Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Energy Production Is As 'Dirty' As Ever

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the change-is-hard dept.

Earth 260

kkleiner writes "A recent report (PDF) from International Energy Agency delivers some dire news: despite 20 years of efforts toward clean energy and a decade of growth in renewable energy, energy production remains as 'dirty' as ever due to worldwide reliance on fossil fuels. With the global demand for energy expected to rise by 25 percent in the next 10 years, a renewed effort toward cleaner energy is desperately needed to avoid detrimental effects to the environment and public health. The report says, 'Coal technologies continue to dominate growth in power generation. This is a major reason why the amount of CO2 emitted for each unit of energy supplied has fallen by less than 1% since 1990. Thus the net impact on CO2 intensity of all changes in supply has been minimal. Coal-fired generation, which rose by an estimated 6% from 2010 to 2012, continues to grow faster than non-fossil energy sources on an absolute basis.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fossil Fuels are bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604593)

I had no idea.

Re:Fossil Fuels are bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604645)

They're especially good for you if you ingest them.

Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (-1, Flamebait)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604661)

Dirty is a stupid bullshit description of CO2. CO2 is a colorless gas. It doesn't look, smell, taste, feel, or sound like "dirt". CO2 is not even pollution in any rational sense. CO2 is food for plants.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is ONE of the determinants of average temperature of the surface environment. Big whoop. Warming up this damn freezer I live in is NOT being "dirty".

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604745)

CO2 is food for plants.

You know what, you're right [plantsneedco2.org] ! And I don't know why those folks in Fukushima got all upset about their nuclear reactor getting water washed all over it! I mean, the darn thing needs water to work anyway, right? Plus plants and people drink water, why were they upset that they got extra from the ocean? It's just water!

Big whoop. Warming up this damn freezer I live in is NOT being "dirty".

Right because the possibilities of water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet will have no effect on you whatsoever.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604945)

The darn thing needs normal ground water to cool. People can't use Ocean water to drink etc. Your attempt at humour to try and belittle someone failed miserably. Perhaps you should go back to humour school. Moron!

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (3, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605457)

The darn thing needs normal ground water to cool.

You cannot cool a nuclear reactor of any significant size with ground water. You need a proper source of water, i.e. large river or the ocean, or you have to use cooling towers. Nuclear reactors are typically less than 1/3 efficient, so for 1GW electrical output you need to get rid of 2GW of heat.

Fukushima was not placed near the ocean just because the engineers loved the view.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (-1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604951)

"possibilities of water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet"

well aren't you the drama queen. we've had all those things for thousands of years, except for 'destabilitization' which has gone on for millions of years.

the water had fission products added to it to make it poisonous, what exactly is being added to the CO2 to make it poisonous? nothing, it's a necessary nutrient for what we eat.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (3, Insightful)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605057)

In small concentrations it is necessary for plants - but it isn't what is typically considered a "nutrient". But CO2 has a strong effect on global heating and the low concentrations confuse people who don't understand just how powerful an infrared absorber it is, or what happens when you disturb an equilibrium.

eldavojohn is totally correct when he mentions "water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet". These are all consequences of a warming planet.

Some areas will have far too much water at times - like the midwestern US that is flooding now. But then it can go into drought and crops wither like they did last year. Other areas simply suffer prolonged drought. Right now the Rio Grand has slowed to nothing but stagnant water in the southern part of New Mexico and the pecan and chile farmers are looking at big crop failures. People are already fighting over water rights in a number of areas as what is becoming a scarce resource is now the difference between a farm surviving or failing.

Scoff and deny all you want, but those of us old enough to remember the weather in the 60's and 70's know that the weather has changed and that what we are seeing now simply is not normal.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605137)

some areas will have far too much water at times - like the midwestern US that is flooding now. But then it can go into drought and crops wither like they did last year. Other areas simply suffer prolonged drought. Right now the Rio Grand has slowed to nothing but stagnant water in the southern part of New Mexico and the pecan and chile farmers are looking at big crop failures. People are already fighting over water rights in a number of areas as what is becoming a scarce resource is now the difference between a farm surviving or failing.

The Rio Grande is affected heavily by Mexico drawing from it to irrigate, and they currently owe over 1 million acre feet of water to the US. Low rainfall hasn't helped, but overuse by Mexico has made it much worse.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605423)

Tragedy of the commons. Whoever abuses the resource first wins.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605571)

Mexico is just getting us back for the All American Canal.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43606015)

You really are out of touch with reality. The Rio Grande no longer gets anywhere near Mexico. It pretty much dries up before it even leaves New Mexico. New Mexico is not in Mexico.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1, Interesting)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605761)

In small concentrations it is necessary for plants - but it isn't what is typically considered a "nutrient". But CO2 has a strong effect on global heating and the low concentrations confuse people who don't understand just how powerful an infrared absorber it is, or what happens when you disturb an equilibrium.

