The point is that mining and transportation of fuel for nuclear reactors costs more or less the same amount of CO2 than mining and transportation of fuel for coal plants, some people even claim, it costs more.
It takes all season to melt, snow does not just melt instantly at temps above 0C. Because it is on a glacier...
Communities all around the world rely on exactly this behavior to get water year round No, they rely on ice, regardless if it is an glacier or just a big chunk of not moving ice, not on snow per se.
Snow usually is melting during spring and early summe... there is no snow left in late summer. Otherwise it is not "snow" but a glacier.
Or do you want to nitpick that a glacier is just a big chunk of snow and ice?
Snow melts as soon as it is long enough above 0C. Glaciers not. They are basically frozen rivers that slowly move down hill and melt at the tip/tongue.
Who cares if at the town he lives "the average" is 1.5C higher? Well, if that average means, in winter it is 10C higher (and has no snow, no skiing, no jobs) and the summer, spring, autumn feels the same as before...
And that "average" means, it is "averagingly" the same all around of his town...
"Average" is a global thing. North pole, south pole, desert, forrest, woods, savanna, ocean. If it is "on average" 1.5C warmer everywhere it only means that there are freak spots where it is "on average" 10C warmer, or 200% more rain or 500% less rain... pick your numbers. "On average" your picks will "even out"...
Producing nuclear fuel, mining, refining, transportation, is not CO2 neutral or negative either. A nuclear power plant produces 30% of the CO2 a coal plant does, because of all the things mentioned above.
Nuclear is the only power source that can replace all CO2 generating electrical sources right now. Only if you have fat power lines going to the mines where fuel is mined. Have all the mining equipment and transportation electrified... etc. p.p.
But that story would be true for any electricity generation "concept". Make bio gas, only use gas for your farming and working equipment...
No, long term storage is not a problem. That is a problem that has been solved. If you had solved it, why did you not publish it? You would have farmed in several Nobel prices and would be on top of that: the richest man on the planet. Perhaps the richest and most important man in history for the next few hundred years.
What is the lowest CO2 energy source available today? Nuclear power. No it isn't.
The absolut lowest is: reduce usage, increase efficiency And then comes everything that is not bound to mining and transportation, e.g. Biomass, Geothermal and Solar followed by Wind.
You are just an idiot, but nice you point your nuclear love out all the time...
And you are uninformed, China is building lots of nuclear power plants. Stupid ass.
That's great, but we are talking about the glaciers, not the cycle you just mention. The cycle he mentions would not exist without glaciers... did you forgot your IQ hat this morning?
That cycle would continue - and with higher average temperatures, that means greater water evaporation from the oceans, leading to more moisture falling in the mountains, thus more runoff for the rivers. Yes, as a flood... sorry, are you that stupid? Half of your posts are quite ok, but this above is utter stupidity.
Glaciers mean: a big deal of the water that comes freezes and is stored. Glaciers mean: a continuous flow of water while they melt/move, regardless of rain
Can't be so hard to grasp that there is a huge difference in how "the climate" and the cycle of life works with versus without glaciers.
When we lose the glaciers in Europe, aka the most important in the Alps, north Italy will probably survive, middle will be a desert, same for Tchechia, south Poland, east German, the water comes from the mountains, not form random rain which might increase or not increase.
I'm ignorant myself. There is a very important position, minister or similar, who is occupied by a female since a few years. Actually a stunning, young, intelligent, powerful woman... and I can not find here. I only remember it was related to finances, bank business or economy.
Plastic garbage in the oceans has nothing to do with sustainability. The question is how to prevent destruction of the environment, aka killing all fish and trees.
If you want to micro manage it, you could probably have 200 billion humans on the planet. 100 billions is no problem at all.
Animals generally maintain their population to a level that consumes the available food supply. No, they don't. The ones who have no food simply starve, die to starvation or illness due to lack of certain things. A cat or dog will have X pubs and that is it... it is not really related to food... after they are born, the amount that survives is based on food.
Current food-production levels can support roughly 12 billion humans 50% of all food produced world wide is thrown away.....
It's not that people cannot afford children: it is that some cultures do not want them. Yes it is.
People have no children or fewer because it hinders their career paths in their jobs. Germany is a prime example. Most backyard (despite the improvements in the last decade(s?) ) regarding integration of job with kids. Aka kindergarden, work hours etc. availability of places in the kindergarden, government power to decide where he kid goes into primary school (despite it is not on the way of the parents way to work e.g. --- not a perfect example as primary schools usually are in walking distance or have a bus).
About minus 40 to minus 10 years ago, having a family with two people working _and_ having kids was nearly impossible in Germany. So you had many couples who simply decided: we prefer the money and have nice things, and kids are no priority.
