This is a classic technique of statistical misrepresentation: cherry picking a baseline to obtain the comparison you want.
Well, the claim is that unless we reduce our CO2 output then we will see temperatures rise. If temperatures keep rising then at some point 1998 will no longer be the maximum. It's been the maximum for 20 years now, when can we expect this to no longer be true? Or, put another way, how do we disprove the connection between human produced CO2 and global warming? Is this too much to ask?
I've already seen "global warming" get replaced with "climate change" because people may have not seen local warming. Let's not mince words here, the theory was and still is that CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere will bring bad things upon humanity. As I understand it the claim has been that we are supposed to use "climate change" instead of "global warming" because not every place on the globe can expect to see a warming climate. Well, we should still be seeing this as global warming as the local temperatures are all averaged together. If the claim is that we will not see a global rise in temperature from CO2 then I must still ask, what would disprove the theory that human emissions of CO2 will bring climate change?
Go ahead, pick your own year as a baseline. Now tell me at what point in the future we must see this rise in temperature to prove we are in fact warming the globe. If you can't pick two endpoints on which to base this human induced warming then I find this theory very suspect.
Um, hard to know where to start, basically your entire post is disconnected from actual facts. The UN report was dire, but didn't include the effects of methane locked in permafrost.
Let's assume this is true, that if we don't reduce CO2 output to 50% of current levels by 2050 then we face severe and detrimental environmental effects from global warming. We know of four "zero carbon" energy sources today, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. Maybe people will toss in few more like geothermal and bio-fuels but I don't hear too much about those, likely because they come with other environmental impacts that we'd like to avoid. If the effects of CO2 are so dire then maybe we should be building more nuclear power plants to replace coal? If we cannot have nuclear power to stop this global threat to human survival then I have to wonder just how real of a threat this is. Even after decades of subsidies for wind and solar they still have not matched the "zero carbon" output from nuclear power. Nuclear power did have a head start, I'll grant that much, but nuclear power also had a near stop in any new construction for 40 years.
We've been waiting for 40 years for wind and solar to save us, how much longer can we wait?
There will come a point in which we must choose, nuclear power or global warming, because it is going to become abundantly clear that wind and solar will not save us.
Here's the first couple paragraphs of the article:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels increased in 2017, statistics office Eurostat said on Friday, indicating that the reduction of emissions blamed for climate change remains a challenge.
Carbon emissions in the EU were up 1.8 percent from 2016, Eurostat said, with a double-digit increase in Malta and Estonia.
Right, no more debate on this. CO2 will kill us all if we don't reduce output immediately. Now that we agree on this, can we have more nuclear power? If the answer is "no" then we will have to debate which poses a greater risk, global warming from CO2 or nuclear power? We've been waiting a long time for wind and solar to replace coal and natural gas, if we keep waiting and the situation does not improve then at some point nuclear power will become the lesser evil, no?
Tell me something, "angel", what is a greater threat to humanity? Global warming or nuclear power? The answer cannot be "both" or "neither" as something must be of greater concern, if only by a small margin.
If global warming is the greater threat then we should be building more nuclear power plants instead of shutting down the ones we have. If nuclear power is the greater threat then it gets back to my point of no one believing the threats. People are building nuclear power plants and they are building new homes and businesses in places which the global warming alarmists claim will be underwater in 10, 20, 30, or 80 years. Cities plan for the next 100 years all the time. If city planners honestly believed that portions of their city would be underwater from global warming induced sea level rise then they'd be building sea walls or denying permits for any new construction.
The predictions of CO2 induced gloom and doom have failed over and over again, year after year. I'm being hyperbolic in saying no one believes these predictions, just as I am by saying that Miami would be underwater in 10 years, but not by much. It's easy to find predictions of Miami being underwater in 30 or 80 years just as it is easy to find people that live like frontiersmen to reduce their carbon footprint as much as possible. They might go on eating home grown potatoes and reading by beeswax candles in their sod house, but these people are rare.
I've seen these predictions for a long time now, ever since I was able to read, that global warming threatened to kill us all and that wind and solar power would save us. Well, the predictions of cheap and plentiful wind and solar power keep failing, as well as the environmental collapse from CO2. I'm finding it real hard to take any of this seriously, especially when these same people that demand we reduce our CO2 also demand we not use nuclear power. Well, pick one. It's come to a point now that we can't have both if such doom awaits us. We need solutions and they aren't coming as promised. One of the two has to be the greater risk to humanity, I just want someone to tell me which so I can act on it.
One main reason for this slowdown is technical constraints: going 100% renewable (or even 50%) is not trivial. Baseload plants will have to disappear completely even as sufficient dispatchable capacity remains available. Utility umbrella group BDEW is thus calling for more new gas turbines to be constructed (in German), and companies like Uniper (formerly Eon) is currently investigating its options (in German). So are municipal utilities, such as the one in Cottbus that recently announced plans to switch from locally produced lignite to natural gas (in German). Amidst all of the reports about records with renewables and power exports, this little news item deserves more attention: a municipal utility in one of Germanyâ(TM)s three largest lignite mining areas (Lausitz) is switching to gas.
So, Germany is not replacing nuclear and coal with wind and solar but with natural gas. Perhaps more importantly this is replacing domestic coal and uranium with imported natural gas. Much of this comes from the not so friendly Russians. I'm sure that they'll take German money for their erdgas but if Russia decides that they'd like to take over more land in the future then the first thing they'll do is turn off the heat for lots of cold Germans. I know that Germany has stores of erdgas in big tanks so it won't mean waking up to a cold house some night, only that prices will creep up as the tanks run down.
Germany made a mistake on deciding to turn away from nuclear power, they doubled down on this mistake by relying on foreign energy. They will have to reverse this policy sooner or later.
Maybe we could build some nuclear power plants while we figure out how to make wind and solar power work? Nuclear power is as much a "zero emissions" energy source as wind and solar. Nuclear power is already competitive in price but national energy policy puts it in an impossible situation compared to wind.
In states with deregulated electricity markets, nuclear power plant operators have found increasing difficulty with competition on two fronts: low-cost gas, particularly from shale gas developments, and subsidized wind power with priority grid access. The imposition of a price on carbon dioxide emissions would help in competition with gas and coal, but this is not expected in the short term. Single-unit plants which tend to have higher operating costs per MWh are most vulnerable. The basic problem is low natural gas prices allowing gas-fired plants to undercut power prices. A second problem is the federal production tax credit of $23/MWh paid to wind generators, coupled with their priority access to the grid. When there is oversupply, wind output is taken preferentially. Capacity payments can offset losses to some extent, but where market prices are around $35-$40/MWh, nuclear plants are struggling. According to Exelon, the main operator of merchant plants and a strong supporter of competitive wholesale electricity markets, low prices due to gas competition are survivable, but the subsidized wind is not. In 2016 the subsidy (production tax credit) is $23/MWh. Though wind is a very small part of the supply, and is limited or unavailable most of the time, its effect on electricity prices and the viability of base-load generators âoeis hugeâ.
Wind power gets all the breaks on making money. This is pushing up energy prices and forcing nuclear power plants out of business. This means more natural gas plants get built to replace them, and all the CO2 that comes with it.
You want to reduce CO2? The stop the madness on wind subsidies and let some nuclear power plants make some money.
I heard of people talking on the radio of a new mall going up in Miami, IIRC, supposedly the largest in the nation. If Miami is supposed to be underwater in 10 years then how did anyone get funding for this? How did this get approved by the city? How did this mall get insurance? These people talking on the radio were mocking all the global warming alarmists. If enough people believed that CO2 was such a potential harm then they would be able to raise enough money to fix the problem. Instead they put money into shopping malls in Florida.
So, why is there not enough money to fix the problem?
I'm guessing it's because we've been hearing about how coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years for 40 years now. The predictions of doom never come close to reality and so no one is listening any more.
Here's what boggles me most, there's no real demand from these doom and gloom types for nuclear power. Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output per energy produced of any energy source we know of today, even the IPCC agrees on this.
