And personally I cannot see a solution to the problem of the commons other than through goverment. Because even if people do realise they are also hurting themselves by polluting, it doesn't change the fact that a benefit from polluting less will be shared by everybody, while the costs of doing so are only applied to them.
Someone that wants clean water to drink won't be shitting in the community well, right? It's not too hard to imagine people wanting to minimize pollution if you realize that these people that are doing the polluting are living in the same world as the rest of us.
It also doesn't take the "big hammer of government" to enforce policies against pollution. For example, think of a person that knows that lead in gasoline has the potential to do permanent damage to the brain development of their children. Is this person going to fill the minivan with leaded gas and take the family on a cross country road trip? I doubt it. This parent, if he/she cares about children at all will choose unleaded fuel or not going on the trip.
A less theoretical example, electric cars. Electric cars have all kinds of limitations compared to gas and diesel and yet they sell well. Why is that? They aren't mandated. Sure, they get some government support but no government agency is putting Tesla under the gun to make cars. They saw a market and sought to fill it. People see the benefit from electric cars, such as leaving a cleaner planet for their children.
What people seem to lose in the "tragedy of the commons" is that government is precisely not the solution. The solution is to privatize it. The tragedy of the shared pasture goes away if it is divided into parcels for the individual ranchers to graze. This way they see a direct loss to over grazing. If the pasture is put under control of an uninterested government then corruption and neglect set in. The government sees no direct loss on over grazing of the pasture, just as it sees no direct gain. A public official that is in office for only two years is going to be tempted to allow over grazing to keep everyone happy and leave the mess for the next official.
In cases where a common resource is more fleeting, like air compared to pasture land, the need for a government that must answer to the people is the second best choice to privatizing. The people that cannot merely shame the guy shitting in the well into not doing it any more can use the power of government to make it stop. If the government is a bunch of people that don't have to drink from the same well then don't expect a quick response, assuming you get a response at all. This is doubly so if the people in government weren't elected but selected by other people that are far from the problem.
No need to get your panties in a wad over this. I'm not a fan of solar power but I am pro-arithmetic. If solar panel efficiencies can be improved then it can improve capacity factors. I didn't claim it would be much, only that it is possible.
There are losses in the conversion, transmission, etc. If efficiencies can be improved then the capacity factor can improve. Again I made no claim it would be much, only that it would be measurable.
It does not really matter if you fall from the roof cleaning a solar panel or cleaning a chimney. Both can be avoided by following safety standards.
Understood but historically speaking more people have died from solar than nuclear. We cannot expect solar to ever reach zero on deaths, just like we can't from nuclear either. What we can expect is that while solar power is improving its safety record that nuclear power will as well. Nuclear power has it's slip and fall accidents too, we can fix that just as well as with solar but nuclear already starts with a good lead. As of today, right now, solar is a more deadly than nuclear and by an order of magnitude. Claiming that solar will improve and nuclear will not is speculation.
The carbon footprint of solar panels approaches zero. The only carbon dioxide produced is basically the transportation of raw material and finalized products to the installation place! If you take that into account then the carbon footprint of nuclear plants are a nightmare. They produce over their life span nearly the same amount as a similar coal plant does.
What color is the sky in your world? I have to ask because claiming that nuclear power would ever get to the level of coal is insanity. If you had instead claimed that wind and/or solar had a lower carbon footprint than nuclear by something like an order of magnitude then we might have a sane discussion. I might not be disputing the carbon footprint but instead focus on things like the benefits of nuclear being able to operate in any weather, needing much less land/steel/resources, and improved capacity factor. Claiming that nuclear power could even get close to producing as much CO2 as coal is just beyond the pale.
All power plants, that includes nuclear plants, need a favorable place. The main reason why Germany did mot build more before the decision to abolish them is that Germany has no space left where we could build one. Except the option to upgrade an existing one with another reactor.
This is demonstrably false. Nuclear power reactors can be operated in very confined spaces safely. They are running right now in submarines and aircraft carriers without incident and in very close proximity to people for decades at a time. This fear of nuclear power over nonexistent safety problems is hurting the environment and therefore hurting real and actual living people.
Same for France btw. That is the main reason France is buying so much power from Germany and in parallel is investing in renewables. Climate change is hitting Germany and France noticeable already: less snow in winter means far less water in summer in the rivers. Which means: shut down nuclear plants due to environmental regulations regarding temperature of water in the rivers. Or simple lack of water.
If we are going to speculate on the future advances of solar power to include improvements on safety and carbon footprint then I am going to speculate on air cooled nuclear reactors. Air cooling requires no water source, therefore your claims of a lack of proper water cooling preventing nuclear power use is not relevant. Even if we limit this to current technology I get back to the use of nuclear reactors in naval vessels. Build the nuclear reactor on a floating platform off shore, where the reactor is literally sitting in coolant, and run wires to the shore to transmit the power. If we can run wires under water to connect the UK to France to spread out the benefits of wind and solar power then running wires to a nuclear reactor at sea should be trivial by comparison.
I've actually heard of people claiming we should cover large portions of the Sahara desert with solar panels, run wires from there to Europe so they can benefit from carbon free energy. If that makes any kind of sense in the realms of logic, economics, and physics, then so should putting nuclear reactors out in the sands of Africa and running
I don't know this for a fact but I recall reading something on how farmers would make their own alcohol to run their tractors until Prohibition. There were no ethanol subsidies then but the farmers were quite willing to replace gasoline and kerosene for moonshine.
I believe that Prohibition set back the bio-fuel industry by more than a century. We'd have had all kinds of real world data on the utility of ethanol as a fuel if Prohibition didn't kill it off. Even after Prohibition ended there were still "revenuers" looking for moonshine stills to make sure Uncle Sam got it's share from taxing it. I know people that are in the ethanol industry (fuel, spirits, and moonshine) and it's real hard to make ethanol now because of the rules that lived on beyond Prohibition.
Ethanol fuel didn't benefit from subsidies until fairly recently and yet people did use it for fuel until the puritans came along and ruined it for everyone.
How did you conclude that panel efficiency impacts capacity factors?
A more efficient PV cell is easier to activate under low light. It takes a certain level of light to get a PV cell to overcome it's internal resistance, if this resistance can be lowered then it can operate through a larger part of the day. If the PV cell can operate through a longer period in the day then the capacity factor increases.
Of all the energy sources by carbon footprint the ones with the lowest emissions per energy produced are wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. Solar doesn't even make the top five.
Solar is a loser on "death footprint", carbon footprint, and cost. Since geothermal, wind, tidal, and hydro require favorable geography nuclear really wins out here. This is especially true since solar is just as dependent on favorable weather and geography as the others I listed. If you want to dispute the carbon footprint stats then that's fine, I'll concede that if you want to dispute it but only to a point. Nuclear is still a "zero carbon" energy source as defined by whatever definition that also includes wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, or tidal. If you claim that nuclear is not "zero carbon" then solar isn't either. If you want to fear monger on nuclear power then you need to do so knowing all the facts.
I'm sure thinking of dead solar power workers will make you sleep better at night. Now go sleep on that.
If I was in the energy business and I could choose to go into oil and get a very very small slice of the already small 20% of subsidies spent on fossil energy versus getting a potentially large slice of that 45% spent on renewable energy. If the goal is to profit from subsidies then I'd be going into something renewable. If the goal is to make a profit from delivering actual energy to the open market then it seems nuclear wins here.
