There is no claim of "97%..." in this post, which simply says "The problem is that only laymen have a wide variety of views, while scientist are mostly share the same view.". So, if you find your "97%" claim in there somewhere, feel free to show me.
I think a bigger concern is simply the human engineering aspect of sitting in a cockpit looking at screens for long flights. It seems like it would accelerate fatigue. Windows provide some sense of openness and relaxation. I wonder which the pilots would prefer.
No, that was not the claim. The claim was simply that "scientists mostly share the same view". And when discussed in context with the article of this thread, the point is that the black and white departmentalization doesn't makes sense. In your case, you are departmentalizing the 97% as all being completely in line with each other. In reality, there is a scale, and within that 97% there are varying degrees of certainty on any of the key aspects as well as interpretation of the data. And, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.
I am pro-air. I want real solutions that can be applied globally to keep our air as clean as possible. So far, no power source has come close to nuclear in generation of clean air energy. Hydro is great but there are limited places to add it.
Just because one economically powerful country can blow wads of money chasing 100% renewables doesn't make it the solution. Reality is that multiple power sources are needed. Frankly, the gas industry loves the solar folks who bash nuclear, because they know solar can't be "it". Wind will fair a bit better, but has similar issues.
I wish you guys the best when you need to replace all those solarpanels, starting about 10 years from now. As you are going, you won't have the nuclear tax to help pay for it.
No errors. First, we were clearly talking about subsidies, as that was the topic of the article, which you seem to completely overlook. 100B Euro in subsidies on solar. If you didn't know that, don't blame me.
Cite a single credible source on this "boron poisoning" issue wrt commercial nuclear power generation. Or, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... and maybe you'll realize how stupid you just made yourself look.
As I said, new nuclear plant can load follow, its really a simple thing to achieve.
You should learn a bit about solar cell production and semiconductor production in general. It uses some nasty chemicals.
You're apparently asking for both sides of the debate to be given equal time
I see you are good at making assumptions about what other people mean with no solid basis. If you think there are only two takes on GWT, or that it must be a 100% agree and 100% disagree scenario, then you can just add yourself to the list of unproductive people to discuss it with.
With said 100B you mention we could perhaps build 5 new nuclear plants,
>
So, you don't understand the nature of subsidies. They only cover part of the cost. A lot more was spent on solar as well, the 100B was just the subsidies.
You also hint at some ignorance when asking about neutron/boron poisoning. Are you just bringing up random things you read in some anti-nuke lobby article?
Nuclear plants can load follow, they don't need to just be baseload. Most old plants simply were not designed for load follow, but the new designs are quite capable. Gas is still the fastest response load follow generation.
Did you ever wonder, worry, or even think about the chemical waste from solar panel production? Or is that a fair trade off in your book?
Waste is an issue, nobody denies. The options are known. The obstacles are more political than technical, but some countries at least are willing to move forward. For fuel, the toughest one, there is geological storage and/or reprocessing. All the waste generated in the world for over 50 years can fit in one relatively small site. Long term monitoring and management plans are already developed.
You can hold out your hopes for the holy grail of only solar and wind, but you'll do so at the expense of making global progress on CO2 reduction.
Also: how do you know how much we spend for solar and wind
It is well publicized. In fact, there was a recent posting here on slashdot which confirmed the 100B Euro figure for solar alone, but that was as of 2013, so actual spending is even more. Sounds like I know more about what your country is spending than you do.
The best spots for new nuclear is right next to the existing. You have a point, 20 sites might be a stretch, but 10 would be quite easy for starters. You are building new coal plants, btw.
Frankly, I don't care what Germany does. I care what my country does, and I care what the world does. If the goal is the reduce CO2, then you'd better consider nuclear with, even with it's waste issue. If the goal is to just act like you are doing something and have nice big solar panels and windmills to show, but still have to build coal plants to back them up, then that's just fine. If your goal is simple to not have nuclear, well, "less power to ya!".
