrs...they are cheap to build and they can fit far more generating capacity in a much smaller footprint. Something like 1,000 kites can be controlled from a single square acre facility. But we're not going to see that anytime soon...because the current green dogma does not allow for it. They wants WINDMILLS, and that's all they're going talk about. So your "progress" is really just an obsession - that is delaying *actual* progress.
Solar and wind do not *make money*. There is not one solar or wind project that has broke even or delivered over 50% of it's projected output. Tesla does not make money selling cars; they lose almost 7k on every car they build...but they make tons of loot selling the carbon offset credits they create in the process. See how that works? The only money being made is from artificial, highly subsidized transactions in government-created markets. That's not success; that's delusion.
The entire US power grid is just under 1000gw. 6.5gw of renewables is a rounding error.
All these fancy new solar and wind projects have gas turbines on the premises to pick up the slack during off-hours. Their output is being included in the total output of the plant. So "renewable" isn't exactly "renewable", either.
60% of oil isn't even used for fuel. It used in derivatives - plastic, asphalt, etc. Even if renewables were as amazing in real life as they are in all of your heads, we will still need oil for some time to come. Sorry to break it to ya.
More fantasy green energy. The average gas turbine plant produces *at least* 600 megawatts, and it does it around the clock, for 1/10th the cost. I also wonder how many of you will check back in a few years and see how the plant is doing...because the estimates at production are always optimisitic - there isn't a major solar plant in the world that has hit 50% of it's projected output.
I don't agree with Hansen on much of anything, really, except for this: if you really want to de-carbonize the energy sector, it *has* to be nuclear. There are a number of "safe" designs at the moment (Thorium/breeder/etc), the energy output is the only green source that rivals carbon energy in terms of footprint and fuel, and the only reason the construction costs are so high is because of the oppressive regulatory structure. Fix that, and the costs will probably go below carbon energy.
This is the #1 problem with organic food that no one talks about: e coli. Almost all of the e coli outbreaks are from organic food...that's what happens when you use sht for fertilizer - and that's exactly why we switched to chemicals in the first place.
No, nobody is asking that...they're only advocating policies that will lead to it.
As soon as there are great benefits to this "new energy", people will switch to it. You'll be amazed at how fast it will happen, and how little regulations it will require. People want *better* energy; they don't care what color it is.
Yeah, no more wars for oil...but if you think that humans won't find something else to fight over, say, litihum for all our new batteries - you're hopelessly naive.
I think you may misunderstand. I'm not trying to gather the sunlight, or even convert it to electricity. I'm basically making a tinted window for the sun. Simply reducing the amount of sunlight passing through the window is not that complicated; there's a variety of ways.
the adjustments did not "reduce the amount of warming". Woods Hole was caught having manipulated the datasets to move urban heat centers out into the countryside. that's the trouble with publishing your raw data these days along with your results...people may try to duplicate them. Doh! (There was a time when that used to be called science.)
1) Build a satellite the size of a truck tire, with the center of the tire being a clear glass window, connected to a remote control tinting device.
2) Orbit the satellite far enough out from our orbit that all of our sunlight comes through the window...putting it between Earth and the sun.
3) use the remote to adjust the tint and adjust the amount of energy hitting the earth to mitigate any possible warming.
PROS:
1) It's cheap, uses available technology and expertise.
2) It's reversable - if it turns out the wizard of oz climate monger cultists are wrong, we can always take the remote control away and beat them about their heads with it.
CONS:
1) Al Gore won't get rich
2) Socialism will need another lame excuse to take over our society.
Slashdot Mirror
1) loan guarantees are not subsidies. They are loans. They have to be repaid. 2) federal research into making cleaner nuclear energy is minimal - less than 150 million.year. There are TRILLIONS in green subsidies (and they aren't loans). Besides, it is only because the regulations on nuclear are so tight that the govt has even taken over all research. If the private sector was encouraged, the govt could stop research altogether.