Even though nuclear power gets a small portion of the subsidies that solar does and the one nuclear power plant that went on line this year, after taking into account capacity factors, will produce just as much energy per year as all the additional solar combined.
I know people will want to claim military spending as a "subsidy" for fossil fuel energy. For one, not all of that spending can be called an energy subsidy since we need a military for more than just assuring the "spice must flow". Let's assume this is true, then what does that mean for nuclear power? There's no military subsidy for that since the USA does not rely on foreign sources of uranium for energy. Sure, a lot of uranium gets imported and exported but it's not like we rely on this to keep our reactors going. A large portion of the imports are, or were, Russia/Soviet warheads headed for destruction in nuclear power reactors. Nuclear power is vital to the destruction of the world's nuclear weapons, and isn't this a good thing?
If you look at the cost/benefit from a government spending aspect the real winner is nuclear power. If you look at how much of a dent these energy sources will make in carbon output then nuclear power wins here as well. In this case it is doubly so since Watts Bar is so close to the Raccoon Mountain pumped hydro energy storage facility, they won't be using natural gas for load following. Instead the nuclear reactor will just putt-putt along powering industry during the day and pumping water uphill at night.
The real winner is nuclear power. It's nice to see this happening since this might mean we'll actually be doing something about our energy independence instead of importing Chinese solar panels, Venezuelan oil, or Colombian coal.
Across which time interval? And do you have numbers?
Oh, please, really? Go read a book sometime. Muslims have been killing, warring, pillaging, burning, raping, and on and on for centuries. The word "assassin" comes from the murderous tendencies of an Islamic sect. Muslims have been terrorizing the world from it's very beginning.
The terrorism I grew up with...
The terrorism my dad grew up with was from the KKK. Being a Catholic in the Midwest was hazardous to your health at one time. Just because I didn't see Muslim pirates harassing American shipping doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Easy, create policies that do away with these "tribal" tendencies. But you see we tried that and the "crybullies" got upset because that meant certain minorities were poorly represented in certain areas of what they would consider privileged areas of society, like higher education.
If you want to see an example of a meritocracy then look to athletics or the military. Blacks make up about 12% of the US population by most estimates. You don't see a lot of Blacks in the Coast Guard though. How could that be? To see why then look to the Olympics on how well Blacks compete in swimming events. Blacks, for the most part, are poor swimmers. Should we award a bronze medal to a Black person just because they are Black? No, of course not. Should we make the Coast Guard take in more Black recruits? Sure, if you want to put people's lives at risk.
Affirmative action policies are just as abhorrent as any other discrimination. By short circuiting the meritocracy that should dominate in education and business we are making the world worse off, not better. If someone is actually promoting people out of "tribal" reasons over merit then this will be reflected in the quality of their work. A professional sports team that hired athletes out of "tribal tendencies" will find themselves a laughing stock in short order, not because of being "too White" or "too Black" but because they will be beaten badly by the teams that hire on merit.
Think about where your affirmative actions policies would lead. We'd have people getting into fields like medicine and engineering out of racial preference over merit. This means people will die because of poorly performed surgeries and improperly built bridges. One thing about affirmative action is it cannot override merit completely. A sub par physician or engineer simply will not get as far as an excellent one. What affirmative action did do though is lower the quality of the population of very critical professions. People that should have gotten into medical school or an engineering program out of merit were denied that spot because a person of some protected minority got in instead.
I say this as a protected minority. I am a disabled veteran and it gives me certain preferences in finding work, getting into schools, etc. If you think that I don't take advantage of this preferential treatment then you are a fool. I know what's best for me and so I act on it. I don't expect anyone else to do different. What I do expect though is that people should not get into places that they do not belong. If the bar has to be lowered to meet a set demographic profile then that is a problem.
I remember a conversation I had with a classmate once where we got to talking about affirmative action. He said something that stuck with me, it went something like if you want to get into engineering then claim you are a Black lesbian Jew. Someone like that would tick off all the affirmative action boxes, that person probably wouldn't even have to go to class to graduate and get hired immediately.
You are correct on many points but I think you missed another very important point. China is doing now what Europe and America did in the late 1700s and early 1800s. They are going through an industrial revolution. When this happened in the UK they had air quality issues too, possibly much worse than this even.
This is a classic example of those not learning from history are doomed to repeat it. China is a society built by the vision of a small group of people which has been imposed on the rest of the population by force and fear. It's also quite possible these elite few do know their history, know that their policy puts the public under such misery and threatens their health but they don't care. They would much rather take a path that creates greater wealth and power for themselves even if that means the rest suffer.
China though could be a lesson for the rest of the world. I keep hearing on how we need more government to control global warming and pollution. Well, China has a society that has a near total control of every aspect of the lives of the people in their nation and they have the worst air quality in the world. A question I have for these big government types, once the government has the ability to tell the people what kind of toilets they can buy, the kind of light bulbs, cars, soft drinks, clothing, the size of their house, the number of children, and on and on then what motivation would they have to care if the people don't like the air quality that their policies produced? If it takes smart people in government to tell us what to do to make our lives better then what is there to make sure that it is smart people that remain in government? Free elections perhaps? Freedom to speak?
The people in China are constantly lied to by the government, no doubt "for their own good" in the eyes of the government. The Chinese government claims this smog is the result of a natural event. They also know better because they have shutdown factories in response.
China is a polluted hell hole because they are going through an industrial revolution. It will remain a polluted hell hole until the people are free to choose who is in government and are free to speak out against their government. We've seen this before. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme.
Uranium is not a rare element. If people are mining then they are digging up uranium. There is nothing inherently "dirty" about mining uranium and unique to uranium. Keeping uranium mining clean is trivial compared to the level of mining needed to build out enough wind power to replace coal.
You also seem to have missed the point where we simply do not have enough mining capacity to replace coal with wind and solar. We'd have to dig up more than 10 times current output to meet the demand for materials. The level of mining needed to get enough uranium is trivial compared to the rare earth mining needed for wind power. Even less of a problem if we'd get the federal government to okay thorium reactors. In fact the current rare earth mining produces more than enough uranium and thorium. We're already mining it, but we're throwing it back in the hole we dug and pretending we didn't disturb it.
If you want to see an environmental disaster then go ahead without nuclear. We'll be mining like mad to get enough steel. You think making concrete is "clean"? Sure, I'll look at uranium mining, if you go look at iron and limestone mining.
You don't understand how you could discover that the vehicle doesn't respond to queries? You must be new.
I understand but the lack of a response proves nothing. Someone would have to query, see no response, but also know that the device was installed. If a government is checking every license plate to a database to see if a V2V device was installed then this is undeniable proof that the government is tracking the movements of people. That is the point I've been making. People are upset already over traffic enforcement cameras already to the point they will vandalize them to the point they don't function, vote out people that put these things in the first place, etc.
Again, go read up on recent news on the many cities and states that are removing traffic enforcement cameras due to public outcry. I believe you are mistaken that people will put up with this. You seem to think people will vote out freedoms for the promise of safety. I think you need to read some Ben Franklin on that.
Dr. MacKay goes through the math on what it would take to replace fossil fuels with carbon free energy. A couple notable statistics is that it would take a 5x increase in nuclear power or a 20x increase in wind power for the UK to provide current energy needs carbon free. This is an older video, and a nuclear reactor or two have been shut down since so it's likely closer to 6x now.