But nuclear power is expensive! More expensive than the end of all life on Earth? But nuclear power is dangerous! More dangerous than large numbers of coastal cities being underwater? But nuclear power isn't near as good as wind and solar power! Who says we should only use nuclear power? Let's have wind, solar, and nuclear. You know, that "all the above" energy strategy that so many politicians keep talking about? But all the nuclear waste! Is nuclear waste any kind of threat to our safety by comparison to global warming? This is a political problem, we know we can keep the waste contained but the politicians keep thinking up new ways on how to delay the opening of proper waste containment sites. But some terrorist could use the fuel to make a weapon! Is terrorism a threat greater than global warming? It's not like we can't work on more than one problem at the same time. Let's build some nuclear power plants and shoot some terrorists. If nuclear power plants attract the terrorists then put people with guns around the power plants. I have heard from reliable sources that there are generals and admirals just desperate for cheap and reliable power for military bases in the USA. I also have heard from reliable sources that the US Navy has a lot of people trained in the safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants. Put some nuclear power plants on some military bases. I have heard from reliable sources that the US military is quite capable of keeping their bases secure. But nuclear power is scary! More scary than the end of all life on Earth?
Let's talk solutions to the problem. We've tried with solar and wind as solutions for decades now and they have not done all that well in displacing coal for power generation. Again, nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output of any energy source we have available today. Any problems that one might come up with on deploying more nuclear power is something we can also deal with as we shoot terrorists and put up windmills. Someone might dispute how much CO2 nuclear power produces and claim that hydro or wind take first place but nuclear is certainly in the top three as means to produce power with least CO2 emitted. Let's do "all the above", because our survival depends on it.
I'll believe that global warming from CO2 is a real threat when these global warming alarmists embrace nuclear power as a solution. Claiming nuclear power is a greater threat to humanity than global warming is getting real hard to wrap my head around. Bringing up nuclear power accidents from 50 year old nuclear reactors is nonsense, no one builds reactors like that any more. Even if we did that still means that we'd potentially save humanity from certain destruction even if it means rendering small portions of the planet as radioactive wastelands from more accidents in the future.
What's the greater threat, nuclear power or global warming? If the answer is nuclear power is the greater threat then I guess we're all just doomed.
> Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes
*facepalm*
XYY syndrome
XXY syndrome aka Klinefelter syndrome
*facepalm*????
You do realize you are pointing out anomalous genetics, don't you? These are rounding errors on specifying that there would be 25% this and 50% that. The articles you linked to specify that these mutations occur in 1 of 1000 live births. Even if we add up all variations of mutations that might occur on the sex determinant chromosomes there is likely far less than 1% of the total population with these mutations, and quite a few of which could render a person infertile and unable to produce the gametes needed for this experimental process as well as less experimental means of reproduction.
This is ignoring that a fertilized egg with no X chromosome is unlikely to be viable, and if it would produce a live birth the child would likely be in very poor health.
By choosing renewables, China can position itself on the international stage as taking the high road - and then bash the U.S. incessantly, with support from the rest of the world.
The USA is bashed incessantly already, how does this "taking the high road" change anything?
The U.S. will eventually change its mind (as soon as it can change its administration to one that's actually responsible), and then it will have to struggle to catch up.
Catch up to what? Reducing their CO2 output? The USA has already been doing far better on this than many other nations in the world, and they aren't even trying.
The U.S. may well find itself unable to recover, and may even experience energy shortages if it cannot get the renewable tech it needs.
How in the hell would the USA experience energy shortages? The USA already exports coal. If the USA isn't a net exporter of oil by now it will be one soon, same for natural gas. Nuclear power output has been growing even though few nuclear reactors have been built in the last 40 years. Upgrades and improved techniques have allowed for greater and greater output from the existing fleet of nuclear power plants. There's been a rough restart of building new nuclear power reactors but it's fairly certain that this will be resolved shortly and more new power reactors will be coming online soon. The wind industry is doing well. The USA will not run out of energy any time soon, even if nations like China want to get in a trade war.
The end result may be a significant shift of political power among first-world nations.
It's quite possible that there could be a shift in political dominance. What is unlikely to cause such a shift is China getting some kind of monopoly on solar panels.
We are nowhere near the lower bound of resource use for solar.
Are you willing to bet the survival of the human race on that? I'm not.
As it is right now, today, nuclear power uses far less raw material for the same energy than solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal. As it is right now, today, nuclear power produces less CO2 per energy produced than any other energy source we know of. As it is right now, today, nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. If there is a great demand that we lower CO2, with least impact on lives and the environment, and deploy this as quickly as possible, then we have no option other than nuclear power.
While we wait for this technological breakthrough on reducing the resource needs of solar power we can reduce our CO2 production by building some nuclear power plants. If the need to reduce our CO2 can wait for the development of better solar collectors then I have to wonder just how much of a threat CO2 truly poses to humanity. Whenever nuclear power is brought up here on Slashdot there's always some wiseacre that says something better will come in 5 or 10 years. Well, we just had a report from the IPCC posted on Slashdot that we don't have 10 years to wait on this. So, what should we do?
I have an idea, let's build some nuclear power plants. Lot's of them.
I know another wiseacre is already typing a response on how the nuclear waste is going to be a problem. Well, I heard that we'll have that problem solved in 10 years with a new technology that can turn all that waste into valuable radioactive isotopes that NASA and other scientific agencies are just begging to get enough of for performing their experiments and exploring the universe. Just you wait. Until then we can pile up the waste like we've been doing and when we have the technology to process this waste into something valuable then the problems will all be solved. We will have saved humanity and produced vital materials for science.
I'm not saying we should deploy nuclear to the exclusion of wind and solar, only that without also deploying nuclear power we will not be able to reduce our CO2 production in the time frame dictated by the IPCC.
Which is it? Can we wait for some new solar technology or not? If we can wait then let's wait. If we can't wait then nuclear power will have to be part of the solution.
The Earth is flat. You only need 2 gyros to point oneself in 2D space.
That's true but they need 3 because the telescope can rotate, which messes with the image. There's X, Y, and rotation, that need to be controlled for. They can operate with a single gyro but that means they can't stop rotations, and in fact use the rotation to their advantage to reposition the gyro for controlling X and Y alternately as rotation puts the gyro in the proper plane. Hubble launched with 4 gyros, meaning it had a spare from the start. With the first gyro failure they simply lost the spare. With the second failure they lost the ability to control rotation and/or ability to position with as much speed and accuracy. Going down to one means they can still move but very very slowly.
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us.
The solution does not elude us. I've listened to many experts on energy and they all agree on several key points.
First key point, more nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, costs are less than wind and solar, reliable, and has lower CO2 emissions than any other energy source we have. The nuclear power plants we have now are getting old and will need to be replaced. We will need to start building nuclear power reactors now so when it's time to retire these old reactors we have something to take their place.
Second key point, more natural gas. While this might seem counter productive this is vital as a means to transition from energy sources in current use of higher CO2 contributions, specifically coal and oil. To make vehicles move requires a fuel that is energy dense, plentiful, inexpensive, and easily converted to motive force. While natural gas isn't as energy dense as gasoline or diesel fuel it is close enough that conversion should be of little cost with the benefit of an immediate reduction of CO2 produced per mile by 30% or more. Much of the reductions in CO2 in the USA has been from switching electricity production from coal to natural gas. We can do better with nuclear power but in the time it will take to build those nuclear power plants we can burn natural gas for electricity and work to switch transportation to natural gas.
Third key point, stop the subsidies. Subsidizing energy sources prevents the competition needed to drive lesser products and technologies from the market. There's enough solar and wind companies now that there can be real competition based on who can provide energy at the lowest price. What's happening now is that the winners are those with the best lobbyists than the best technology. Stop subsidizing bad windmills, solar collectors, electric cars, and so on, so natural market forces allow the best to come to market. Maybe there was a time when these subsidies were needed but that time has passed.
This is not a fourth key point really but more an addendum to the point above, stop with pushing so much solar power! This keeps getting brought up again and again. Solar power is bad for the grid because it provides lots of power in the day and nothing at night, and does so nationwide all at the same time. At least with wind it's randomized a bit, there's some at night, and without the drop off in the evening when energy is needed most. Solar is also quite expensive, produces waste that's difficult to recycle, and takes a lot of area for the energy produced. Putting the collectors on rooftops only adds to the cost, even if it allows for preserving use of the land under it, and also adds to the risk of injuries and death to those installing and maintaining them. We need more wind and nuclear before we need to resort to expensive and generally problematic solar.
