While I agree, notice that anybody who says "we can have a sustainable energy supply based on nuclear" says "we need to build several thousand new nuke plants." Now a more than tenfold expansion of nuclear power would mean a tenfold increase in accidents, that's why it's not going to happen.
You'll still lose enery on the round trip. Your overall energy consumption would be lower if you ran your desal plant at a lower power level and produced less briny output than producing very briny output, diluting it and producing energy from that.
The root cause problem is letting for-profit corporation define these tests. They're probably copyrighted - wait for the DMCA take-downs. Pearson is well known for that. These have to be created by educators, not by some low-paid clerk at Pearson.
Yup. "How much does it cost compared to other methods of generating energy?" is the question. And the answer is "More than solar and wind, making coal uncompetitive."
First of all, we're tracking at or above the A1FI scenario (the worst case considered) and there's no sign of changing that.
Secondly, the IPCC has always been very conservative. Many scientists say that 2m/6ft is what we'll see by 2100 and a few (like Hansen) even predict much higher numbers. Also, sea level rise won't magically stop in 2100.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree, notice that anybody who says "we can have a sustainable energy supply based on nuclear" says "we need to build several thousand new nuke plants." Now a more than tenfold expansion of nuclear power would mean a tenfold increase in accidents, that's why it's not going to happen.
Now the next queston would be what the cost of electricity produced with those designs would be.
Do you say that human error is incapable of producing a leak in a pebble bed reactor?
You'll still lose enery on the round trip. Your overall energy consumption would be lower if you ran your desal plant at a lower power level and produced less briny output than producing very briny output, diluting it and producing energy from that.
Instead of dumping the waste product of the desalination plant (highly-concentrated brine) somewhere, you use it with one of these devices
... for which you need freshwater.
No, the desalination will require more energy than you get out of this method. Conversely, if you have freshwater, why use desalination?
Sounds like a perpetual motion device to me.
Oblig.: In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
to automatically take selfies.
4"? Where does that nonsense come from?
The root cause problem is letting for-profit corporation define these tests. They're probably copyrighted - wait for the DMCA take-downs. Pearson is well known for that.
These have to be created by educators, not by some low-paid clerk at Pearson.
Having the task bar at the side makes perfect sense on modern aspect ratio displays.
Unless you use multiple systems (with synergy) side by side. That makes any panel on the screen side a nonstarter.
So the carbon that you "sequestered" is returned to the atmosphere.
What happens with your body after you die?
What will happen with the sugar (which is where the carbon ends up)?
What happens with the food that you ingest?
That would mean returning it to the atmosphere.
What will you do with the carbon that the plants sequestered? Especially so that it won't rot and be returned to the atmosphere?
Yup. "How much does it cost compared to other methods of generating energy?" is the question. And the answer is "More than solar and wind, making coal uncompetitive."
2) Putting less pollutants into the air, water, and ground is a good thing.
Not if you make lots of money from selling the polluting stuff.
Why do we need to free BSD and why did (s)he get incarcerated?
as anyone who watched World War Z can confirm.
After it was uncovered it should have slowly risen by itself, like Frankenstein's monster or a Zombie. This was boooring!
First of all, we're tracking at or above the A1FI scenario (the worst case considered) and there's no sign of changing that.
Secondly, the IPCC has always been very conservative. Many scientists say that 2m/6ft is what we'll see by 2100 and a few (like Hansen) even predict much higher numbers. Also, sea level rise won't magically stop in 2100.
Moving out is cheaper for everybody.
There are 5 articles from December 1945 on his blog.