The resources needed for wind or solar to meet current energy needs for nations like the USA or UK are mind boggling. On the other hand we know we have enough manufacturing capacity to build up enough nuclear power to meet all our energy needs. The resources needed might still be mind blowing but it is manageable.
Near the end of Dr. MacKay's talk he speaks of energy conservation in a way that reminds me of Amory Lovins talks on "negawatts". Lovins likes to give these very convincing talks on how we can solve the world's energy problems with energy efficiency and "green" energy but the difference is that after thinking about MacKay's talk you don't get the feeling that you've just been shoveled a bunch of BS. Lovins will give a talk with a lot of optimism but in the end he lacks any real numbers and a lot of hope that new technology can save us. Dr. MacKay gives real numbers and after doing the math with him it seems quite obvious that nuclear power must be part of the energy solution or we will end up with some very expensive energy that relies on favorable weather, favorable relations with neighboring nations (since there would be a reliance on freely buying and selling of energy), and technological developments favorable to wind and solar.
As opposed to a rare earth mine? Aren't they the same thing?
Wind and solar requires mining. They actually require more mining than nuclear power for the same energy output. Wind requires over 500 tons of steel and concrete for every MW of installed capacity, about ten times that of nuclear, coal, and gas.
Morgan Stanley did a study and concluded that to replace coal with wind worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world wide production is 1.5 billion tons.
People have done the math and we simply do not have the resources to replace coal with wind and solar. A person's lifetime supply of energy would amount to a lump of uranium of about the size of a beer can. We'd certainly have to move a lot of rock to get that uranium but it'd be much less mining than digging up enough steel to make the windmills to get the same energy.
I have a feeling you didn't even watch the video.
There are other TED Talks on this where people have done the math, I'll have to link to more of them.
It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire from the camera, fill the bottom with fuel, and put a match to it.
You still have more unvandalized speed cameras than vandalized ones any day of the week. Get back to me when you make a dent.
You seem to be missing the point. People are upset enough about these cameras that they risk arrest to destroy them. This is not random vandalism either, the people that do this tend to do so in a manner to minimize risk to people and private property. It's hard to make a political statement if the vandalism can be explained away as random destruction.
Also, it's not that this is the only tactic that they are using. As I pointed out the people that oppose this have been very effective in getting them shut down through legal means. Go search the internet on recent news on the topic, more traffic cameras are being shut down than put up. This is largely because of constitutional issues and from public outrage. Vandalism is actually a small part of this but it has made some traffic cameras disappear because it cost more to replace them than they were getting in ticket revenue, which only proves the point that they were not there to improve safety but to improve government income.
Part of the problem is that at first the systems would be rare, if it is present in the vehicles but disabled by the owner then how would anyone even know it was installed in the first place?
It would be easy enough to query the V2V system during emissions time. It would also be easy to query it during a toll crossing, then match that to a license plate.
How can one query a disabled device? I think you missed a big detail here. You also seem to miss the civil disobedience aspect of this. Those willing to disobey the law to disable a potential government tracking device would also not be the types to submit themselves to emission testing. Also, emission and safety testing is rare and is often waived for new (less that 5 or 6 years old) vehicles. Someone with enough money to buy a new vehicle, and the desire to disable a V2V device, is unlikely to get caught. If they are caught then they just bought themselves a few years of "freedom" and might get away with only paying a small fine. If the government starts jailing people for disabling their V2V devices then expect some real push back.
Again, just how much of this do these government bureaucrats think the people will put up with this before these people in the government find themselves not in the government any more?
A whole lot more. The average person says "Good, this will make me more safe".
It doesn't take the "average person" to make government officials very nervous. An interesting article I read said it takes only 3%. Many historical examples were given, including the American Revolution, where it took only 3% of the population to make a change.
Imagine if only 3% of the driving population disabled their V2V devices, tossed their license plates, and burned their driver licenses. They are not doing any one any harm. The pose no threat to the public. What they do pose a threat to is the ability of the government to enforce stupid laws. We're not at this point yet but I have to wonder just how close we are.
Forget the civil disobedience part and just think of votes. Elections are notoriously close in much of the USA. A politician that pisses off 3% of voters runs the risk of never being able to run for office again. You can ask a lot of Democrats about that, it shouldn't be hard to find one walking the wooded trails, or so I hear.
This time never really existed. Some scientists might have said that laymen cannot understand the raw data, because most of them can't, but the data is and has been publicly available on many places for a long time.
That does not explain the rush to preserve the data. If it was publicly available, and people have been asking for it, then would not the desire to assure the data was preserved be a mere matter of making some phone calls to make sure the people that retrieved the data kept their copies?
The university I attend offers degree programs in topics related to climate change and I know that there are students in these programs that would love to have this data. This is just one university of hundreds that has the facilities and interest to preserve this data. If they are frantic about preserving this data now then what were they doing with the data before? Should this data not already have been preserved in multiple locations by now? In places that even a "book burner" like Trump would be unable to seek out and destroy?
This all sounds like a bunch of FUD to me to get some headlines. Congrats, mission accomplished.
Oh, right, even "mission accomplished" is now a right wing conspiracy or something.
The speaker makes a rather compelling case for using nuclear power. We've been making great gains in wind and solar world wide but that growth is overshadowed by gains in fossil fuel use. The one energy source that has had the greatest reductions in CO2 emissions is nuclear power and we're shutting them down at a rate greater than we're opening new ones.
Those that think we can reduce our carbon footprint without nuclear is just plain fooling themselves. We simply cannot. This includes the current administration. Trump is far from the biggest advocate for reducing carbon output but he might actually be someone that would actually create the carbon reductions that Obama has failed to do.
Sure, Obama gave some lukewarm support for nuclear power at the end of his administration, but he had eight years with his pen and phone and failed to merely allow nuclear power to grow. These nuclear power companies aren't looking for a handout like wind and solar, they are just looking for permission to build. Obama from the beginning only made happy mouth noises for nuclear power, talking about "funding research" which never came.
I am optimistic now with Trump coming into office that the government might actually do something about climate change and build some nuclear power plants. Obama's policies of funding solar panel companies that didn't build any solar panels, and electric car companies that didn't build any cars, did nothing. If Trump starts handing out licenses to build nuclear power plants at a rate greater than replacement then he'd be doing more in building just one new nuclear power plant than what Obama has done in his entire eight years in office. Mr. Michael Shellenberger did the math in his speech, just a handful of new nuclear power plants could do more to reduce carbon output than wind or solar could ever do.
Words mean nothing to me. It's action that counts. Obama might have said a lot about how we need to stop global warming but he did next to nothing to stop it. Trump might be nothing more than a carnival barker in a trucker hat but if he puts people in the EPA, Energy, and NRC that will make nuclear power grow then he could do more to stop global warming in his first 100 days than Obama did in his entire political career.
I'm upmodded rei because your "argument" is so completely devoid of fact or reason I'm surprised that you can even understand what you are talking about.
I thought I was pretty clear. Nuclear power offers the lowest carbon footprint of any energy source we know of. If people claim that CO2 output from human activity threatens humanity then choosing any energy source other than nuclear power is putting humanity at risk. Since the powers that be choose to use energy sources other than nuclear power then these same powers that be must believe that global warming is not the threat that they claim. If global warming were an actual threat then they'd be supporting nuclear power. This argument also applies to anyone that believes global warming is a threat. Once it is known that nuclear power provides energy with a smaller footprint than wind or solar then those that believe global warming is a threat should also support nuclear power over wind or solar power.
