Batteries are almost always greener than CO2 emitting fuel sources including full life cycle. Of course what you charge those batteries with matters, but is of course changeable. A gas car can't run on anything other than gasoline.
But the full life cycle with oil involves all the continues flaring of gases into the atmosphere during well operation too. Batteries are a perfect step towards greener renewable fuel sources.
Cherry picking data for only 20 years about of a known 150 year plot with *lots* of noise isn't exactly 'scientific'.
linky Note the top graph. Things changed significantly back in the 30s and 40s. Other data on the page suggests that rise was fairly constant centuries ago, around 0.5 mm/yr, which due to erosion of the land is to be expected. We're now easily triple that rate.
Hell, even if you forget global warming - humans are raising sea-levels by simply pumping billions of gallons of water out of the ground. It doesn't get replenished on any human timescale.
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
Well except for that fact increasing *rates* of rise tend to screw you over. 11 mm this 20 years, 20 mm next 20 years is 31, 30 mm the next 20 is 51 and so on.
You're applying steady state to a decidedly non-steady state system. Will rates move that fast? We don't know, but we have quite clear data that rates of increase themselves *are* increasing.
No but you pulled the old trick of saying, since the crazies in the denier community say extreme things, that if science says extreme things it must be the same as the deniers.
Science has actual data to back up their extreme positions.
Which removes the 'Doubt' and leaves us with F.U.*
And you know what? eruptions/emission from volcanoes are relatively constant. They haven't changed significantly in the last 200 years. So what has changed in that time frame?
You do realize that previously the deniers argued that it absolutely *wasn't* happening. Now that we've proven it *is* happening they are on to, "Well ok, but it's not us that's causing it".
It's happening at rates faster than we've ever been able to observe and the only significant change in the system...is us.
As for Dubya, he is just the latest in a long line of deniers. Except that he had far more evidence available that it is a problem and still chose to do nothing. I'll laugh (sarcastically) when Dubya's big 'nature preserve' of coral reefs goes extinct because of global warming. Nice idea, but building a wooden structure when a forest fire is approaching isn't necessarily a good idea...
People are fucking encouraged to question it. They just have to have actual provable data to back up their questions.
"It can't be real because I don't see it" isn't a valid question and is treated as such.
Do you know how much money would fall in their laps if they actually *could* prove it isn't happening? Coal and oil money would make them rich beyond imagination. And yet they don't. Because the data isn't there to support that, whereas decades of data show warming is happening.
It's pretty clear you're violating the contract you signed if you are, indeed, pirating stuff. Hence, no reason for them to refund anything.
You're thinking of throttling people for using the advertised speed 'too much' when that 'too much' isn't defined and means you can only use the advertised speed for about 3.4 minutes before you get throttled. THAT is a contractual violation by THEM. Pirating is a contractual violation by YOU.
You simply can't claim that nuclear is unique. Nothing else has the potential damage, period.
Nuclear is wildly over engineered for a reason. It simply can not be allowed to fail. Anything with humans involved in the design, construction or operation, *will* fail at some point.
Nuclear will be required by modern society for probably a minimum of 50-100 years. It does not make it a good idea, just a short term lesser evil than full on coal power.
Last I checked uranium was mined as well so both coal and nuclear have this same issue. What coal doesn't have is massive failure issues.
You 'can' put a coal mine back together, it's just not done because of expense. Hell people swim in old abandoned quarries. I'd venture that at least somewhere people are living on top of old mines just a few short years after their closure.
Reality is, while there is no way to fully prepare all your local infrastructure for such a tsunami, there are ways to make plants safe in event of them occurring.
They why pray tell is the radiation not subsiding? It didn't work, the radiation got out and is continuing to render the area uninhabitable.
I am an engineer thank you. I know that you can rate against known threats. What you can't plan for are the unknown unknown's. Nuclear is different than everything else. You talk about how so much Japan was decimated and because this massively hardened facility only sustained damage enough to 'melt down' it some how isn't bad?
'Nothing' else has this type of possible disaster scenario. We haven't even dealt with the nuclear waste from decades of operation. waste that needs to be safely stored longer than modern society has ever existed. It's folly to claim that even though every bit of modern engineering is less than 100 years old, we can render something secure for 10x that.
In a 'disaster', you can no longer count on your safety measures, since by definition, they've failed.
My point is that Fukushima was considered 'safe' when it was built. Saying that today's designs are 'safer' only lowers the probability, it doesn't eliminate it.
Nuclear is the only power source capable of making 100s of sq miles uninhabitable for decades; and that doesn't even take into account the currently unresolved waste issues. When something simply can not fail, as a nuclear plant can not be allowed to fail - any probability of disaster is too much.
Never said it was cheap or 'easy'. We just choose to not spend that kind of money because the damage is spread out over hundreds of square miles and decades.
But it 'can' be prevented. Not so much the effects of a nuclear disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
there's just a goal and a pile of money
So it's like the space program in the 60s. Fair enough. We did it then, we can do it again.
Batteries are almost always greener than CO2 emitting fuel sources including full life cycle. Of course what you charge those batteries with matters, but is of course changeable. A gas car can't run on anything other than gasoline.
But the full life cycle with oil involves all the continues flaring of gases into the atmosphere during well operation too. Batteries are a perfect step towards greener renewable fuel sources.
What will affect more people is the newly priced $1 cans of soda/pop...