There are only two US oil companies. They control less than 10% of the global oil market. They are the only private oil companies in the world. All the rest of the oil companies on the planet - and all the ones mentioned in this report - are state-owned, essentially socialist, enterprises. This isn't the "corruption of Big Oil", this is the corruption of crony-capitalist, government interference in the market.
Sure, sure.....no one is in favor of air pollution. And to be fair, we've made huge strides in the last 30 years. Anyone else here remember what L.A. used to look like? But, let's get this clear: CO2 is not a pollutant. It's the plants' biosphere.
Sorry, but it's not happening. That's the problem. If any of the predictions Al Gore had made had come true, I'd be with you. But all I see is a relatively stable climate, and a lot of crazy people screaming about massaged numbers...despite there not being any warming in the last 20 years. And before you start screaming that there is warming, I suggest you start looking at the RAW satellite data, not the massaged and adjusted NASA/NOAA releases. If the same instrument, over the same period of time, shows no warming - then that is a consistent result, and cannot be ignored. ALL of the satellites agree that for the last 17 years, there is now warming. Nada. Zero. And during that time, human-caused CO2 almost doubled. So your hypothesis that CO2 affects temperature is simply wrong.
but the 96% isn't in equilibrium. That's kind of the point. It's not a digital system. There are wild fluctuations every year. there have been times when CO2 was several times what it is now. When that 96% can fluctuate as much as the entire human carbon footprint over time, the system is a lot more stable than you'd hope.
...and just because you think you can imagine this "hair trigger tipping point", doesn't mean the climate is that sensitive to CO2. In fact, all the actual IPCC reports have had to continually downgrade this sensitivity. Even if I bought the idea that the entire climate was hanging like a sword of damocles for hundreds of thousands of years until man came along - there is no reason to believe that the climate system cannot accommodate several times the CO2 it is now; as it has many times in the past.
now, if only the earth's atmosphere was a funnel. We know so little about the carbon cycle. The oceans, for example, absorb and burp enormous amounts of CO2 every year - equivalent to those extra few percent coming down "the funnel" - and we have zero idea how much or how fast or by what process. Once climate science answers those questions instead of just running around with their hair on fire, I'll start taking it seriously.
If you believe in cleaner energy, then nuclear is the only energy that is carbon neutral with the output to rival gas and coal. Despite almost 50 years of fearmongering by the environmental Left, China and France have developed very advanced reactors that are meltdown-proof and produce zero waste. The only reason it is as expensive as it is, is because of the enormous initial outlay in capital required and an overly-complex regulatory review. As for waste disposal...maybe the Democrats shouldn't have made it a priority to shut down Yucca mountain after billions spent on it. Jus' sayin'.
Not true at all. Nuclear power does not get subsidies. Name them, please. They take the same standard business deductions they all do. Green energy, however, gets beyond-lavish subsidies. Nuclear energy actually costs more than it should because of the enormous outlay of capital and regulatory red tape that has to be waded through.
Only 4% of global CO2 is attributable to humans. 96% of it is naturally occurring, and we couldn't do anything about it if we tried.
Yeah, well, if you hadn't heard....Snowden just linked climatic change to the CIA. I'm betting his evidence is more persuasive.
That's great to hear! Because I know every time the FBI offers immunity for my tech guy to testify, and has over 150 career officers working my case...it's usually a a bad sign...good thing you know the truth. Keep up the good work!
This site is biased? Because you felt the need to come and defend her for some reason? The FBI would have charged anyone else long ago - especially a Republican. The reason it took so long, which you seem to forget, is that Hillary literally spent years fighting the release of any of her emails, the state dept trying to cover for her, and people like you who refuse to see the obvious. Everyone here on Slashdot knows the reason one sets up a private email server and routes all your official mail through it, is to avoid oversight. Everything else - especially anything she says about the matter - is just a distraction.