So, it's either choose nuclear power or admit that global warming is a hoax.
There is no doubt that nuclear power, as of right now, produces energy with a lower carbon footprint than any energy source we have available to us. There is also no doubt that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. Any claims of the costs of building nuclear power, nuclear waste issues, time to build nuclear power are all irrelevant. It's nuclear power or more people die. If you don't believe me then look it up. Lowest carbon foot print and safest energy source we have.
I'm trying to save lives here, what's your excuse?
Now science is showing us how you were lying all along.
I'm lying? Where did I lie? It's simple really, do the math. If global warming is a threat, and the solution is to reduce carbon output, then the choice that reduces carbon output the most is the path to take. If people know this to be true, or at least claim it is so, but choose something else, then why would I not question their motives?
If anyone honestly believes global warming is a threat but do not support the use of nuclear power then they are contradicting themselves.
I see it now, the arguing over HVDC lines, grid level storage, government subsidies, and everything else is pointless. It comes down to just one thing, nuclear power or global warming is a hoax.
So uh, in spite of "a lot of resistance" we actually have red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, etc. So why do you expect this resistance to be of relevant quantity?
It seems I was not clear. There is a near universal disdain for these automated traffic enforcement mechanisms. We are seeing them declared illegal and/or unconstitutional all the time. The voting public don't want this and they are voting out the petty tyrants that put them in place.
What we've seen in the UK is more than just people speaking out and voting against it. It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire from the camera, fill the bottom with fuel, and put a match to it. The resulting fire is quite intense and will do considerable damage. I expect this to be a hobby in the USA as well if these cameras get out of hand. A big difference between the USA and the UK is that it is much easier to get firearms in the USA. I expect to see many shot up cameras as well.
No, it's going to be illegal, just like disabling your emissions equipment.
That I have no doubt. What I'm pondering is how well this would be received by the people that buy such vehicles and how the government plans to enforce this mandate. Part of the problem is that at first the systems would be rare, if it is present in the vehicles but disabled by the owner then how would anyone even know it was installed in the first place?
Just like the emission equipment it is near impossible to tell if it was disabled unless it was tested for somehow. Again, just how much of this do these government bureaucrats think the people will put up with this before these people in the government find themselves not in the government any more?
You seem to be taking this personally, please don't, that's just ridiculous and there is none of that blood on your hands.
Am I taking this personally? I don't think so. I just find it irritating that a history so far from the truth continues to live on.
We don't do that shit today so bringing up "how do you think that the USA got to be such a large economy" is irrelevant today, just treat it as dry history and get over it.
But it's not just a "dry history". You've heard the phrase, "those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it", no? If people believe that slavery created the economy America enjoys today then some people might just get the idea that slavery is somehow "good" and try to recreate it. If one ignores how morally abhorrent slavery is then one should recognize that slavery is just plain bad economic policy.
Think about it. How hard would a person work if their motivation was only to avoid getting whipped versus being free to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labors? Also, how well could an illiterate and uneducated slave perform compared to a person that could read, write, and engage in trade freely?
The American South suffered greatly because of slavery, and I don't mean just because of the Civil War to end it. Their greed created an economy that relied on slaves which left them in an economic rut that the rest of the nation was able to lift themselves from and prosper.
Don't try to tell me that America was built on slavery. America suffered from that economically and otherwise. America grew in spite of slavery, not because of it. It's not just "dry history" because slavery continues today in the world. If people think it brings them wealth then they will continue to practice it. The truth is that not only is is morally wrong it is also bad economically.
has better graduates in most fields studying at the best American universities
Well, one would expect only the best and brightest to be accepted in the best universities regardless of where in the world they come from.
Tell me something, if China is such a powerhouse of innovation then why would these people come to America to study? Shouldn't they want to stay in their own country? Just the language barrier should be enough to keep them home. Also, how many Americans go to Chinese universities to study? Again, if China is such a powerhouse of innovation then we should see a flood of Americans going to China to study, no?
There is no doubt that America had an economic boost from WWII by virtue of being relatively untouched by war. Even so China had much of the same advantages from this. I'm not sure how much China suffered from WWII but it would seem that their much larger population and vast natural resources should have allowed them to gain substantially much like the USA did.
With all that they have, people, natural resources, and plenty of time of relative peace, you'd expect them to have surpassed the economic output of the USA long ago. Yet they haven't. Sure they have a lot of patents, millionaires, and so on but many of these people got there by, as you admit, coming to America to get an education. These same millionaires also got their wealth by selling their products in the USA.
China is a "second world" nation largely because of government policies like the "great firewall of China" which censors the internet. China is also a "second rate" nation because of this and they will continue to be as long as they limit the information the public can see.
I make no claim that this V2V system should be depended upon instead of actually looking at the traffic ahead. I make the claim that if implemented correctly it would be much cheaper than any kind of radar system and provide additional information to the driver that the driver might not actually be able to see. One example given was being able to detect a driver braking in front of the car immediately ahead. This would give a driver additional time to slow down. A safe driver should always give ample room for braking safely but this could turn a panic braking situation into a much safer and more comfortable slow down.
We see much of the benefits claimed by this system already from things like additional sensors and cameras added to vehicles. What this claims to add is not just better situational awareness of other vehicles on the road but also communication with infrastructure, like traffic lights and such.
I do understand may have a concern that people might rely on this system too much and get too "cocky" and think they can pass safely because the system does not detect an oncoming vehicle only to get a surprise from a non-V2V equipped vehicle, a large wild animal, fallen tree, or other obstacle on the road. If this is where your concern lies then I share it.
USDOT claims the system will have a means to sign and/or encrypt all transmission so that bad actors cannot be a part of the system. This seems to be a solved problem for the most part since this trust network for the WWW exists and seems to work well.
What I find a bit odd is that you seem to believe the greater threat comes from bad actors in the vehicles. I believe the bad actor is the government by the mere act of wanting to impose this as a mandated feature on vehicles.
I agree with you in a large part that this adds little value since much of the advantages of this system can be obtained from adding sensors to the vehicle and not relying on other vehicles to transmit data. I also believe that the claimed infrastructure interaction features already exist for the most part. Sensors in the road, above the road, or on the side of the road can show traffic flow without the added cost of a transmitter on the vehicle. Sending information to the drivers also largely exists by means of static signage, automated signage, and traffic radio.
I believe a big gain in safety could be given with little cost by adding weather band radio reception to the in-dash radios. I find it extremely frustrating that this is such a difficult to find feature. I find NOAA weather radio transmissions exceedingly useful but getting that in a car radio is like hunting for unicorns.
I can just imagine hearing this from a Microsoft employee: Microsoft technical support, how may I help you? Oh, you're car crashed? That's terrible. Have you tried closing all the windows and restarting?
Or seeing this on the dashboard display: Software update in progress. Do not turn off vehicle until complete.
Of course. All these good intentions from the government could pave us a new interstate highway system, the problem is that there would be only one possible destination once the paving is complete.
Slashdot Mirror
And personally I cannot see a solution to the problem of the commons other than through goverment. Because even if people do realise they are also hurting themselves by polluting, it doesn't change the fact that a benefit from polluting less will be shared by everybody, while the costs of doing so are only applied to them.