Your constant reference to the experimental THTR and other reactors shows your lack of understanding of the nuclear market, where light water reactors are the workhorse, proven technology. Typical effort to deflect. No numbers to support your "way too expensive" claim?
. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
Germany has spent over 100 billion euro on solar subsidies. For that, they have an annual solar electrical production approximately equivalent to no more than 3 average size reactors. Those same subsidies could have built over 20 nuclear units. Life of solar panels is 15 to 20 years max, then you must replace entirely. New nuclear plants have a 60 year design minimum life.
Average pay for nuclear workers is quite high. Solar only creates mostly low paying installation jobs. Sourcing for nuclear plant equipment is weighted toward the home countries. A high percentage of solar subsidies goes to purchasing items from Asia. Tax revenue from nuclear is historically quite high, while almost nill from solar.
The republicans are much better at drawing people together based on commonalities in what they hate and fear than the Democrats. That has worked best by pushing simple yes/no good/bad simplified versions of issues - like gun control - and burying the complications.
Better? How about the "war on women" for example? Nobody has a monopoly on expertise in using those tactics.
Germany had commercial nuclear power since the sixties. There is still no permanent waste repository here. Besides, Germany has invested a lot of money in nuclear power in the 80ies. It didn't work out.
Actually, it did work out quite well. Germany had a stable clean air energy source upon which they built the predominant economy in Europe. German nuclear plants have already produced more CO2 free energy than their solar and wind combined can hope to come close to in the next two decades.
Abandonment of nuclear based on misconception of risk is resulting in a big setback for CO2 free generation in Germany, high energy prices, grid stability issues and an increasingly chaotic energy market.
They have many options to manage the waste. They just lost the willpower to pursue a solution that will work and instead took the "trophy" approach.
Do you think scientists are all exactly in line on the rate of GW, the extent to which it is exacerbated by human activities, which of those activities are most impacting, to what extent we can improve the situation, and the expected impacts in the future?
for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican
How about making it clear that people have a wide variety of views on things like GWT, and its not simply true believers vs deniers. How about making it clear that not all Democrats believe in gun control.
We are already spending a crapload on solar panels and battery tech. Panels are reaching efficiency limits wrt cost, and batteries, although greatly improved, are still way too expensive and are nowhere near on track to become cost effective for mass application of renewable smoothing despite decades of huge R&D budgets by countries and companies alike. Hoping those move fast enough to provide the solution is just that.... hope. Solar is only somewhat workable in lower latitudes. Nuclear is already here. We need to remove the bureaucratic gridlock. Maybe that's relying on hope as well, but from a technology standpoint, its the only solution that can provide significant & reliable CO2 free energy today.
Had Germany put all its solar subsidies into nuclear over the last 8 years, they would be on track to have many times more carbon free electrical generation than they will.
The author doesn't really seem to understand the nature of subsidies, and likely gets his info from sources that use the core data in different ways.
On a per-unit energy generated standpoint, renewables get the heftiest subsidies by far in most countries, yet the net impact of CO2 reduction in any of those countries is not yet helping improve the situation on a global scale.
There is also naivety in assuming simple renewable approaches will work just anywhere, and ignoring the cost of 'backup up' of wind and solar is a common mistake made yet again. Ignoring the short term economic impacts on local behavior & human behavior is another common mistake. Not all countries have an economic underpinning that allows these shifts without significant impact. Its kind of like a "why can't we all just get along?" philosophy....we all know that peace in the world would be great, lets just stop fighting......but achieving it has been elusive.
If we get serious, and employ the right mix of renewable, nuclear, and gas, there is a chance that we can make global progress on CO2 emissions reduction.
Slashdot Mirror
I was responding to: http://slashdot.org/~itzly
..." in this post, which simply says "The problem is that only laymen have a wide variety of views, while scientist are mostly share the same view.". So, if you find your "97%" claim in there somewhere, feel free to show me.
There is no claim of "97%
Since my post that you first responded to was a reply to a different member's post and not yours, I can see why you were confused.