I - like many people - just want better energy. When Green energy is actually better energy, give us a call. Until then, these constant participation awards, massaged data and overly-optimistic expectations aren't helping anyone. When you actually find Better Energy, you will be amazed at how fast and cheaply it will be optimized and spread around the planet by the capitalist system. It won't take decades and suck up TRILLIONS in subsidies doing it. And, please: 50 years? There are so many other viable sources of energy that can be developed over that time. In fact, there are already better technologies than windmills...did you know that someone built a kite flying robot that cables the kite to a flywheel that creates energy? Not only is it airborne 24/7, stuck in the jetsream, generating power 24hrs...they are cheap to build and they can fit far more generating capacity in a much smaller footprint. Something like 1,000 kites can be controlled from a single square acre facility. But we're not going to see that anytime soon...because the current green dogma does not allow for it. They wants WINDMILLS, and that's all they're going talk about. So your "progress" is really just an obsession - that is delaying *actual* progress. Solar and wind do not *make money*. There is not one solar or wind project that has broke even or delivered over 50% of it's projected output. Tesla does not make money selling cars; they lose almost 7k on every car they build...but they make tons of loot selling the carbon offset credits they create in the process. See how that works? The only money being made is from artificial, highly subsidized transactions in government-created markets. That's not success; that's delusion.
The entire US power grid is just under 1000gw. 6.5gw of renewables is a rounding error. All these fancy new solar and wind projects have gas turbines on the premises to pick up the slack during off-hours. Their output is being included in the total output of the plant. So "renewable" isn't exactly "renewable", either. 60% of oil isn't even used for fuel. It used in derivatives - plastic, asphalt, etc. Even if renewables were as amazing in real life as they are in all of your heads, we will still need oil for some time to come. Sorry to break it to ya.
This is because, as we all know, the secret to the best computer science education is evenly distributed racial and genital characteristics.
More fantasy green energy. The average gas turbine plant produces *at least* 600 megawatts, and it does it around the clock, for 1/10th the cost. I also wonder how many of you will check back in a few years and see how the plant is doing...because the estimates at production are always optimisitic - there isn't a major solar plant in the world that has hit 50% of it's projected output.
I don't agree with Hansen on much of anything, really, except for this: if you really want to de-carbonize the energy sector, it *has* to be nuclear. There are a number of "safe" designs at the moment (Thorium/breeder/etc), the energy output is the only green source that rivals carbon energy in terms of footprint and fuel, and the only reason the construction costs are so high is because of the oppressive regulatory structure. Fix that, and the costs will probably go below carbon energy.
This is the #1 problem with organic food that no one talks about: e coli. Almost all of the e coli outbreaks are from organic food...that's what happens when you use sht for fertilizer - and that's exactly why we switched to chemicals in the first place.
No, nobody is asking that...they're only advocating policies that will lead to it. As soon as there are great benefits to this "new energy", people will switch to it. You'll be amazed at how fast it will happen, and how little regulations it will require. People want *better* energy; they don't care what color it is. Yeah, no more wars for oil...but if you think that humans won't find something else to fight over, say, litihum for all our new batteries - you're hopelessly naive.
subsidies are not "successes". The very definition of a subsidy is to fund something that cannot fund itself.
I think you may misunderstand. I'm not trying to gather the sunlight, or even convert it to electricity. I'm basically making a tinted window for the sun. Simply reducing the amount of sunlight passing through the window is not that complicated; there's a variety of ways.
the adjustments did not "reduce the amount of warming". Woods Hole was caught having manipulated the datasets to move urban heat centers out into the countryside. that's the trouble with publishing your raw data these days along with your results...people may try to duplicate them. Doh! (There was a time when that used to be called science.)
1) Build a satellite the size of a truck tire, with the center of the tire being a clear glass window, connected to a remote control tinting device. 2) Orbit the satellite far enough out from our orbit that all of our sunlight comes through the window...putting it between Earth and the sun. 3) use the remote to adjust the tint and adjust the amount of energy hitting the earth to mitigate any possible warming. PROS: 1) It's cheap, uses available technology and expertise. 2) It's reversable - if it turns out the wizard of oz climate monger cultists are wrong, we can always take the remote control away and beat them about their heads with it. CONS: 1) Al Gore won't get rich 2) Socialism will need another lame excuse to take over our society.
yeah, but...the climate models are not reliable. Like, not at all. Not one of them has predicted current or past climate with any accuracy.