Someone that wants clean water to drink won't be shitting in the community well, right? It's not too hard to imagine people wanting to minimize pollution if you realize that these people that are doing the polluting are living in the same world as the rest of us.
It also doesn't take the "big hammer of government" to enforce policies against pollution. For example, think of a person that knows that lead in gasoline has the potential to do permanent damage to the brain development of their children. Is this person going to fill the minivan with leaded gas and take the family on a cross country road trip? I doubt it. This parent, if he/she cares about children at all will choose unleaded fuel or not going on the trip.
A less theoretical example, electric cars. Electric cars have all kinds of limitations compared to gas and diesel and yet they sell well. Why is that? They aren't mandated. Sure, they get some government support but no government agency is putting Tesla under the gun to make cars. They saw a market and sought to fill it. People see the benefit from electric cars, such as leaving a cleaner planet for their children.
What people seem to lose in the "tragedy of the commons" is that government is precisely not the solution. The solution is to privatize it. The tragedy of the shared pasture goes away if it is divided into parcels for the individual ranchers to graze. This way they see a direct loss to over grazing. If the pasture is put under control of an uninterested government then corruption and neglect set in. The government sees no direct loss on over grazing of the pasture, just as it sees no direct gain. A public official that is in office for only two years is going to be tempted to allow over grazing to keep everyone happy and leave the mess for the next official.
In cases where a common resource is more fleeting, like air compared to pasture land, the need for a government that must answer to the people is the second best choice to privatizing. The people that cannot merely shame the guy shitting in the well into not doing it any more can use the power of government to make it stop. If the government is a bunch of people that don't have to drink from the same well then don't expect a quick response, assuming you get a response at all. This is doubly so if the people in government weren't elected but selected by other people that are far from the problem.
No need to get your panties in a wad over this. I'm not a fan of solar power but I am pro-arithmetic. If solar panel efficiencies can be improved then it can improve capacity factors. I didn't claim it would be much, only that it is possible.
There are losses in the conversion, transmission, etc. If efficiencies can be improved then the capacity factor can improve. Again I made no claim it would be much, only that it would be measurable.
It does not really matter if you fall from the roof cleaning a solar panel or cleaning a chimney.
Both can be avoided by following safety standards.
Understood but historically speaking more people have died from solar than nuclear. We cannot expect solar to ever reach zero on deaths, just like we can't from nuclear either. What we can expect is that while solar power is improving its safety record that nuclear power will as well. Nuclear power has it's slip and fall accidents too, we can fix that just as well as with solar but nuclear already starts with a good lead. As of today, right now, solar is a more deadly than nuclear and by an order of magnitude. Claiming that solar will improve and nuclear will not is speculation.
The carbon footprint of solar panels approaches zero. The only carbon dioxide produced is basically the transportation of raw material and finalized products to the installation place! If you take that into account then the carbon footprint of nuclear plants are a nightmare. They produce over their life span nearly the same amount as a similar coal plant does.
What color is the sky in your world? I have to ask because claiming that nuclear power would ever get to the level of coal is insanity. If you had instead claimed that wind and/or solar had a lower carbon footprint than nuclear by something like an order of magnitude then we might have a sane discussion. I might not be disputing the carbon footprint but instead focus on things like the benefits of nuclear being able to operate in any weather, needing much less land/steel/resources, and improved capacity factor. Claiming that nuclear power could even get close to producing as much CO2 as coal is just beyond the pale.
All power plants, that includes nuclear plants, need a favorable place. The main reason why Germany did mot build more before the decision to abolish them is that Germany has no space left where we could build one. Except the option to upgrade an existing one with another reactor.
This is demonstrably false. Nuclear power reactors can be operated in very confined spaces safely. They are running right now in submarines and aircraft carriers without incident and in very close proximity to people for decades at a time. This fear of nuclear power over nonexistent safety problems is hurting the environment and therefore hurting real and actual living people.
Same for France btw. That is the main reason France is buying so much power from Germany and in parallel is investing in renewables. Climate change is hitting Germany and France noticeable already: less snow in winter means far less water in summer in the rivers. Which means: shut down nuclear plants due to environmental regulations regarding temperature of water in the rivers. Or simple lack of water.
If we are going to speculate on the future advances of solar power to include improvements on safety and carbon footprint then I am going to speculate on air cooled nuclear reactors. Air cooling requires no water source, therefore your claims of a lack of proper water cooling preventing nuclear power use is not relevant. Even if we limit this to current technology I get back to the use of nuclear reactors in naval vessels. Build the nuclear reactor on a floating platform off shore, where the reactor is literally sitting in coolant, and run wires to the shore to transmit the power. If we can run wires under water to connect the UK to France to spread out the benefits of wind and solar power then running wires to a nuclear reactor at sea should be trivial by comparison.
I've actually heard of people claiming we should cover large portions of the Sahara desert with solar panels, run wires from there to Europe so they can benefit from carbon free energy. If that makes any kind of sense in the realms of logic, economics, and physics, then so should putting nuclear reactors out in the sands of Africa and running
I don't know this for a fact but I recall reading something on how farmers would make their own alcohol to run their tractors until Prohibition. There were no ethanol subsidies then but the farmers were quite willing to replace gasoline and kerosene for moonshine.
I believe that Prohibition set back the bio-fuel industry by more than a century. We'd have had all kinds of real world data on the utility of ethanol as a fuel if Prohibition didn't kill it off. Even after Prohibition ended there were still "revenuers" looking for moonshine stills to make sure Uncle Sam got it's share from taxing it. I know people that are in the ethanol industry (fuel, spirits, and moonshine) and it's real hard to make ethanol now because of the rules that lived on beyond Prohibition.
Ethanol fuel didn't benefit from subsidies until fairly recently and yet people did use it for fuel until the puritans came along and ruined it for everyone.
How did you conclude that panel efficiency impacts capacity factors?
A more efficient PV cell is easier to activate under low light. It takes a certain level of light to get a PV cell to overcome it's internal resistance, if this resistance can be lowered then it can operate through a larger part of the day. If the PV cell can operate through a longer period in the day then the capacity factor increases.
You are five to ten times more likely to die from slipping off the roof by cleaning your solar panels than you would from any nuclear power accident.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Of all the energy sources by carbon footprint the ones with the lowest emissions per energy produced are wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. Solar doesn't even make the top five.
Solar is a loser on "death footprint", carbon footprint, and cost. Since geothermal, wind, tidal, and hydro require favorable geography nuclear really wins out here. This is especially true since solar is just as dependent on favorable weather and geography as the others I listed. If you want to dispute the carbon footprint stats then that's fine, I'll concede that if you want to dispute it but only to a point. Nuclear is still a "zero carbon" energy source as defined by whatever definition that also includes wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, or tidal. If you claim that nuclear is not "zero carbon" then solar isn't either. If you want to fear monger on nuclear power then you need to do so knowing all the facts.
I'm sure thinking of dead solar power workers will make you sleep better at night. Now go sleep on that.
Right, and if you follow that link you gave then went to where the money was spent you'd see this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
If I was in the energy business and I could choose to go into oil and get a very very small slice of the already small 20% of subsidies spent on fossil energy versus getting a potentially large slice of that 45% spent on renewable energy. If the goal is to profit from subsidies then I'd be going into something renewable. If the goal is to make a profit from delivering actual energy to the open market then it seems nuclear wins here.