We have solutions but also a federal government seemingly unwilling or unable to implement them.
The biggest changes will only come about as the primary energy sources are converted over from burning fossil fuels.
I'll take these steps of converting from fossil fuels when I see the federal government do the same. We have had a federal government talking big on reducing CO2 but doing little. I'll give some examples.
The US Coast Guard has been begging for new ice breakers for a long time. They have three big ice breakers now but one is not sea worthy and the other two are constantly being put up for repairs. They are big but they are also old. Given that the USA has interests in keeping a scientific station open in Antarctica, the Coast Guard needs ice breakers capable of crossing the equator. This means getting ships with considerable range, a range that is well suited for nuclear power. This this would be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate an effort to reduce CO2 output, as well as support the efforts to investigate global warming at both poles, by getting some nuclear powered ice breakers.
The US Navy has also been calling for more nuclear powered ships. They have submarines and aircraft carriers but the nuclear powered cruisers we had up until the 1990s were replaced with oil burning versions. Why? Because nuclear powered ships cost too much. The same Congress that demands we stop burning fossil fuels at all costs because of the damage CO2 does to the environment was not willing to dig just a little deeper in their pockets to give the Navy nuclear powered cruisers.
If Congress is not taking their own demands seriously to switch away from burning fossil fuels to low carbon alternatives, even when that would mean a more capable Coast Guard and Navy, then I have to wonder if they even believe their own claims of doom if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. Would building perhaps a dozen nuclear powered ships really make all that much difference in the long run on CO2 output? No, not likely. It would however demonstrate to the voting public that the government is taking the problem seriously to spend our tax dollars wisely on measures to reduce CO2 when and where they can.
Another thing that bothers me, the US Navy has been working on a process to synthesize liquid hydrocarbons for use as fuel for aircraft. This is something that needs massive funding, lots of publicity, and a technology that should be offered to private interests for their own development to markets. This technology takes CO2 from the air, and water from the ocean, breaks it down into the constituent elements, then builds them up to make fuel. This closes the carbon loop and means no new CO2 added to the air in the production of transportation fuel. I've seen nothing from Congress to show they even know this exists in spite of their continued calls for alternatives to drilling for oil. Well, here's an alternative that requires no new vehicles on the road or new planes in the air, we simply make new fuel like the old but without adding carbon to the air.
Congress can't be bothered to take the CO2 emissions problem seriously so I have to wonder if in fact there is a problem.
Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court right now because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to properly handle a criminal accusation. This wasn't a question of his character, although that was certainly part of it, or a matter of his political slant. He was accused of a crime. The Democrats sat on this criminal accusation for weeks, maybe even months or years, rather than hand that off to the proper law enforcement agencies. They could have handed it off to the FBI but they would likely have simply handed it off to the local police, since the crime did not occur within the jurisdiction of the FBI they cannot investigate any such crime themselves. The proper investigation authority was not the FBI, and the senators should have known this or found someone that knew this.
Congress has subpoena powers to compel testimony and to secure relevant documents. They failed to subpoena witnesses and, with the exception of Grassley demanding records from the accusers, called for nothing to corroborate that a crime had occurred. If Ford wanted to keep Kavanaugh from SCOTUS then she should have provided the documents requested before the committee even asked for them. Ford should also have written letters or made a phone call to Grassley or some other senator when her claims of Kavanaugh's misconduct was not brought up earlier in the confirmation process.
The Democrats delayed in bringing the accusations to light when they first heard of it. They failed to forward the accusations to the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction. They failed to subpoena witnesses. They failed to perform a proper interview of the accused and the accuser when they had the opportunity. They failed to find corroborating witnesses, in a crime that supposedly had several witnesses. Ford failed to provide times, dates, places, and names, to allow for a proper investigation.
We have Justice Kavanaugh today because the Democrats failed to make their case when there was still time to do a proper investigation. Don't get mad at the Republicans over this, of course they are going to pick one of their own. Blame the Democrats. Kavanaugh was a judge for 15 years up to today, so it's not like there wasn't time to bring up accusations of sexual assault before now.
Yeah, you're not an idiot, you're just morally bankrupt.
The Senate Democrats charged with making their case against Kavanaugh being appointed to SCOTUS are idiots for not following the proper process to investigate this crime and keep Kavanaugh off the court, and morally bankrupt for making this a circus of politics than an investigation of a crime. The Democrats in the Senate screwed up on this big time, and now they have to live with their mistakes.
While the US federal government has a distinct lack of political will change pollution, it is still possible for states to take action that will have a wide effect.
I agree. I believe that the states have the authority to address the CO2 output of the nation without needing permission or any action from the federal government. What I'm thinking of is the building of nuclear power plants. The federal government has no constitutional authority that I can see to have a monopoly on the licensing of nuclear power plants, the manufacture and use of radioactive materials, and so much else needed for a state to construct a nuclear power industry within their borders independently from federal government approval.
What the federal government has done in such cases is to argue that if any part of an economic transaction involves something that crossed state lines that constitutes "interstate commerce". This was used to get the FBI involved in a case of assault involving someone having their hair cut because the scissors used came from outside the state. If that's what constitutes "interstate commerce" then any transaction that one party in the transaction is wearing running shoes made in China while making that transaction is "interstate commerce".
The states need to dial back this nonsense of what it means to conduct "interstate commerce" and put the federal government in it's place. Then they need to grow a pair and tell the federal government to get serious on reducing CO2 with nuclear power and start issuing build permits or the states will simply issue permits of their own. Every state in the union has their own nuclear power oversight agency. Some of these states have more people, more money, and just as large of a government for oversight, as many nations with nuclear power of their own. If Iran is capable of running a nuclear power industry in their borders then so can any of a number of states in the USA.
Where you fail in your argument on states acting independently is the taxation of imports, this is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution. The states cannot tax imports and I expect that the federal government, as well as many states, would put an end to this really quick. What I propose does not require anything crossing state lines other than items of multiple possible uses. The federal government can't come in to stop the construction of a nuclear power plant based on the fact that the foundations were dug with a John Deere dozer made in Iowa, and burning diesel fuel refined in Texas. Once that crosses the border the government cannot dictate how something is used, claiming this violates some kind of "interstate commerce" law. If they want to stop uranium from crossing borders then that might be within their power but that is of little concern since uranium is everywhere.
The basics of building and operating a nuclear reactor has been public domain for decades. Given that and some smart people from any given university in the USA I can assume a state can figure out the details, especially since there's 100 nuclear reactors in the USA to draw experience from.
The states do have authority to act on their own to reduce CO2 output. We will not have a modern economy without nuclear power. The states need to take the lead on this since the federal government has been dragging their feet for decades on building new nuclear power.
Solar Reserve have some great low externality base load solar power stations.
It won't work. It can't work. I say this because it uses the same materials for the salt and piping as molten salt nuclear reactors and I've been told the salt will simply eat through the pipes and all you will have is an expensive mess.
Let's assume this solar salt thermal storage technology does work, then molten salt nuclear reactors will work. Research in one molten salt technology is directly applicable to the other. If these solar thermal plants gain any traction and prove the technology on molten salts then molten salt nuclear reactors will soon follow.
There's a big difference though between these molten salt technologies, nuclear power doesn't need sunny skies to provide power. The claims of being able to provide power through the night is not what I'm talking about, I mean that the nuclear reactor can run where it cannot ever see the sun. This can be above the Arctic Circle. This can be underground. This can be under the sea. On the moon. On Mars. These solar power collectors need land, and lots of it, for collecting the sun while nuclear does not. I've heard people claim these collectors can be on rooftops or the land underneath can be used for other purposes. I won't dispute this. I only say that the same applies to nuclear power, it can be put underneath anything. It can be under an airport, a military base, or a bunch of solar collectors. Land use is effectively zero for both but the power output per area is very low for solar but nearly unlimited for nuclear.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths who actually want such an outcome, otherwise it would be done already. The excuses are less and less believable every day.