Cherry picking data for only 20 years about of a known 150 year plot with *lots* of noise isn't exactly 'scientific'. linky Note the top graph. Things changed significantly back in the 30s and 40s. Other data on the page suggests that rise was fairly constant centuries ago, around 0.5 mm/yr, which due to erosion of the land is to be expected. We're now easily triple that rate.
Hell, even if you forget global warming - humans are raising sea-levels by simply pumping billions of gallons of water out of the ground. It doesn't get replenished on any human timescale.
linky 1
linky 2
Dams have held back some of this, but are reaching their limits for continued storage of an increasing amount.
there's some of us that just don't care frankly.
Well you're grand kids might...
As for not caring, how about we send your family the bill to relocate Florida...I suggest you start saving now.
Well except for that fact increasing *rates* of rise tend to screw you over. 11 mm this 20 years, 20 mm next 20 years is 31, 30 mm the next 20 is 51 and so on.
You're applying steady state to a decidedly non-steady state system. Will rates move that fast? We don't know, but we have quite clear data that rates of increase themselves *are* increasing.
Ocean View*
*view is 'up'
No but you pulled the old trick of saying, since the crazies in the denier community say extreme things, that if science says extreme things it must be the same as the deniers.
;-)
Science has actual data to back up their extreme positions.
Which removes the 'Doubt' and leaves us with F.U.*
*and I don't mean fear or uncertainty
And you know what? eruptions/emission from volcanoes are relatively constant. They haven't changed significantly in the last 200 years. So what has changed in that time frame?
You do realize that previously the deniers argued that it absolutely *wasn't* happening. Now that we've proven it *is* happening they are on to, "Well ok, but it's not us that's causing it".
It's happening at rates faster than we've ever been able to observe and the only significant change in the system...is us.
As for Dubya, he is just the latest in a long line of deniers. Except that he had far more evidence available that it is a problem and still chose to do nothing. I'll laugh (sarcastically) when Dubya's big 'nature preserve' of coral reefs goes extinct because of global warming. Nice idea, but building a wooden structure when a forest fire is approaching isn't necessarily a good idea...
maybe their just waiting for Dec 22nd 2012 just to be safe? ;-)
People are fucking encouraged to question it. They just have to have actual provable data to back up their questions.
"It can't be real because I don't see it" isn't a valid question and is treated as such.
Do you know how much money would fall in their laps if they actually *could* prove it isn't happening? Coal and oil money would make them rich beyond imagination. And yet they don't. Because the data isn't there to support that, whereas decades of data show warming is happening.
No no, you get ocean 'view' property. The problem? The 'view' is 'up'.
Sonny Bono 'Republican' from California much like 'Democrats' from Texas.
You local 'telco' as opposed to, ahem, VERIZON?
It's pretty clear you're violating the contract you signed if you are, indeed, pirating stuff. Hence, no reason for them to refund anything.
You're thinking of throttling people for using the advertised speed 'too much' when that 'too much' isn't defined and means you can only use the advertised speed for about 3.4 minutes before you get throttled. THAT is a contractual violation by THEM. Pirating is a contractual violation by YOU.
Any NSA /.ers care to comment?
Are you prepared to die? ;-)
You simply can't claim that nuclear is unique. Nothing else has the potential damage, period.
Nuclear is wildly over engineered for a reason. It simply can not be allowed to fail. Anything with humans involved in the design, construction or operation, *will* fail at some point.
Nuclear will be required by modern society for probably a minimum of 50-100 years. It does not make it a good idea, just a short term lesser evil than full on coal power.
Again, Operational Risks != Disaster Risks.
Last I checked uranium was mined as well so both coal and nuclear have this same issue. What coal doesn't have is massive failure issues.
You 'can' put a coal mine back together, it's just not done because of expense. Hell people swim in old abandoned quarries. I'd venture that at least somewhere people are living on top of old mines just a few short years after their closure.
You can't do that with a failed nuclear plant.
Reality is, while there is no way to fully prepare all your local infrastructure for such a tsunami, there are ways to make plants safe in event of them occurring.
They why pray tell is the radiation not subsiding? It didn't work, the radiation got out and is continuing to render the area uninhabitable.
I am an engineer thank you. I know that you can rate against known threats. What you can't plan for are the unknown unknown's. Nuclear is different than everything else. You talk about how so much Japan was decimated and because this massively hardened facility only sustained damage enough to 'melt down' it some how isn't bad?
'Nothing' else has this type of possible disaster scenario. We haven't even dealt with the nuclear waste from decades of operation. waste that needs to be safely stored longer than modern society has ever existed. It's folly to claim that even though every bit of modern engineering is less than 100 years old, we can render something secure for 10x that.
In a 'disaster', you can no longer count on your safety measures, since by definition, they've failed.
My point is that Fukushima was considered 'safe' when it was built. Saying that today's designs are 'safer' only lowers the probability, it doesn't eliminate it.
Nuclear is the only power source capable of making 100s of sq miles uninhabitable for decades; and that doesn't even take into account the currently unresolved waste issues. When something simply can not fail, as a nuclear plant can not be allowed to fail - any probability of disaster is too much.
Never said it was cheap or 'easy'. We just choose to not spend that kind of money because the damage is spread out over hundreds of square miles and decades.
But it 'can' be prevented. Not so much the effects of a nuclear disaster.
Operational risk != Disaster Risks
Both are bad, the former 'can' be prevented. The latter, not so much...
It's radioactive, just wait, he'll grow them