Even though nuclear power gets a small portion of the subsidies that solar does and the one nuclear power plant that went on line this year, after taking into account capacity factors, will produce just as much energy per year as all the additional solar combined.
I know people will want to claim military spending as a "subsidy" for fossil fuel energy. For one, not all of that spending can be called an energy subsidy since we need a military for more than just assuring the "spice must flow". Let's assume this is true, then what does that mean for nuclear power? There's no military subsidy for that since the USA does not rely on foreign sources of uranium for energy. Sure, a lot of uranium gets imported and exported but it's not like we rely on this to keep our reactors going. A large portion of the imports are, or were, Russia/Soviet warheads headed for destruction in nuclear power reactors. Nuclear power is vital to the destruction of the world's nuclear weapons, and isn't this a good thing?
If you look at the cost/benefit from a government spending aspect the real winner is nuclear power. If you look at how much of a dent these energy sources will make in carbon output then nuclear power wins here as well. In this case it is doubly so since Watts Bar is so close to the Raccoon Mountain pumped hydro energy storage facility, they won't be using natural gas for load following. Instead the nuclear reactor will just putt-putt along powering industry during the day and pumping water uphill at night.
The real winner is nuclear power. It's nice to see this happening since this might mean we'll actually be doing something about our energy independence instead of importing Chinese solar panels, Venezuelan oil, or Colombian coal.
Across which time interval? And do you have numbers?
Oh, please, really? Go read a book sometime. Muslims have been killing, warring, pillaging, burning, raping, and on and on for centuries. The word "assassin" comes from the murderous tendencies of an Islamic sect. Muslims have been terrorizing the world from it's very beginning.
The terrorism I grew up with...
The terrorism my dad grew up with was from the KKK. Being a Catholic in the Midwest was hazardous to your health at one time. Just because I didn't see Muslim pirates harassing American shipping doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Easy, create policies that do away with these "tribal" tendencies. But you see we tried that and the "crybullies" got upset because that meant certain minorities were poorly represented in certain areas of what they would consider privileged areas of society, like higher education.
If you want to see an example of a meritocracy then look to athletics or the military. Blacks make up about 12% of the US population by most estimates. You don't see a lot of Blacks in the Coast Guard though. How could that be? To see why then look to the Olympics on how well Blacks compete in swimming events. Blacks, for the most part, are poor swimmers. Should we award a bronze medal to a Black person just because they are Black? No, of course not. Should we make the Coast Guard take in more Black recruits? Sure, if you want to put people's lives at risk.
Affirmative action policies are just as abhorrent as any other discrimination. By short circuiting the meritocracy that should dominate in education and business we are making the world worse off, not better. If someone is actually promoting people out of "tribal" reasons over merit then this will be reflected in the quality of their work. A professional sports team that hired athletes out of "tribal tendencies" will find themselves a laughing stock in short order, not because of being "too White" or "too Black" but because they will be beaten badly by the teams that hire on merit.
Think about where your affirmative actions policies would lead. We'd have people getting into fields like medicine and engineering out of racial preference over merit. This means people will die because of poorly performed surgeries and improperly built bridges. One thing about affirmative action is it cannot override merit completely. A sub par physician or engineer simply will not get as far as an excellent one. What affirmative action did do though is lower the quality of the population of very critical professions. People that should have gotten into medical school or an engineering program out of merit were denied that spot because a person of some protected minority got in instead.
I say this as a protected minority. I am a disabled veteran and it gives me certain preferences in finding work, getting into schools, etc. If you think that I don't take advantage of this preferential treatment then you are a fool. I know what's best for me and so I act on it. I don't expect anyone else to do different. What I do expect though is that people should not get into places that they do not belong. If the bar has to be lowered to meet a set demographic profile then that is a problem.
I remember a conversation I had with a classmate once where we got to talking about affirmative action. He said something that stuck with me, it went something like if you want to get into engineering then claim you are a Black lesbian Jew. Someone like that would tick off all the affirmative action boxes, that person probably wouldn't even have to go to class to graduate and get hired immediately.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
The overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims.
You are correct on many points but I think you missed another very important point. China is doing now what Europe and America did in the late 1700s and early 1800s. They are going through an industrial revolution. When this happened in the UK they had air quality issues too, possibly much worse than this even.
This is a classic example of those not learning from history are doomed to repeat it. China is a society built by the vision of a small group of people which has been imposed on the rest of the population by force and fear. It's also quite possible these elite few do know their history, know that their policy puts the public under such misery and threatens their health but they don't care. They would much rather take a path that creates greater wealth and power for themselves even if that means the rest suffer.
China though could be a lesson for the rest of the world. I keep hearing on how we need more government to control global warming and pollution. Well, China has a society that has a near total control of every aspect of the lives of the people in their nation and they have the worst air quality in the world. A question I have for these big government types, once the government has the ability to tell the people what kind of toilets they can buy, the kind of light bulbs, cars, soft drinks, clothing, the size of their house, the number of children, and on and on then what motivation would they have to care if the people don't like the air quality that their policies produced? If it takes smart people in government to tell us what to do to make our lives better then what is there to make sure that it is smart people that remain in government? Free elections perhaps? Freedom to speak?
The people in China are constantly lied to by the government, no doubt "for their own good" in the eyes of the government. The Chinese government claims this smog is the result of a natural event. They also know better because they have shutdown factories in response.
China is a polluted hell hole because they are going through an industrial revolution. It will remain a polluted hell hole until the people are free to choose who is in government and are free to speak out against their government. We've seen this before. History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme.
Uranium is not a rare element. If people are mining then they are digging up uranium. There is nothing inherently "dirty" about mining uranium and unique to uranium. Keeping uranium mining clean is trivial compared to the level of mining needed to build out enough wind power to replace coal.
You also seem to have missed the point where we simply do not have enough mining capacity to replace coal with wind and solar. We'd have to dig up more than 10 times current output to meet the demand for materials. The level of mining needed to get enough uranium is trivial compared to the rare earth mining needed for wind power. Even less of a problem if we'd get the federal government to okay thorium reactors. In fact the current rare earth mining produces more than enough uranium and thorium. We're already mining it, but we're throwing it back in the hole we dug and pretending we didn't disturb it.
If you want to see an environmental disaster then go ahead without nuclear. We'll be mining like mad to get enough steel. You think making concrete is "clean"? Sure, I'll look at uranium mining, if you go look at iron and limestone mining.
You don't understand how you could discover that the vehicle doesn't respond to queries? You must be new.
I understand but the lack of a response proves nothing. Someone would have to query, see no response, but also know that the device was installed. If a government is checking every license plate to a database to see if a V2V device was installed then this is undeniable proof that the government is tracking the movements of people. That is the point I've been making. People are upset already over traffic enforcement cameras already to the point they will vandalize them to the point they don't function, vote out people that put these things in the first place, etc.
Again, go read up on recent news on the many cities and states that are removing traffic enforcement cameras due to public outcry. I believe you are mistaken that people will put up with this. You seem to think people will vote out freedoms for the promise of safety. I think you need to read some Ben Franklin on that.
Another interesting TED Talk on the subject:
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi...
Dr. MacKay goes through the math on what it would take to replace fossil fuels with carbon free energy. A couple notable statistics is that it would take a 5x increase in nuclear power or a 20x increase in wind power for the UK to provide current energy needs carbon free. This is an older video, and a nuclear reactor or two have been shut down since so it's likely closer to 6x now.