That's not the only rational conclusion. Another is that the politicians that keep talking of our impending doom unless we do something don't believe their own words. If the powers that be in government believed that if CO2 output from human activity was not reduced dramatically now then they'd be pulling out all the stops on low CO2 energy regardless of the form it took.
Here's an example, the US Navy wanted some new nuclear powered warships. The Navy already has nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers but the use of nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers ended in the 1990s. The Navy wanted new nuclear powered cruisers because they offer advantages beyond simply not burning oil and contributing to the CO2 in the air, such as increased range and the ability to keep fighting without have to take on fuel from a much less battle capable oiler. Congress denied this as a matter of costs. Another example the US Coast Guard wants... that's not right, NEEDS new ice breakers to service scientific missions in Antarctica and to keep shipping lanes open for communities in Alaska, communities including military bases and their families. Congress won't replace the aging and continually in disrepair oil fired ice breakers with nuclear powered versions. Military bases domestically and around the world need reliable power that is not subject to the whims of foreign supplies of oil. Past administrations put up fragile solar collectors and windmills that interfere with radar used to detect incoming missiles and aircraft.
If these people were serious about solving the problems of reducing CO2 output, providing for energy independence, and assuring the military is effective in defending our national interests, then they'd be building nuclear powered ships and putting nuclear power plants on military bases, airports, seaports, and other vital facilities.
Perhaps I'm merely arguing the powers that be are a different kind of sociopath, they don't want to solve the problems but merely appear to be working towards those ends. This means a series of half-assed "solutions" that on the surface appear to be a means to make things better but in the
Just because you passed your eyeballs over the words doesn't mean you understood what was written. They stated eagles were killed. You are trying to split hairs that they didn't specify the species of eagles killed. Bald eagles have been killed by windmills. Golden eagles have also been killed. As have other eagle species and other birds of prey. This is not under dispute.
Let's assume it's true that no bald or golden eagles were killed thus far. What we are seeing is an admission from the wind power industry is that there is a potential for hundreds or thousands of such birds to be killed every year. If they were certain that no such birds would be killed, or that the number would at worst be in the hundreds, then they would not have demanded permission to kill thousands without penalty.
there is no firm number or list of kills (or any confirmed ones) anywhere.
That's likely because the wind power industry has not been required to report these kills. How about we make a law to that effect? If no eagles are killed then the counting should be real easy.
Your citation says the OPPOSITE of what you claim: Cost of grid-scale PV solar: 4.6 cents/kwh Cost of nuclear: 11.2 cents/kwh
It's only the OPPOSITE of what I claimed if you take one sentence out of context of the entire paragraph. This is schoolyard bully kind of logic that you are using to counter my argument. Grow up.
Also, how much does that solar power cost at midnight? I know what the cost of nuclear power would be but solar power is undefined as one cannot divide by zero.
Even that is not a fair comparison, because it is looking at the cost of existing nukes, while the cost of NEW nukes is considerably higher.
If you read the full report, or even the page with notes for that graph shown on the web page given, you will see that they did consider the costs of new nuclear as best they could. They do note that decommissioning costs are unknown as there have been very few nuclear power plants decommissioned so far, and they further note such costs have been paid up front by the industry.
Tell me something, what's the costs of disposing of all the old solar collectors? Has that been considered in the price? I've read of plenty of concern over such costs and environmental impact on this website called Slashdot, have you heard of it?
Solar power is only cheaper than nuclear if one ignores the costs of storing the energy to meet demands. Once that is done then the costs are similar or higher than nuclear and nuclear has not been given the same chance on development to reduce prices like solar. Give nuclear power the chance to even compete and prices will come down. That means the government needs to be willing to issue permits to build nuclear power reactors. Failing to issue permits is a self fulfilling prophesy on nuclear power being too expensive, as that means the costs approach infinity.
Why do you fear nuclear power so much? Are you afraid it will drive your precious solar power out of the market?
Solar is only cheaper than nuclear when there is no storage and done on utility scale, which means not on rooftops. Wind is cheaper than nuclear, and perhaps even with storage. I have nothing against wind except when people claim it, with solar and storage, can replace all else.
As such, we NEED real base-load power, such as geo-thermal and nukes. And these should not compete against wind/solar in economics, since they are in different classes.
We must evaluate wind and solar on cost along with nuclear if only because the advocates for wind and solar assert that wind and solar can displace nuclear. It can be shown that wind is only cheaper than nuclear if we ignore the storage requirements. Solar is simply too expensive all around to bother, with maybe regional exceptions because of the climate and access to cheap pumped hydro storage.
A agree that we must account for the varying demands through the day and year, and the need to have technologies capable of matching these variations. This ability to match load to demand is inherent to any storage technology. If we assume that there is storage, in the form of pumped hydro or batteries, then concerns on base load vs peak generation is gone. Not only is the concern gone but also quite likely the distinction. The idea of "base load" becomes meaningless if there are viable storage technologies available, after that there is no need to be concerned on the ability of any energy source to follow load.
What boggles my mind is the assertion that batteries will make solar power viable but do nothing to address the costs of operating nuclear power. A couple problems of nuclear power is it's need for backup power in the case of a scram and it's inability to follow load (at least do so economically), both of which would be resolved with a sufficiently advanced energy storage technology. I saw the Tennessee Valley Authority uses pumped hydro along with its nuclear power to provide the load matching and such for safe, cheap, and reliable energy. As far as I'm concerned any technology advancement in storage makes nuclear power look better compared to solar, not worse. I expect this to become quite apparent in time.
Stop the subsidies, it's just corporate welfare. Claiming that wind power has some kind of exemption because it's "green" is only admitting that "green" energy cannot survive competition.
End all energy subsidies. That means coal and nuclear. What nuclear power needs is permission to proceed, not subsidies. At least end the subsidies on the federal level, that's beyond the powers of the Constitution.
We're only now seeing some real research into fourth generation nuclear power. The molten salt reactor was a technology proven viable decades ago but shelved for political reasons since the 1970s. The Trump Administration is now allowing the building of prototypes which I assume will merely prove what was known in the 1950s. People have been begging for permission to perform such experiments for decades. Maybe now we can get on the path of building something other than another nuclear teapot for energy.
I find this concession for building a prototype a bullshit compromise because it means people will use this as an example of the government subsidizing nuclear power research. Well, give us laws which allow for such research on private property then. So long as the government lives with the myth that nuclear power is some kind of state secret, even though this technology has been in the public domain for decades, we will see such research have to happen with government employees on government land.
If every american had a cat, his cat would need to go outside and kill 10 birds per year.
I grew up on a dairy farm and as much as Dad hated cats we kept them around to keep the birds and mice out of the cattle feed. We purposefully fed the cats very little as that prompted them to hunt for their food. If we fed them nothing then they might wander off to another farm or simply go feral and become pests, we had to "train" them to behave around people and the cattle. The older and bigger cats could easily eat 10 birds in one day. Many of these birds were not large and so they'd have to eat a lot of them to fill them up.
I have no clue why people have problems with big numbers.
You appear to have your own problems with big numbers if you believe that domestic cats can't kill billions of birds per year. Just 1 cat eating only 3 birds per day is over 1000 birds killed. A quick Google search tells me that there's easily 100 million domestic (not necessarily "domesticated", as in always confined to a house) cats in the USA.
My proof is in the link I gave earlier that you obviously didn't bother to click on.
There is no dispute that windmills kill birds, the only dispute is over how many. Right now that number is quite small but that's because we now get a very small percentage of our electricity from wind power. If there is going to be a large portion of our electricity from wind then we are going to have to take the number of birds killed seriously.
Domestic cats don't hunt bald eagles. Bald eagles hunt domestic cats. Bald eagles are killed by windmills, proven by the wind power industry lobbying the Obama administration successfully for kill permits of several protected species of eagles.
If domestic cats killing birds bother you then you'd want more windmills. Fewer eagles lost to windmills means more eagles to hunt cats.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a classic technique of statistical misrepresentation: cherry picking a baseline to obtain the comparison you want.