And that has many reasons, e.g. wanting your own home, as in _owning_ a home. A few decades ago only a minority could afford a home _and_ kids _and_ have both working. I mean:to have a home both need to work. And kids disrupt working. No kindergaren place. Etc.... odd stupid working hours etc.
Of course that is also a prime reason for divorce... suddenly one of them, or both - but they don't talk - have a child wish.
I have no kids because having kids, especially being not married, was a nightmare the recent decades. *I* don't want a wife who is housewife. And *I* failed to find a woman earning enough that *I* would be the houseman... remote work that would have been possible since 20 years, perhaps 30, is simply not taking off. Part time work is not even taking off... mostly blocked by unions. Who needs a union when (s)he simply can shift from one part time job to the other ???
A part time for a single mother in the morning when the kid is in kindergarden would be a dream. No problem in Netherlands or Scandinavia... but Germany? Oh oh...
The rest of Europe actually tackled those problems... well, since 30 years (more actually... all my friends from France or Spain or Italy who are as old as I, grew up 40 years ago in perfect family friendly _and_ work friendly environments). But stupid germans think they know better, and tackle it since 15 years, with their own solutions/ideas, instead of simply copying the scandinavian or french or italian or spanish ways how to structure a society around work, family-live and kids.
I don't want to sound to sarcastic/cynical but education basically means: kids of both genders are in school. I mean: they are in an controlled environment.
It is not so much what they learn (e.g. sexual education) that is preventing them from doing it, but the fact that they are occupied having no free time (and be bored to death) to do it.
My GF is the youngest child from a mother who had _12_ kids. 4 died in childhood, and 2 died while adult.
All but one of her sisters and brothers have _one single child_ one has two.
My GF and her siblings don't have less kids primarily because of education or availability of condoms but because of lack of free time to "do it". Sure, having the chance to use condoms etc. reduced it too...
My GF and her sisters got her sex education from her mother... not in school. They quite early in life learned, condoms etc. where not available, because of poverty and distribution and shame to buy them, that is why you have many siblings, but now, 40 years later you can do better.
And yes, the age difference between the youngest and the oldest sibling is over 30 years, I'm 52, my GF is 49, her oldest sister is 82.
that was seeking for a pun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (it is a she, in case you don't see the 'R'... and she is minister for education in saudi arabia). Well, while writing this I realize: She was minister for education.
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth.
While all your post is right, cynics would not agree with that point. Reproduction rates where driven down by introduction of TVs and now Internet:P and later even smart phones.
However you are completely right: there are no 3rd world countries anymore. Only extreme failures like Sudan or Somalia.
That's why Brexit is important; England doesn't really want to lose whatever independence it still has.
That is nonsense. Every country in the EU is completely independent. You can have any law you want, unless it contradicts an EU law. And there are honestly no EU laws a sane person would want to contradict... so go figure.
The proclaimed loss of independence is just propaganda.
In 15 years or less, the "European Union" will be a country, and France/Germany/Spain et al will be "states" within the EU Nope!
In 50 or 100 years, the nations/countries like France and Germany and Spain will have vanished. The EU (regardless who joined) will be a union of regions: o Catalonia o Cornwell o Campania o Champagne o Saxony o Carpathian Mountains
etc.
While the states/countries will vanish, and the EU as a "new state" or "new country" will emerge, that will be only the "outside face" for a seat in the UN e.g.
The inside will be a powerful state crafted and forged by about a hundred or two hundred powerful regions.
States like the "federal german state" will be dissolved (or will be token organizations like a folklore club), the regions forming current Germany will gain more power and have more influence on the whole EU than they have now in Germany alone.
Same for every other regions/country in the EU. Or do you really think catalonia is the only one who wants to be treated as a "country" by its own right, but also wants to be a member of the powerful EU?
But why lock him up for ten years instead of trying to have him be part of society? Because it is in gods own country.
Their criminal laws are just ridiculous.
he took some NUMBERS that a bunch of people claim have value - originally based on some guy (whose identity is still a mystery) saying, "Because I say so." That is irrelevant. The value or perceived value of what he took has nothing to do with it.
He frauded dozens or hundreds of people with SIM swapping. Does not matter at all for what purpose he did that. And it does matter even less how valuable the stuff is/was he took.
If I steal your most loved teddy bear from your birth year or your mothers jewelry when I enter your house, same crime, no difference.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that mining and transportation of fuel for nuclear reactors costs more or less the same amount of CO2 than mining and transportation of fuel for coal plants, some people even claim, it costs more.
It takes all season to melt, snow does not just melt instantly at temps above 0C. ...
Because it is on a glacier
Communities all around the world rely on exactly this behavior to get water year round
No, they rely on ice, regardless if it is an glacier or just a big chunk of not moving ice, not on snow per se.
Snow usually is melting during spring and early summe ... there is no snow left in late summer. Otherwise it is not "snow" but a glacier.
Or do you want to nitpick that a glacier is just a big chunk of snow and ice?