The resources needed for wind or solar to meet current energy needs for nations like the USA or UK are mind boggling. On the other hand we know we have enough manufacturing capacity to build up enough nuclear power to meet all our energy needs. The resources needed might still be mind blowing but it is manageable.
Near the end of Dr. MacKay's talk he speaks of energy conservation in a way that reminds me of Amory Lovins talks on "negawatts". Lovins likes to give these very convincing talks on how we can solve the world's energy problems with energy efficiency and "green" energy but the difference is that after thinking about MacKay's talk you don't get the feeling that you've just been shoveled a bunch of BS. Lovins will give a talk with a lot of optimism but in the end he lacks any real numbers and a lot of hope that new technology can save us. Dr. MacKay gives real numbers and after doing the math with him it seems quite obvious that nuclear power must be part of the energy solution or we will end up with some very expensive energy that relies on favorable weather, favorable relations with neighboring nations (since there would be a reliance on freely buying and selling of energy), and technological developments favorable to wind and solar.
Check out some uranium mining sites sometime
As opposed to a rare earth mine? Aren't they the same thing?
Wind and solar requires mining. They actually require more mining than nuclear power for the same energy output. Wind requires over 500 tons of steel and concrete for every MW of installed capacity, about ten times that of nuclear, coal, and gas.
Morgan Stanley did a study and concluded that to replace coal with wind worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world wide production is 1.5 billion tons.
People have done the math and we simply do not have the resources to replace coal with wind and solar. A person's lifetime supply of energy would amount to a lump of uranium of about the size of a beer can. We'd certainly have to move a lot of rock to get that uranium but it'd be much less mining than digging up enough steel to make the windmills to get the same energy.
I have a feeling you didn't even watch the video.
There are other TED Talks on this where people have done the math, I'll have to link to more of them.
It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire from the camera, fill the bottom with fuel, and put a match to it.
You still have more unvandalized speed cameras than vandalized ones any day of the week. Get back to me when you make a dent.
You seem to be missing the point. People are upset enough about these cameras that they risk arrest to destroy them. This is not random vandalism either, the people that do this tend to do so in a manner to minimize risk to people and private property. It's hard to make a political statement if the vandalism can be explained away as random destruction.
Also, it's not that this is the only tactic that they are using. As I pointed out the people that oppose this have been very effective in getting them shut down through legal means. Go search the internet on recent news on the topic, more traffic cameras are being shut down than put up. This is largely because of constitutional issues and from public outrage. Vandalism is actually a small part of this but it has made some traffic cameras disappear because it cost more to replace them than they were getting in ticket revenue, which only proves the point that they were not there to improve safety but to improve government income.
Part of the problem is that at first the systems would be rare, if it is present in the vehicles but disabled by the owner then how would anyone even know it was installed in the first place?
It would be easy enough to query the V2V system during emissions time. It would also be easy to query it during a toll crossing, then match that to a license plate.
How can one query a disabled device? I think you missed a big detail here. You also seem to miss the civil disobedience aspect of this. Those willing to disobey the law to disable a potential government tracking device would also not be the types to submit themselves to emission testing. Also, emission and safety testing is rare and is often waived for new (less that 5 or 6 years old) vehicles. Someone with enough money to buy a new vehicle, and the desire to disable a V2V device, is unlikely to get caught. If they are caught then they just bought themselves a few years of "freedom" and might get away with only paying a small fine. If the government starts jailing people for disabling their V2V devices then expect some real push back.
Again, just how much of this do these government bureaucrats think the people will put up with this before these people in the government find themselves not in the government any more?
A whole lot more. The average person says "Good, this will make me more safe".
It doesn't take the "average person" to make government officials very nervous. An interesting article I read said it takes only 3%. Many historical examples were given, including the American Revolution, where it took only 3% of the population to make a change.
Imagine if only 3% of the driving population disabled their V2V devices, tossed their license plates, and burned their driver licenses. They are not doing any one any harm. The pose no threat to the public. What they do pose a threat to is the ability of the government to enforce stupid laws. We're not at this point yet but I have to wonder just how close we are.
Forget the civil disobedience part and just think of votes. Elections are notoriously close in much of the USA. A politician that pisses off 3% of voters runs the risk of never being able to run for office again. You can ask a lot of Democrats about that, it shouldn't be hard to find one walking the wooded trails, or so I hear.
This time never really existed. Some scientists might have said that laymen cannot understand the raw data, because most of them can't, but the data is and has been publicly available on many places for a long time.
That does not explain the rush to preserve the data. If it was publicly available, and people have been asking for it, then would not the desire to assure the data was preserved be a mere matter of making some phone calls to make sure the people that retrieved the data kept their copies?
The university I attend offers degree programs in topics related to climate change and I know that there are students in these programs that would love to have this data. This is just one university of hundreds that has the facilities and interest to preserve this data. If they are frantic about preserving this data now then what were they doing with the data before? Should this data not already have been preserved in multiple locations by now? In places that even a "book burner" like Trump would be unable to seek out and destroy?
This all sounds like a bunch of FUD to me to get some headlines. Congrats, mission accomplished.
Oh, right, even "mission accomplished" is now a right wing conspiracy or something.
I saw this quite interesting video on TED Talks:
https://www.ted.com/talks/mich...
The speaker makes a rather compelling case for using nuclear power. We've been making great gains in wind and solar world wide but that growth is overshadowed by gains in fossil fuel use. The one energy source that has had the greatest reductions in CO2 emissions is nuclear power and we're shutting them down at a rate greater than we're opening new ones.
Those that think we can reduce our carbon footprint without nuclear is just plain fooling themselves. We simply cannot. This includes the current administration. Trump is far from the biggest advocate for reducing carbon output but he might actually be someone that would actually create the carbon reductions that Obama has failed to do.
Sure, Obama gave some lukewarm support for nuclear power at the end of his administration, but he had eight years with his pen and phone and failed to merely allow nuclear power to grow. These nuclear power companies aren't looking for a handout like wind and solar, they are just looking for permission to build. Obama from the beginning only made happy mouth noises for nuclear power, talking about "funding research" which never came.
I am optimistic now with Trump coming into office that the government might actually do something about climate change and build some nuclear power plants. Obama's policies of funding solar panel companies that didn't build any solar panels, and electric car companies that didn't build any cars, did nothing. If Trump starts handing out licenses to build nuclear power plants at a rate greater than replacement then he'd be doing more in building just one new nuclear power plant than what Obama has done in his entire eight years in office. Mr. Michael Shellenberger did the math in his speech, just a handful of new nuclear power plants could do more to reduce carbon output than wind or solar could ever do.
Words mean nothing to me. It's action that counts. Obama might have said a lot about how we need to stop global warming but he did next to nothing to stop it. Trump might be nothing more than a carnival barker in a trucker hat but if he puts people in the EPA, Energy, and NRC that will make nuclear power grow then he could do more to stop global warming in his first 100 days than Obama did in his entire political career.
I'm upmodded rei because your "argument" is so completely devoid of fact or reason I'm surprised that you can even understand what you are talking about.
I thought I was pretty clear. Nuclear power offers the lowest carbon footprint of any energy source we know of. If people claim that CO2 output from human activity threatens humanity then choosing any energy source other than nuclear power is putting humanity at risk. Since the powers that be choose to use energy sources other than nuclear power then these same powers that be must believe that global warming is not the threat that they claim. If global warming were an actual threat then they'd be supporting nuclear power. This argument also applies to anyone that believes global warming is a threat. Once it is known that nuclear power provides energy with a smaller footprint than wind or solar then those that believe global warming is a threat should also support nuclear power over wind or solar power.