Well, the claim is that unless we reduce our CO2 output then we will see temperatures rise. If temperatures keep rising then at some point 1998 will no longer be the maximum. It's been the maximum for 20 years now, when can we expect this to no longer be true? Or, put another way, how do we disprove the connection between human produced CO2 and global warming? Is this too much to ask?
I've already seen "global warming" get replaced with "climate change" because people may have not seen local warming. Let's not mince words here, the theory was and still is that CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere will bring bad things upon humanity. As I understand it the claim has been that we are supposed to use "climate change" instead of "global warming" because not every place on the globe can expect to see a warming climate. Well, we should still be seeing this as global warming as the local temperatures are all averaged together. If the claim is that we will not see a global rise in temperature from CO2 then I must still ask, what would disprove the theory that human emissions of CO2 will bring climate change?
Go ahead, pick your own year as a baseline. Now tell me at what point in the future we must see this rise in temperature to prove we are in fact warming the globe. If you can't pick two endpoints on which to base this human induced warming then I find this theory very suspect.
Um, hard to know where to start, basically your entire post is disconnected from actual facts. The UN report was dire, but didn't include the effects of methane locked in permafrost.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...
Let's assume this is true, that if we don't reduce CO2 output to 50% of current levels by 2050 then we face severe and detrimental environmental effects from global warming. We know of four "zero carbon" energy sources today, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear. Maybe people will toss in few more like geothermal and bio-fuels but I don't hear too much about those, likely because they come with other environmental impacts that we'd like to avoid. If the effects of CO2 are so dire then maybe we should be building more nuclear power plants to replace coal? If we cannot have nuclear power to stop this global threat to human survival then I have to wonder just how real of a threat this is. Even after decades of subsidies for wind and solar they still have not matched the "zero carbon" output from nuclear power. Nuclear power did have a head start, I'll grant that much, but nuclear power also had a near stop in any new construction for 40 years.
We've been waiting for 40 years for wind and solar to save us, how much longer can we wait?
There will come a point in which we must choose, nuclear power or global warming, because it is going to become abundantly clear that wind and solar will not save us.
Link works for me. Have you tried clicking on it?
Here's the first couple paragraphs of the article:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels increased in 2017, statistics office Eurostat said on Friday, indicating that the reduction of emissions blamed for climate change remains a challenge.
Carbon emissions in the EU were up 1.8 percent from 2016, Eurostat said, with a double-digit increase in Malta and Estonia.
About the current situation: there is no debate.
Right, no more debate on this. CO2 will kill us all if we don't reduce output immediately. Now that we agree on this, can we have more nuclear power? If the answer is "no" then we will have to debate which poses a greater risk, global warming from CO2 or nuclear power? We've been waiting a long time for wind and solar to replace coal and natural gas, if we keep waiting and the situation does not improve then at some point nuclear power will become the lesser evil, no?
Tell me something, "angel", what is a greater threat to humanity? Global warming or nuclear power? The answer cannot be "both" or "neither" as something must be of greater concern, if only by a small margin.
If global warming is the greater threat then we should be building more nuclear power plants instead of shutting down the ones we have. If nuclear power is the greater threat then it gets back to my point of no one believing the threats. People are building nuclear power plants and they are building new homes and businesses in places which the global warming alarmists claim will be underwater in 10, 20, 30, or 80 years. Cities plan for the next 100 years all the time. If city planners honestly believed that portions of their city would be underwater from global warming induced sea level rise then they'd be building sea walls or denying permits for any new construction.
The predictions of CO2 induced gloom and doom have failed over and over again, year after year. I'm being hyperbolic in saying no one believes these predictions, just as I am by saying that Miami would be underwater in 10 years, but not by much. It's easy to find predictions of Miami being underwater in 30 or 80 years just as it is easy to find people that live like frontiersmen to reduce their carbon footprint as much as possible. They might go on eating home grown potatoes and reading by beeswax candles in their sod house, but these people are rare.
I've seen these predictions for a long time now, ever since I was able to read, that global warming threatened to kill us all and that wind and solar power would save us. Well, the predictions of cheap and plentiful wind and solar power keep failing, as well as the environmental collapse from CO2. I'm finding it real hard to take any of this seriously, especially when these same people that demand we reduce our CO2 also demand we not use nuclear power. Well, pick one. It's come to a point now that we can't have both if such doom awaits us. We need solutions and they aren't coming as promised. One of the two has to be the greater risk to humanity, I just want someone to tell me which so I can act on it.
From the article you linked to:
One main reason for this slowdown is technical constraints: going 100% renewable (or even 50%) is not trivial. Baseload plants will have to disappear completely even as sufficient dispatchable capacity remains available. Utility umbrella group BDEW is thus calling for more new gas turbines to be constructed (in German), and companies like Uniper (formerly Eon) is currently investigating its options (in German). So are municipal utilities, such as the one in Cottbus that recently announced plans to switch from locally produced lignite to natural gas (in German). Amidst all of the reports about records with renewables and power exports, this little news item deserves more attention: a municipal utility in one of Germanyâ(TM)s three largest lignite mining areas (Lausitz) is switching to gas.
So, Germany is not replacing nuclear and coal with wind and solar but with natural gas. Perhaps more importantly this is replacing domestic coal and uranium with imported natural gas. Much of this comes from the not so friendly Russians. I'm sure that they'll take German money for their erdgas but if Russia decides that they'd like to take over more land in the future then the first thing they'll do is turn off the heat for lots of cold Germans. I know that Germany has stores of erdgas in big tanks so it won't mean waking up to a cold house some night, only that prices will creep up as the tanks run down.
Germany made a mistake on deciding to turn away from nuclear power, they doubled down on this mistake by relying on foreign energy. They will have to reverse this policy sooner or later.
Maybe we could build some nuclear power plants while we figure out how to make wind and solar power work? Nuclear power is as much a "zero emissions" energy source as wind and solar. Nuclear power is already competitive in price but national energy policy puts it in an impossible situation compared to wind.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
In states with deregulated electricity markets, nuclear power plant operators have found increasing difficulty with competition on two fronts: low-cost gas, particularly from shale gas developments, and subsidized wind power with priority grid access. The imposition of a price on carbon dioxide emissions would help in competition with gas and coal, but this is not expected in the short term. Single-unit plants which tend to have higher operating costs per MWh are most vulnerable. The basic problem is low natural gas prices allowing gas-fired plants to undercut power prices. A second problem is the federal production tax credit of $23/MWh paid to wind generators, coupled with their priority access to the grid. When there is oversupply, wind output is taken preferentially. Capacity payments can offset losses to some extent, but where market prices are around $35-$40/MWh, nuclear plants are struggling. According to Exelon, the main operator of merchant plants and a strong supporter of competitive wholesale electricity markets, low prices due to gas competition are survivable, but the subsidized wind is not. In 2016 the subsidy (production tax credit) is $23/MWh. Though wind is a very small part of the supply, and is limited or unavailable most of the time, its effect on electricity prices and the viability of base-load generators âoeis hugeâ.
Wind power gets all the breaks on making money. This is pushing up energy prices and forcing nuclear power plants out of business. This means more natural gas plants get built to replace them, and all the CO2 that comes with it.
You want to reduce CO2? The stop the madness on wind subsidies and let some nuclear power plants make some money.
I heard of people talking on the radio of a new mall going up in Miami, IIRC, supposedly the largest in the nation. If Miami is supposed to be underwater in 10 years then how did anyone get funding for this? How did this get approved by the city? How did this mall get insurance? These people talking on the radio were mocking all the global warming alarmists. If enough people believed that CO2 was such a potential harm then they would be able to raise enough money to fix the problem. Instead they put money into shopping malls in Florida.
So, why is there not enough money to fix the problem?
I'm guessing it's because we've been hearing about how coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years for 40 years now. The predictions of doom never come close to reality and so no one is listening any more.
Here's what boggles me most, there's no real demand from these doom and gloom types for nuclear power. Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output per energy produced of any energy source we know of today, even the IPCC agrees on this.
But nuclear power is expensive! More expensive than the end of all life on Earth?
But nuclear power is dangerous! More dangerous than large numbers of coastal cities being underwater?
But nuclear power isn't near as good as wind and solar power! Who says we should only use nuclear power? Let's have wind, solar, and nuclear. You know, that "all the above" energy strategy that so many politicians keep talking about?