But, 100B is documented and you can find it if you tried. Maybe you drank too much of the "neutron poison"? LOLYFI
I think a bigger concern is simply the human engineering aspect of sitting in a cockpit looking at screens for long flights. It seems like it would accelerate fatigue. Windows provide some sense of openness and relaxation. I wonder which the pilots would prefer.
Its quite simple in fact. If you have an explosive device, you must prove that you can turn it on in order to bring it aboard the plane.
Or maybe just throw away the battery if its dead. A scan should reveal any further threat.
Yeah, but if we all have to pull out and power up a tablet, computer, MP3 player, and phone, that's gonna slow down the line a bit.
So, don't lug non-working electronics around with you when you travel. And hope your battery doesn't die while traveling.
No, that was not the claim. The claim was simply that "scientists mostly share the same view". And when discussed in context with the article of this thread, the point is that the black and white departmentalization doesn't makes sense. In your case, you are departmentalizing the 97% as all being completely in line with each other. In reality, there is a scale, and within that 97% there are varying degrees of certainty on any of the key aspects as well as interpretation of the data. And, as with most things, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.
First: if you ment subsidies you should have mentioned that in your previous post
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I clearly posted: "Germany has spent over 100 billion euro on solar subsidies"
More proof you are just making stuff up as you go along.
I am pro-air. I want real solutions that can be applied globally to keep our air as clean as possible. So far, no power source has come close to nuclear in generation of clean air energy. Hydro is great but there are limited places to add it.
Just because one economically powerful country can blow wads of money chasing 100% renewables doesn't make it the solution. Reality is that multiple power sources are needed. Frankly, the gas industry loves the solar folks who bash nuclear, because they know solar can't be "it". Wind will fair a bit better, but has similar issues.
I wish you guys the best when you need to replace all those solarpanels, starting about 10 years from now. As you are going, you won't have the nuclear tax to help pay for it.
No errors. First, we were clearly talking about subsidies, as that was the topic of the article, which you seem to completely overlook. 100B Euro in subsidies on solar. If you didn't know that, don't blame me.
Cite a single credible source on this "boron poisoning" issue wrt commercial nuclear power generation. Or, read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... and maybe you'll realize how stupid you just made yourself look.
As I said, new nuclear plant can load follow, its really a simple thing to achieve.
You should learn a bit about solar cell production and semiconductor production in general. It uses some nasty chemicals.
You're apparently asking for both sides of the debate to be given equal time
I see you are good at making assumptions about what other people mean with no solid basis. If you think there are only two takes on GWT, or that it must be a 100% agree and 100% disagree scenario, then you can just add yourself to the list of unproductive people to discuss it with.
With said 100B you mention we could perhaps build 5 new nuclear plants,
>
So, you don't understand the nature of subsidies. They only cover part of the cost. A lot more was spent on solar as well, the 100B was just the subsidies.
You also hint at some ignorance when asking about neutron/boron poisoning. Are you just bringing up random things you read in some anti-nuke lobby article?
Nuclear plants can load follow, they don't need to just be baseload. Most old plants simply were not designed for load follow, but the new designs are quite capable. Gas is still the fastest response load follow generation.
Did you ever wonder, worry, or even think about the chemical waste from solar panel production? Or is that a fair trade off in your book?
Waste is an issue, nobody denies. The options are known. The obstacles are more political than technical, but some countries at least are willing to move forward. For fuel, the toughest one, there is geological storage and/or reprocessing. All the waste generated in the world for over 50 years can fit in one relatively small site. Long term monitoring and management plans are already developed.
You can hold out your hopes for the holy grail of only solar and wind, but you'll do so at the expense of making global progress on CO2 reduction.
Also: how do you know how much we spend for solar and wind
It is well publicized. In fact, there was a recent posting here on slashdot which confirmed the 100B Euro figure for solar alone, but that was as of 2013, so actual spending is even more. Sounds like I know more about what your country is spending than you do.
The best spots for new nuclear is right next to the existing. You have a point, 20 sites might be a stretch, but 10 would be quite easy for starters. You are building new coal plants, btw.