Nuclear is "theoretical" too ... takes ages to build and needs special places, or we need to experiment with new reactor types.
Snow melts as soon as it is long enough above 0C.
Glaciers not. They are basically frozen rivers that slowly move down hill and melt at the tip/tongue.
The "problem" is not people.
It is CO2 or CH4 etc.
Linear extrapolations 80 years into the future are never good science. ... and not science.
Yes, I agree. Most of the time it is simple math
Predicting where the Pioneer or Voyager probes are, works surprisingly well: with math.
The average is pretty meaningless for a lay man.
Who cares if at the town he lives "the average" is 1.5C higher? Well, if that average means, in winter it is 10C higher (and has no snow, no skiing, no jobs) and the summer, spring, autumn feels the same as before ...
And that "average" means, it is "averagingly" the same all around of his town ...
"Average" is a global thing. North pole, south pole, desert, forrest, woods, savanna, ocean. If it is "on average" 1.5C warmer everywhere it only means that there are freak spots where it is "on average" 10C warmer, or 200% more rain or 500% less rain ... pick your numbers. "On average" your picks will "even out" ...
Producing nuclear fuel, mining, refining, transportation, is not CO2 neutral or negative either.
A nuclear power plant produces 30% of the CO2 a coal plant does, because of all the things mentioned above.
Base load is only a line on a graph ... ...
It is a horizontal line where the graph of your load profile/load curve has its minimum
Nuclear is the only power source that can replace all CO2 generating electrical sources right now. ... etc. p.p.
Only if you have fat power lines going to the mines where fuel is mined. Have all the mining equipment and transportation electrified
But that story would be true for any electricity generation "concept". Make bio gas, only use gas for your farming and working equipment ...
No, long term storage is not a problem. That is a problem that has been solved.
If you had solved it, why did you not publish it?
You would have farmed in several Nobel prices and would be on top of that: the richest man on the planet. Perhaps the richest and most important man in history for the next few hundred years.
Sorry, you are an idiot.
What is the lowest CO2 energy source available today? Nuclear power.
No it isn't.
The absolut lowest is: reduce usage, increase efficiency
And then comes everything that is not bound to mining and transportation, e.g. Biomass, Geothermal and Solar followed by Wind.
You are just an idiot, but nice you point your nuclear love out all the time ...
And you are uninformed, China is building lots of nuclear power plants. Stupid ass.
China had a one child per family policy for decades, it just got relaxed recently, Scarlet Fucking Stupid Town.
That's great, but we are talking about the glaciers, not the cycle you just mention. ... did you forgot your IQ hat this morning?
The cycle he mentions would not exist without glaciers
That cycle would continue - and with higher average temperatures, that means greater water evaporation from the oceans, leading to more moisture falling in the mountains, thus more runoff for the rivers. ... sorry, are you that stupid? Half of your posts are quite ok, but this above is utter stupidity.
Yes, as a flood
Glaciers mean: a big deal of the water that comes freezes and is stored.
Glaciers mean: a continuous flow of water while they melt/move, regardless of rain
Can't be so hard to grasp that there is a huge difference in how "the climate" and the cycle of life works with versus without glaciers.
When we lose the glaciers in Europe, aka the most important in the Alps, north Italy will probably survive, middle will be a desert, same for Tchechia, south Poland, east German, the water comes from the mountains, not form random rain which might increase or not increase.
I'm ignorant myself. ... and I can not find here.
There is a very important position, minister or similar, who is occupied by a female since a few years.
Actually a stunning, young, intelligent, powerful woman
I only remember it was related to finances, bank business or economy.
Plastic garbage in the oceans has nothing to do with sustainability.
The question is how to prevent destruction of the environment, aka killing all fish and trees.
If you want to micro manage it, you could probably have 200 billion humans on the planet. 100 billions is no problem at all.
Animals generally maintain their population to a level that consumes the available food supply. ... it is not really related to food ... after they are born, the amount that survives is based on food.
No, they don't. The ones who have no food simply starve, die to starvation or illness due to lack of certain things.
A cat or dog will have X pubs and that is it
Current food-production levels can support roughly 12 billion humans .....
50% of all food produced world wide is thrown away
It's not that people cannot afford children: it is that some cultures do not want them.
Yes it is.
People have no children or fewer because it hinders their career paths in their jobs. Germany is a prime example. Most backyard (despite the improvements in the last decade(s?) ) regarding integration of job with kids. Aka kindergarden, work hours etc. availability of places in the kindergarden, government power to decide where he kid goes into primary school (despite it is not on the way of the parents way to work e.g. --- not a perfect example as primary schools usually are in walking distance or have a bus).
About minus 40 to minus 10 years ago, having a family with two people working _and_ having kids was nearly impossible in Germany. So you had many couples who simply decided: we prefer the money and have nice things, and kids are no priority.