But all the nuclear waste! Is nuclear waste any kind of threat to our safety by comparison to global warming? This is a political problem, we know we can keep the waste contained but the politicians keep thinking up new ways on how to delay the opening of proper waste containment sites.
But some terrorist could use the fuel to make a weapon! Is terrorism a threat greater than global warming? It's not like we can't work on more than one problem at the same time. Let's build some nuclear power plants and shoot some terrorists. If nuclear power plants attract the terrorists then put people with guns around the power plants. I have heard from reliable sources that there are generals and admirals just desperate for cheap and reliable power for military bases in the USA. I also have heard from reliable sources that the US Navy has a lot of people trained in the safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants. Put some nuclear power plants on some military bases. I have heard from reliable sources that the US military is quite capable of keeping their bases secure.
But nuclear power is scary! More scary than the end of all life on Earth?
Let's talk solutions to the problem. We've tried with solar and wind as solutions for decades now and they have not done all that well in displacing coal for power generation. Again, nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output of any energy source we have available today. Any problems that one might come up with on deploying more nuclear power is something we can also deal with as we shoot terrorists and put up windmills. Someone might dispute how much CO2 nuclear power produces and claim that hydro or wind take first place but nuclear is certainly in the top three as means to produce power with least CO2 emitted. Let's do "all the above", because our survival depends on it.
I'll believe that global warming from CO2 is a real threat when these global warming alarmists embrace nuclear power as a solution. Claiming nuclear power is a greater threat to humanity than global warming is getting real hard to wrap my head around. Bringing up nuclear power accidents from 50 year old nuclear reactors is nonsense, no one builds reactors like that any more. Even if we did that still means that we'd potentially save humanity from certain destruction even if it means rendering small portions of the planet as radioactive wastelands from more accidents in the future.
What's the greater threat, nuclear power or global warming? If the answer is nuclear power is the greater threat then I guess we're all just doomed.
> Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes
*facepalm*
XYY syndrome
XXY syndrome aka Klinefelter syndrome
*facepalm*????
You do realize you are pointing out anomalous genetics, don't you? These are rounding errors on specifying that there would be 25% this and 50% that. The articles you linked to specify that these mutations occur in 1 of 1000 live births. Even if we add up all variations of mutations that might occur on the sex determinant chromosomes there is likely far less than 1% of the total population with these mutations, and quite a few of which could render a person infertile and unable to produce the gametes needed for this experimental process as well as less experimental means of reproduction.
This is ignoring that a fertilized egg with no X chromosome is unlikely to be viable, and if it would produce a live birth the child would likely be in very poor health.
By choosing renewables, China can position itself on the international stage as taking the high road - and then bash the U.S. incessantly, with support from the rest of the world.
The USA is bashed incessantly already, how does this "taking the high road" change anything?
The U.S. will eventually change its mind (as soon as it can change its administration to one that's actually responsible), and then it will have to struggle to catch up.
Catch up to what? Reducing their CO2 output? The USA has already been doing far better on this than many other nations in the world, and they aren't even trying.
The U.S. may well find itself unable to recover, and may even experience energy shortages if it cannot get the renewable tech it needs.
How in the hell would the USA experience energy shortages? The USA already exports coal. If the USA isn't a net exporter of oil by now it will be one soon, same for natural gas. Nuclear power output has been growing even though few nuclear reactors have been built in the last 40 years. Upgrades and improved techniques have allowed for greater and greater output from the existing fleet of nuclear power plants. There's been a rough restart of building new nuclear power reactors but it's fairly certain that this will be resolved shortly and more new power reactors will be coming online soon. The wind industry is doing well. The USA will not run out of energy any time soon, even if nations like China want to get in a trade war.
The end result may be a significant shift of political power among first-world nations.
It's quite possible that there could be a shift in political dominance. What is unlikely to cause such a shift is China getting some kind of monopoly on solar panels.
We are nowhere near the lower bound of resource use for solar.
Are you willing to bet the survival of the human race on that? I'm not.
As it is right now, today, nuclear power uses far less raw material for the same energy than solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal. As it is right now, today, nuclear power produces less CO2 per energy produced than any other energy source we know of. As it is right now, today, nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. If there is a great demand that we lower CO2, with least impact on lives and the environment, and deploy this as quickly as possible, then we have no option other than nuclear power.
While we wait for this technological breakthrough on reducing the resource needs of solar power we can reduce our CO2 production by building some nuclear power plants. If the need to reduce our CO2 can wait for the development of better solar collectors then I have to wonder just how much of a threat CO2 truly poses to humanity. Whenever nuclear power is brought up here on Slashdot there's always some wiseacre that says something better will come in 5 or 10 years. Well, we just had a report from the IPCC posted on Slashdot that we don't have 10 years to wait on this. So, what should we do?
I have an idea, let's build some nuclear power plants. Lot's of them.
I know another wiseacre is already typing a response on how the nuclear waste is going to be a problem. Well, I heard that we'll have that problem solved in 10 years with a new technology that can turn all that waste into valuable radioactive isotopes that NASA and other scientific agencies are just begging to get enough of for performing their experiments and exploring the universe. Just you wait. Until then we can pile up the waste like we've been doing and when we have the technology to process this waste into something valuable then the problems will all be solved. We will have saved humanity and produced vital materials for science.
I'm not saying we should deploy nuclear to the exclusion of wind and solar, only that without also deploying nuclear power we will not be able to reduce our CO2 production in the time frame dictated by the IPCC.
Which is it? Can we wait for some new solar technology or not? If we can wait then let's wait. If we can't wait then nuclear power will have to be part of the solution.
The Earth is flat. You only need 2 gyros to point oneself in 2D space.
That's true but they need 3 because the telescope can rotate, which messes with the image. There's X, Y, and rotation, that need to be controlled for. They can operate with a single gyro but that means they can't stop rotations, and in fact use the rotation to their advantage to reposition the gyro for controlling X and Y alternately as rotation puts the gyro in the proper plane. Hubble launched with 4 gyros, meaning it had a spare from the start. With the first gyro failure they simply lost the spare. With the second failure they lost the ability to control rotation and/or ability to position with as much speed and accuracy. Going down to one means they can still move but very very slowly.
Everyone acknowledges the problem. The solution eludes us.
The solution does not elude us. I've listened to many experts on energy and they all agree on several key points.
First key point, more nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe, costs are less than wind and solar, reliable, and has lower CO2 emissions than any other energy source we have. The nuclear power plants we have now are getting old and will need to be replaced. We will need to start building nuclear power reactors now so when it's time to retire these old reactors we have something to take their place.
Second key point, more natural gas. While this might seem counter productive this is vital as a means to transition from energy sources in current use of higher CO2 contributions, specifically coal and oil. To make vehicles move requires a fuel that is energy dense, plentiful, inexpensive, and easily converted to motive force. While natural gas isn't as energy dense as gasoline or diesel fuel it is close enough that conversion should be of little cost with the benefit of an immediate reduction of CO2 produced per mile by 30% or more. Much of the reductions in CO2 in the USA has been from switching electricity production from coal to natural gas. We can do better with nuclear power but in the time it will take to build those nuclear power plants we can burn natural gas for electricity and work to switch transportation to natural gas.
Third key point, stop the subsidies. Subsidizing energy sources prevents the competition needed to drive lesser products and technologies from the market. There's enough solar and wind companies now that there can be real competition based on who can provide energy at the lowest price. What's happening now is that the winners are those with the best lobbyists than the best technology. Stop subsidizing bad windmills, solar collectors, electric cars, and so on, so natural market forces allow the best to come to market. Maybe there was a time when these subsidies were needed but that time has passed.
This is not a fourth key point really but more an addendum to the point above, stop with pushing so much solar power! This keeps getting brought up again and again. Solar power is bad for the grid because it provides lots of power in the day and nothing at night, and does so nationwide all at the same time. At least with wind it's randomized a bit, there's some at night, and without the drop off in the evening when energy is needed most. Solar is also quite expensive, produces waste that's difficult to recycle, and takes a lot of area for the energy produced. Putting the collectors on rooftops only adds to the cost, even if it allows for preserving use of the land under it, and also adds to the risk of injuries and death to those installing and maintaining them. We need more wind and nuclear before we need to resort to expensive and generally problematic solar.