Frankly, I don't care what Germany does. I care what my country does, and I care what the world does. If the goal is the reduce CO2, then you'd better consider nuclear with, even with it's waste issue. If the goal is to just act like you are doing something and have nice big solar panels and windmills to show, but still have to build coal plants to back them up, then that's just fine. If your goal is simple to not have nuclear, well, "less power to ya!".
Your constant reference to the experimental THTR and other reactors shows your lack of understanding of the nuclear market, where light water reactors are the workhorse, proven technology. Typical effort to deflect. No numbers to support your "way too expensive" claim?
. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
Germany has spent over 100 billion euro on solar subsidies. For that, they have an annual solar electrical production approximately equivalent to no more than 3 average size reactors. Those same subsidies could have built over 20 nuclear units. Life of solar panels is 15 to 20 years max, then you must replace entirely. New nuclear plants have a 60 year design minimum life.
Average pay for nuclear workers is quite high. Solar only creates mostly low paying installation jobs. Sourcing for nuclear plant equipment is weighted toward the home countries. A high percentage of solar subsidies goes to purchasing items from Asia. Tax revenue from nuclear is historically quite high, while almost nill from solar.
The republicans are much better at drawing people together based on commonalities in what they hate and fear than the Democrats. That has worked best by pushing simple yes/no good/bad simplified versions of issues - like gun control - and burying the complications.
Better? How about the "war on women" for example? Nobody has a monopoly on expertise in using those tactics.
Germany had commercial nuclear power since the sixties. There is still no permanent waste repository here. Besides, Germany has invested a lot of money in nuclear power in the 80ies. It didn't work out.
Actually, it did work out quite well. Germany had a stable clean air energy source upon which they built the predominant economy in Europe. German nuclear plants have already produced more CO2 free energy than their solar and wind combined can hope to come close to in the next two decades.
Abandonment of nuclear based on misconception of risk is resulting in a big setback for CO2 free generation in Germany, high energy prices, grid stability issues and an increasingly chaotic energy market.
They have many options to manage the waste. They just lost the willpower to pursue a solution that will work and instead took the "trophy" approach.
Agree. Too bad politics and misperception of risk dominate the solution path.
Do you think scientists are all exactly in line on the rate of GW, the extent to which it is exacerbated by human activities, which of those activities are most impacting, to what extent we can improve the situation, and the expected impacts in the future?
for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican
How about making it clear that people have a wide variety of views on things like GWT, and its not simply true believers vs deniers. How about making it clear that not all Democrats believe in gun control.
We are already spending a crapload on solar panels and battery tech. Panels are reaching efficiency limits wrt cost, and batteries, although greatly improved, are still way too expensive and are nowhere near on track to become cost effective for mass application of renewable smoothing despite decades of huge R&D budgets by countries and companies alike. Hoping those move fast enough to provide the solution is just that.... hope. Solar is only somewhat workable in lower latitudes. Nuclear is already here. We need to remove the bureaucratic gridlock. Maybe that's relying on hope as well, but from a technology standpoint, its the only solution that can provide significant & reliable CO2 free energy today.
Had Germany put all its solar subsidies into nuclear over the last 8 years, they would be on track to have many times more carbon free electrical generation than they will.
The author doesn't really seem to understand the nature of subsidies, and likely gets his info from sources that use the core data in different ways.
On a per-unit energy generated standpoint, renewables get the heftiest subsidies by far in most countries, yet the net impact of CO2 reduction in any of those countries is not yet helping improve the situation on a global scale.
There is also naivety in assuming simple renewable approaches will work just anywhere, and ignoring the cost of 'backup up' of wind and solar is a common mistake made yet again. Ignoring the short term economic impacts on local behavior & human behavior is another common mistake. Not all countries have an economic underpinning that allows these shifts without significant impact. Its kind of like a "why can't we all just get along?" philosophy....we all know that peace in the world would be great, lets just stop fighting......but achieving it has been elusive.
If we get serious, and employ the right mix of renewable, nuclear, and gas, there is a chance that we can make global progress on CO2 emissions reduction.