And that has many reasons, e.g. wanting your own home, as in _owning_ a home. A few decades ago only a minority could afford a home _and_ kids _and_ have both working. I mean:to have a home both need to work. And kids disrupt working. No kindergaren place. Etc. ... odd stupid working hours etc.
Of course that is also a prime reason for divorce ... suddenly one of them, or both - but they don't talk - have a child wish.
I have no kids because having kids, especially being not married, was a nightmare the recent decades. *I* don't want a wife who is housewife. And *I* failed to find a woman earning enough that *I* would be the houseman ... remote work that would have been possible since 20 years, perhaps 30, is simply not taking off. Part time work is not even taking off ... mostly blocked by unions. Who needs a union when (s)he simply can shift from one part time job to the other ???
A part time for a single mother in the morning when the kid is in kindergarden would be a dream. No problem in Netherlands or Scandinavia ... but Germany? Oh oh ...
The rest of Europe actually tackled those problems ... well, since 30 years (more actually ... all my friends from France or Spain or Italy who are as old as I, grew up 40 years ago in perfect family friendly _and_ work friendly environments). But stupid germans think they know better, and tackle it since 15 years, with their own solutions/ideas, instead of simply copying the scandinavian or french or italian or spanish ways how to structure a society around work, family-live and kids.
Weeeellllll ....
I don't want to sound to sarcastic/cynical but education basically means: kids of both genders are in school. I mean: they are in an controlled environment.
It is not so much what they learn (e.g. sexual education) that is preventing them from doing it, but the fact that they are occupied having no free time (and be bored to death) to do it.
My GF is the youngest child from a mother who had _12_ kids. 4 died in childhood, and 2 died while adult.
All but one of her sisters and brothers have _one single child_ one has two.
My GF and her siblings don't have less kids primarily because of education or availability of condoms but because of lack of free time to "do it". Sure, having the chance to use condoms etc. reduced it too ...
My GF and her sisters got her sex education from her mother ... not in school. They quite early in life learned, condoms etc. where not available, because of poverty and distribution and shame to buy them, that is why you have many siblings, but now, 40 years later you can do better.
And yes, the age difference between the youngest and the oldest sibling is over 30 years, I'm 52, my GF is 49, her oldest sister is 82.
Well,
that was seeking for a pun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (it is a she, in case you don't see the 'R' ... and she is minister for education in saudi arabia). Well, while writing this I realize: She was minister for education.
But she: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/r... is minister for labour and development.
The one I actually was looking for is/was minister of finances/economy I believe ... can't find her now. Anyone has a hint?
Health care and women's education are the main factors that drove reproduction rates down, not stable governments or wealth.
While all your post is right, cynics would not agree with that point. Reproduction rates where driven down by introduction of TVs and now Internet :P and later even smart phones.
However you are completely right: there are no 3rd world countries anymore. Only extreme failures like Sudan or Somalia.
That's why Brexit is important; England doesn't really want to lose whatever independence it still has.
That is nonsense. Every country in the EU is completely independent. You can have any law you want, unless it contradicts an EU law. And there are honestly no EU laws a sane person would want to contradict ... so go figure.
The proclaimed loss of independence is just propaganda.
In 15 years or less, the "European Union" will be a country, and France/Germany/Spain et al will be "states" within the EU
Nope!
In 50 or 100 years, the nations/countries like France and Germany and Spain will have vanished.
The EU (regardless who joined) will be a union of regions:
o Catalonia
o Cornwell
o Campania
o Champagne
o Saxony
o Carpathian Mountains
etc.
While the states/countries will vanish, and the EU as a "new state" or "new country" will emerge, that will be only the "outside face" for a seat in the UN e.g.
The inside will be a powerful state crafted and forged by about a hundred or two hundred powerful regions.
States like the "federal german state" will be dissolved (or will be token organizations like a folklore club), the regions forming current Germany will gain more power and have more influence on the whole EU than they have now in Germany alone.
Same for every other regions/country in the EU. Or do you really think catalonia is the only one who wants to be treated as a "country" by its own right, but also wants to be a member of the powerful EU?
The EU is well aware that it is not the only country besides the US in the world. After all it consists out of 28 countries
Hint: the EU is not an UN member ... its countries are.
But why lock him up for ten years instead of trying to have him be part of society?
Because it is in gods own country.
Their criminal laws are just ridiculous.
he took some NUMBERS that a bunch of people claim have value - originally based on some guy (whose identity is still a mystery) saying, "Because I say so."
That is irrelevant. The value or perceived value of what he took has nothing to do with it.
He frauded dozens or hundreds of people with SIM swapping. Does not matter at all for what purpose he did that. And it does matter even less how valuable the stuff is/was he took.
If I steal your most loved teddy bear from your birth year or your mothers jewelry when I enter your house, same crime, no difference.