We have solutions but also a federal government seemingly unwilling or unable to implement them.
The biggest changes will only come about as the primary energy sources are converted over from burning fossil fuels.
I'll take these steps of converting from fossil fuels when I see the federal government do the same. We have had a federal government talking big on reducing CO2 but doing little. I'll give some examples.
The US Coast Guard has been begging for new ice breakers for a long time. They have three big ice breakers now but one is not sea worthy and the other two are constantly being put up for repairs. They are big but they are also old. Given that the USA has interests in keeping a scientific station open in Antarctica, the Coast Guard needs ice breakers capable of crossing the equator. This means getting ships with considerable range, a range that is well suited for nuclear power. This this would be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate an effort to reduce CO2 output, as well as support the efforts to investigate global warming at both poles, by getting some nuclear powered ice breakers.
The US Navy has also been calling for more nuclear powered ships. They have submarines and aircraft carriers but the nuclear powered cruisers we had up until the 1990s were replaced with oil burning versions. Why? Because nuclear powered ships cost too much. The same Congress that demands we stop burning fossil fuels at all costs because of the damage CO2 does to the environment was not willing to dig just a little deeper in their pockets to give the Navy nuclear powered cruisers.
If Congress is not taking their own demands seriously to switch away from burning fossil fuels to low carbon alternatives, even when that would mean a more capable Coast Guard and Navy, then I have to wonder if they even believe their own claims of doom if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. Would building perhaps a dozen nuclear powered ships really make all that much difference in the long run on CO2 output? No, not likely. It would however demonstrate to the voting public that the government is taking the problem seriously to spend our tax dollars wisely on measures to reduce CO2 when and where they can.
Another thing that bothers me, the US Navy has been working on a process to synthesize liquid hydrocarbons for use as fuel for aircraft. This is something that needs massive funding, lots of publicity, and a technology that should be offered to private interests for their own development to markets. This technology takes CO2 from the air, and water from the ocean, breaks it down into the constituent elements, then builds them up to make fuel. This closes the carbon loop and means no new CO2 added to the air in the production of transportation fuel. I've seen nothing from Congress to show they even know this exists in spite of their continued calls for alternatives to drilling for oil. Well, here's an alternative that requires no new vehicles on the road or new planes in the air, we simply make new fuel like the old but without adding carbon to the air.
Congress can't be bothered to take the CO2 emissions problem seriously so I have to wonder if in fact there is a problem.
Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court right now because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to properly handle a criminal accusation. This wasn't a question of his character, although that was certainly part of it, or a matter of his political slant. He was accused of a crime. The Democrats sat on this criminal accusation for weeks, maybe even months or years, rather than hand that off to the proper law enforcement agencies. They could have handed it off to the FBI but they would likely have simply handed it off to the local police, since the crime did not occur within the jurisdiction of the FBI they cannot investigate any such crime themselves. The proper investigation authority was not the FBI, and the senators should have known this or found someone that knew this.
Congress has subpoena powers to compel testimony and to secure relevant documents. They failed to subpoena witnesses and, with the exception of Grassley demanding records from the accusers, called for nothing to corroborate that a crime had occurred. If Ford wanted to keep Kavanaugh from SCOTUS then she should have provided the documents requested before the committee even asked for them. Ford should also have written letters or made a phone call to Grassley or some other senator when her claims of Kavanaugh's misconduct was not brought up earlier in the confirmation process.
The Democrats delayed in bringing the accusations to light when they first heard of it. They failed to forward the accusations to the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction. They failed to subpoena witnesses. They failed to perform a proper interview of the accused and the accuser when they had the opportunity. They failed to find corroborating witnesses, in a crime that supposedly had several witnesses. Ford failed to provide times, dates, places, and names, to allow for a proper investigation.
We have Justice Kavanaugh today because the Democrats failed to make their case when there was still time to do a proper investigation. Don't get mad at the Republicans over this, of course they are going to pick one of their own. Blame the Democrats. Kavanaugh was a judge for 15 years up to today, so it's not like there wasn't time to bring up accusations of sexual assault before now.
Yeah, you're not an idiot, you're just morally bankrupt.
The Senate Democrats charged with making their case against Kavanaugh being appointed to SCOTUS are idiots for not following the proper process to investigate this crime and keep Kavanaugh off the court, and morally bankrupt for making this a circus of politics than an investigation of a crime. The Democrats in the Senate screwed up on this big time, and now they have to live with their mistakes.
While the US federal government has a distinct lack of political will change pollution, it is still possible for states to take action that will have a wide effect.
I agree. I believe that the states have the authority to address the CO2 output of the nation without needing permission or any action from the federal government. What I'm thinking of is the building of nuclear power plants. The federal government has no constitutional authority that I can see to have a monopoly on the licensing of nuclear power plants, the manufacture and use of radioactive materials, and so much else needed for a state to construct a nuclear power industry within their borders independently from federal government approval.
What the federal government has done in such cases is to argue that if any part of an economic transaction involves something that crossed state lines that constitutes "interstate commerce". This was used to get the FBI involved in a case of assault involving someone having their hair cut because the scissors used came from outside the state. If that's what constitutes "interstate commerce" then any transaction that one party in the transaction is wearing running shoes made in China while making that transaction is "interstate commerce".
The states need to dial back this nonsense of what it means to conduct "interstate commerce" and put the federal government in it's place. Then they need to grow a pair and tell the federal government to get serious on reducing CO2 with nuclear power and start issuing build permits or the states will simply issue permits of their own. Every state in the union has their own nuclear power oversight agency. Some of these states have more people, more money, and just as large of a government for oversight, as many nations with nuclear power of their own. If Iran is capable of running a nuclear power industry in their borders then so can any of a number of states in the USA.
Where you fail in your argument on states acting independently is the taxation of imports, this is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution. The states cannot tax imports and I expect that the federal government, as well as many states, would put an end to this really quick. What I propose does not require anything crossing state lines other than items of multiple possible uses. The federal government can't come in to stop the construction of a nuclear power plant based on the fact that the foundations were dug with a John Deere dozer made in Iowa, and burning diesel fuel refined in Texas. Once that crosses the border the government cannot dictate how something is used, claiming this violates some kind of "interstate commerce" law. If they want to stop uranium from crossing borders then that might be within their power but that is of little concern since uranium is everywhere.
The basics of building and operating a nuclear reactor has been public domain for decades. Given that and some smart people from any given university in the USA I can assume a state can figure out the details, especially since there's 100 nuclear reactors in the USA to draw experience from.
The states do have authority to act on their own to reduce CO2 output. We will not have a modern economy without nuclear power. The states need to take the lead on this since the federal government has been dragging their feet for decades on building new nuclear power.
Solar Reserve have some great low externality base load solar power stations.
It won't work. It can't work. I say this because it uses the same materials for the salt and piping as molten salt nuclear reactors and I've been told the salt will simply eat through the pipes and all you will have is an expensive mess.
Let's assume this solar salt thermal storage technology does work, then molten salt nuclear reactors will work. Research in one molten salt technology is directly applicable to the other. If these solar thermal plants gain any traction and prove the technology on molten salts then molten salt nuclear reactors will soon follow.
There's a big difference though between these molten salt technologies, nuclear power doesn't need sunny skies to provide power. The claims of being able to provide power through the night is not what I'm talking about, I mean that the nuclear reactor can run where it cannot ever see the sun. This can be above the Arctic Circle. This can be underground. This can be under the sea. On the moon. On Mars. These solar power collectors need land, and lots of it, for collecting the sun while nuclear does not. I've heard people claim these collectors can be on rooftops or the land underneath can be used for other purposes. I won't dispute this. I only say that the same applies to nuclear power, it can be put underneath anything. It can be under an airport, a military base, or a bunch of solar collectors. Land use is effectively zero for both but the power output per area is very low for solar but nearly unlimited for nuclear.
The only rational conclusion is that the world is being run by complete anti-social psychopaths who actually want such an outcome, otherwise it would be done already. The excuses are less and less believable every day.