So, it's either choose nuclear power or admit that global warming is a hoax.
There is no doubt that nuclear power, as of right now, produces energy with a lower carbon footprint than any energy source we have available to us. There is also no doubt that nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. Any claims of the costs of building nuclear power, nuclear waste issues, time to build nuclear power are all irrelevant. It's nuclear power or more people die. If you don't believe me then look it up. Lowest carbon foot print and safest energy source we have.
I'm trying to save lives here, what's your excuse?
Now science is showing us how you were lying all along.
I'm lying? Where did I lie? It's simple really, do the math. If global warming is a threat, and the solution is to reduce carbon output, then the choice that reduces carbon output the most is the path to take. If people know this to be true, or at least claim it is so, but choose something else, then why would I not question their motives?
If anyone honestly believes global warming is a threat but do not support the use of nuclear power then they are contradicting themselves.
I see it now, the arguing over HVDC lines, grid level storage, government subsidies, and everything else is pointless. It comes down to just one thing, nuclear power or global warming is a hoax.
So uh, in spite of "a lot of resistance" we actually have red light cameras, automated speed traps, license plate readers, etc. So why do you expect this resistance to be of relevant quantity?
It seems I was not clear. There is a near universal disdain for these automated traffic enforcement mechanisms. We are seeing them declared illegal and/or unconstitutional all the time. The voting public don't want this and they are voting out the petty tyrants that put them in place.
What we've seen in the UK is more than just people speaking out and voting against it. It seems outright vandalism of the traffic cameras has become a new hobby for many. A rather common tactic is to hang an old car tire from the camera, fill the bottom with fuel, and put a match to it. The resulting fire is quite intense and will do considerable damage. I expect this to be a hobby in the USA as well if these cameras get out of hand. A big difference between the USA and the UK is that it is much easier to get firearms in the USA. I expect to see many shot up cameras as well.
No, it's going to be illegal, just like disabling your emissions equipment.
That I have no doubt. What I'm pondering is how well this would be received by the people that buy such vehicles and how the government plans to enforce this mandate. Part of the problem is that at first the systems would be rare, if it is present in the vehicles but disabled by the owner then how would anyone even know it was installed in the first place?
Just like the emission equipment it is near impossible to tell if it was disabled unless it was tested for somehow. Again, just how much of this do these government bureaucrats think the people will put up with this before these people in the government find themselves not in the government any more?
You seem to be taking this personally, please don't, that's just ridiculous and there is none of that blood on your hands.
Am I taking this personally? I don't think so. I just find it irritating that a history so far from the truth continues to live on.
We don't do that shit today so bringing up "how do you think that the USA got to be such a large economy" is irrelevant today, just treat it as dry history and get over it.
But it's not just a "dry history". You've heard the phrase, "those that do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it", no? If people believe that slavery created the economy America enjoys today then some people might just get the idea that slavery is somehow "good" and try to recreate it. If one ignores how morally abhorrent slavery is then one should recognize that slavery is just plain bad economic policy.
Think about it. How hard would a person work if their motivation was only to avoid getting whipped versus being free to work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labors? Also, how well could an illiterate and uneducated slave perform compared to a person that could read, write, and engage in trade freely?
The American South suffered greatly because of slavery, and I don't mean just because of the Civil War to end it. Their greed created an economy that relied on slaves which left them in an economic rut that the rest of the nation was able to lift themselves from and prosper.
Don't try to tell me that America was built on slavery. America suffered from that economically and otherwise. America grew in spite of slavery, not because of it. It's not just "dry history" because slavery continues today in the world. If people think it brings them wealth then they will continue to practice it. The truth is that not only is is morally wrong it is also bad economically.
has better graduates in most fields studying at the best American universities
Well, one would expect only the best and brightest to be accepted in the best universities regardless of where in the world they come from.
Tell me something, if China is such a powerhouse of innovation then why would these people come to America to study? Shouldn't they want to stay in their own country? Just the language barrier should be enough to keep them home. Also, how many Americans go to Chinese universities to study? Again, if China is such a powerhouse of innovation then we should see a flood of Americans going to China to study, no?
There is no doubt that America had an economic boost from WWII by virtue of being relatively untouched by war. Even so China had much of the same advantages from this. I'm not sure how much China suffered from WWII but it would seem that their much larger population and vast natural resources should have allowed them to gain substantially much like the USA did.
With all that they have, people, natural resources, and plenty of time of relative peace, you'd expect them to have surpassed the economic output of the USA long ago. Yet they haven't. Sure they have a lot of patents, millionaires, and so on but many of these people got there by, as you admit, coming to America to get an education. These same millionaires also got their wealth by selling their products in the USA.
China is a "second world" nation largely because of government policies like the "great firewall of China" which censors the internet. China is also a "second rate" nation because of this and they will continue to be as long as they limit the information the public can see.
I make no claim that this V2V system should be depended upon instead of actually looking at the traffic ahead. I make the claim that if implemented correctly it would be much cheaper than any kind of radar system and provide additional information to the driver that the driver might not actually be able to see. One example given was being able to detect a driver braking in front of the car immediately ahead. This would give a driver additional time to slow down. A safe driver should always give ample room for braking safely but this could turn a panic braking situation into a much safer and more comfortable slow down.
We see much of the benefits claimed by this system already from things like additional sensors and cameras added to vehicles. What this claims to add is not just better situational awareness of other vehicles on the road but also communication with infrastructure, like traffic lights and such.
I do understand may have a concern that people might rely on this system too much and get too "cocky" and think they can pass safely because the system does not detect an oncoming vehicle only to get a surprise from a non-V2V equipped vehicle, a large wild animal, fallen tree, or other obstacle on the road. If this is where your concern lies then I share it.
USDOT claims the system will have a means to sign and/or encrypt all transmission so that bad actors cannot be a part of the system. This seems to be a solved problem for the most part since this trust network for the WWW exists and seems to work well.
What I find a bit odd is that you seem to believe the greater threat comes from bad actors in the vehicles. I believe the bad actor is the government by the mere act of wanting to impose this as a mandated feature on vehicles.
I agree with you in a large part that this adds little value since much of the advantages of this system can be obtained from adding sensors to the vehicle and not relying on other vehicles to transmit data. I also believe that the claimed infrastructure interaction features already exist for the most part. Sensors in the road, above the road, or on the side of the road can show traffic flow without the added cost of a transmitter on the vehicle. Sending information to the drivers also largely exists by means of static signage, automated signage, and traffic radio.
I believe a big gain in safety could be given with little cost by adding weather band radio reception to the in-dash radios. I find it extremely frustrating that this is such a difficult to find feature. I find NOAA weather radio transmissions exceedingly useful but getting that in a car radio is like hunting for unicorns.
I can just imagine hearing this from a Microsoft employee:
Microsoft technical support, how may I help you?
Oh, you're car crashed? That's terrible.
Have you tried closing all the windows and restarting?
Or seeing this on the dashboard display:
Software update in progress. Do not turn off vehicle until complete.
Of course. All these good intentions from the government could pave us a new interstate highway system, the problem is that there would be only one possible destination once the paving is complete.