That's not the only rational conclusion. Another is that the politicians that keep talking of our impending doom unless we do something don't believe their own words. If the powers that be in government believed that if CO2 output from human activity was not reduced dramatically now then they'd be pulling out all the stops on low CO2 energy regardless of the form it took.
Here's an example, the US Navy wanted some new nuclear powered warships. The Navy already has nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers but the use of nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers ended in the 1990s. The Navy wanted new nuclear powered cruisers because they offer advantages beyond simply not burning oil and contributing to the CO2 in the air, such as increased range and the ability to keep fighting without have to take on fuel from a much less battle capable oiler. Congress denied this as a matter of costs. Another example the US Coast Guard wants... that's not right, NEEDS new ice breakers to service scientific missions in Antarctica and to keep shipping lanes open for communities in Alaska, communities including military bases and their families. Congress won't replace the aging and continually in disrepair oil fired ice breakers with nuclear powered versions. Military bases domestically and around the world need reliable power that is not subject to the whims of foreign supplies of oil. Past administrations put up fragile solar collectors and windmills that interfere with radar used to detect incoming missiles and aircraft.
If these people were serious about solving the problems of reducing CO2 output, providing for energy independence, and assuring the military is effective in defending our national interests, then they'd be building nuclear powered ships and putting nuclear power plants on military bases, airports, seaports, and other vital facilities.
Perhaps I'm merely arguing the powers that be are a different kind of sociopath, they don't want to solve the problems but merely appear to be working towards those ends. This means a series of half-assed "solutions" that on the surface appear to be a means to make things better but in the
Just because you passed your eyeballs over the words doesn't mean you understood what was written. They stated eagles were killed. You are trying to split hairs that they didn't specify the species of eagles killed. Bald eagles have been killed by windmills. Golden eagles have also been killed. As have other eagle species and other birds of prey. This is not under dispute.
Let's assume it's true that no bald or golden eagles were killed thus far. What we are seeing is an admission from the wind power industry is that there is a potential for hundreds or thousands of such birds to be killed every year. If they were certain that no such birds would be killed, or that the number would at worst be in the hundreds, then they would not have demanded permission to kill thousands without penalty.
there is no firm number or list of kills (or any confirmed ones) anywhere.
That's likely because the wind power industry has not been required to report these kills. How about we make a law to that effect? If no eagles are killed then the counting should be real easy.
We need nuclear power or the lights go out.
Your citation says the OPPOSITE of what you claim:
Cost of grid-scale PV solar: 4.6 cents/kwh
Cost of nuclear: 11.2 cents/kwh
It's only the OPPOSITE of what I claimed if you take one sentence out of context of the entire paragraph. This is schoolyard bully kind of logic that you are using to counter my argument. Grow up.
Also, how much does that solar power cost at midnight? I know what the cost of nuclear power would be but solar power is undefined as one cannot divide by zero.
Even that is not a fair comparison, because it is looking at the cost of existing nukes, while the cost of NEW nukes is considerably higher.
If you read the full report, or even the page with notes for that graph shown on the web page given, you will see that they did consider the costs of new nuclear as best they could. They do note that decommissioning costs are unknown as there have been very few nuclear power plants decommissioned so far, and they further note such costs have been paid up front by the industry.
Tell me something, what's the costs of disposing of all the old solar collectors? Has that been considered in the price? I've read of plenty of concern over such costs and environmental impact on this website called Slashdot, have you heard of it?
Solar power is only cheaper than nuclear if one ignores the costs of storing the energy to meet demands. Once that is done then the costs are similar or higher than nuclear and nuclear has not been given the same chance on development to reduce prices like solar. Give nuclear power the chance to even compete and prices will come down. That means the government needs to be willing to issue permits to build nuclear power reactors. Failing to issue permits is a self fulfilling prophesy on nuclear power being too expensive, as that means the costs approach infinity.
Why do you fear nuclear power so much? Are you afraid it will drive your precious solar power out of the market?
hold on there.
I think that you will have a difficult time showing that Nukes are as cheap as Wind/Solar.
It's easy to show nuclear is cheaper than solar.
https://www.lazard.com/perspec...
Solar is only cheaper than nuclear when there is no storage and done on utility scale, which means not on rooftops. Wind is cheaper than nuclear, and perhaps even with storage. I have nothing against wind except when people claim it, with solar and storage, can replace all else.
As such, we NEED real base-load power, such as geo-thermal and nukes. And these should not compete against wind/solar in economics, since they are in different classes.
We must evaluate wind and solar on cost along with nuclear if only because the advocates for wind and solar assert that wind and solar can displace nuclear. It can be shown that wind is only cheaper than nuclear if we ignore the storage requirements. Solar is simply too expensive all around to bother, with maybe regional exceptions because of the climate and access to cheap pumped hydro storage.
A agree that we must account for the varying demands through the day and year, and the need to have technologies capable of matching these variations. This ability to match load to demand is inherent to any storage technology. If we assume that there is storage, in the form of pumped hydro or batteries, then concerns on base load vs peak generation is gone. Not only is the concern gone but also quite likely the distinction. The idea of "base load" becomes meaningless if there are viable storage technologies available, after that there is no need to be concerned on the ability of any energy source to follow load.
What boggles my mind is the assertion that batteries will make solar power viable but do nothing to address the costs of operating nuclear power. A couple problems of nuclear power is it's need for backup power in the case of a scram and it's inability to follow load (at least do so economically), both of which would be resolved with a sufficiently advanced energy storage technology. I saw the Tennessee Valley Authority uses pumped hydro along with its nuclear power to provide the load matching and such for safe, cheap, and reliable energy. As far as I'm concerned any technology advancement in storage makes nuclear power look better compared to solar, not worse. I expect this to become quite apparent in time.
Stop the subsidies, it's just corporate welfare. Claiming that wind power has some kind of exemption because it's "green" is only admitting that "green" energy cannot survive competition.
End all energy subsidies. That means coal and nuclear. What nuclear power needs is permission to proceed, not subsidies. At least end the subsidies on the federal level, that's beyond the powers of the Constitution.
We're only now seeing some real research into fourth generation nuclear power. The molten salt reactor was a technology proven viable decades ago but shelved for political reasons since the 1970s. The Trump Administration is now allowing the building of prototypes which I assume will merely prove what was known in the 1950s. People have been begging for permission to perform such experiments for decades. Maybe now we can get on the path of building something other than another nuclear teapot for energy.
I find this concession for building a prototype a bullshit compromise because it means people will use this as an example of the government subsidizing nuclear power research. Well, give us laws which allow for such research on private property then. So long as the government lives with the myth that nuclear power is some kind of state secret, even though this technology has been in the public domain for decades, we will see such research have to happen with government employees on government land.
If every american had a cat, his cat would need to go outside and kill 10 birds per year.
I grew up on a dairy farm and as much as Dad hated cats we kept them around to keep the birds and mice out of the cattle feed. We purposefully fed the cats very little as that prompted them to hunt for their food. If we fed them nothing then they might wander off to another farm or simply go feral and become pests, we had to "train" them to behave around people and the cattle. The older and bigger cats could easily eat 10 birds in one day. Many of these birds were not large and so they'd have to eat a lot of them to fill them up.
I have no clue why people have problems with big numbers.
You appear to have your own problems with big numbers if you believe that domestic cats can't kill billions of birds per year. Just 1 cat eating only 3 birds per day is over 1000 birds killed. A quick Google search tells me that there's easily 100 million domestic (not necessarily "domesticated", as in always confined to a house) cats in the USA.
My proof is in the link I gave earlier that you obviously didn't bother to click on.
There is no dispute that windmills kill birds, the only dispute is over how many. Right now that number is quite small but that's because we now get a very small percentage of our electricity from wind power. If there is going to be a large portion of our electricity from wind then we are going to have to take the number of birds killed seriously.
Domestic cats don't hunt bald eagles. Bald eagles hunt domestic cats. Bald eagles are killed by windmills, proven by the wind power industry lobbying the Obama administration successfully for kill permits of several protected species of eagles.
If domestic cats killing birds bother you then you'd want more windmills. Fewer eagles lost to windmills means more eagles to hunt cats.