When has there been equilibrium on this planet exactly? I'm not saying we shouldn't try to cut CO2 emissions and be smarter about pollution than we are now, but unless you're looking to make the planet more like Mars, you're not going to get "equilibrium".

eldavojohn is totally correct when he mentions "water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet". These are all consequences of a warming planet.

It would also be a consequence of a cooling planet.

Some areas will have far too much water at times - like the midwestern US that is flooding now. But then it can go into drought and crops wither like they did last year. Other areas simply suffer prolonged drought. Right now the Rio Grand has slowed to nothing but stagnant water in the southern part of New Mexico and the pecan and chile farmers are looking at big crop failures. People are already fighting over water rights in a number of areas as what is becoming a scarce resource is now the difference between a farm surviving or failing.

It's always been that way, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. Go read about the dust bowl of the 1930's.

Scoff and deny all you want, but those of us old enough to remember the weather in the 60's and 70's know that the weather has changed and that what we are seeing now simply is not normal.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is exactly what I hear deniers excoriated for saying. I remember those times too. And I also remember my elders talking about how the weather then wasn't what it used to be like and how milk and bread were 5 cents. How do you know the weather you and I remember was "normal". It's just what we remember as kids, nothing "normal" about it. The climate has changed many times before the industrial revolution. That's how it works. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to be better stewards of the planet. But we have no where near enough knowledge to control the climate at this point in time. And frankly I'd be scared of how badly we'd screw it up if we could control it.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605843)

So - you're saying that the couple of decades from your youth are to be considered "normal". We're going to ignore all of the evidence that points to cyclical warming and cooling on planet earth, and use two decades to define "normal".

Does everyone forget that the Native Americans lived on this continent for untold thousand of years, before any Euros showed up? Maybe we should be asking them, "What is "normal" around here?"

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605883)

those all have been the consequences of mere weather too at various times, besides climate warming and cooling which has always been ongoing.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605991)

I love it when fucking 12 year olds proclaim "this has never happened before" when they can't even read on grade level and sure as hell never cracked a history book.

You know shit so just shut the fuck up and spare us all your fake intellect.

Re: Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605115)

And they're all great, right? Can never have too much water washing over your cities and farmland, and the more extreme weather, drought & crop failure, species extinction, refugees and political turmoil, the better.

Embrace the climate change! The tsunami of costs to adapt will wash over us, leaving us clean of funds and fresh of heart, ready to tackle the warm new challenges that await us!

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (3, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605179)

what exactly is being added to the CO2 to make it poisonous?

CO, NOx, SO2, Hg, soot and fly ash mostly.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605593)

That would coming mostly from China now, if you can find someone over there that cares.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (5, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605641)

That would coming mostly from China now, if you can find someone over there that cares.

They are easy to find. The prisons are full of them.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605825)

" we've had all those things for thousands of years, except for 'destabilitization' which has gone on for millions of years."

I never have mod points when I really want them. +500 insightful!

Re: Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605021)

Where did you dig up that link? It's comedy gold! Successfully nailed every denialist cliche I could think of.

I'm gonna have to add this "Nongovernmental Planel (sic) on Climate Change" to my Humour feed for my morning chuckle.

Re: Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605361)

Where did you dig up that link? It's comedy gold! Successfully nailed every denialist cliche I could think of.

I'm gonna have to add this "Nongovernmental Planel (sic) on Climate Change" to my Humour feed for my morning chuckle.

Please, I don't deserve all the credit, thank H. Leighton Steward and coal baron Corbin Robertson [sourcewatch.org] . And from the looks of it, the Koch brothers somewhere up that chain ... did you know it's a 501(c)(3) and has a sibling (but separate!) ad-buying 501(c)(4) named CO2 is Green [co2isgreen.org] ?

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605587)

Plants could care less about radioactive material, that kills off the stinking mammals that step on them all the time.

So what does nuclear waste have to do with CO2 there?

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605677)

Right because the possibilities of water wars, refugees, failing economies, destruction of the food chain, droughts and general destabilization of the planet will have no effect on you whatsoever.

Nice of you to point out the consequences of the "Green" agenda. Thankfully, now that the whole Global Warming Hoax has been exposed for what it is, perhaps we can avoid that train wreck.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605975)

Damn...and I was hoping that eldavojohn, upon hearing this, would become depressed and blow his brains out.

Well, here's hoping for the next spate of bad news...like yet another year of no warming.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604763)

Dirty is a stupid bullshit description of CO2. CO2 is a colorless gas. It doesn't look, smell, taste, feel, or sound like "dirt". CO2 is not even pollution in any rational sense. CO2 is food for plants.

Plant food responsible for dissolving the shells off the backs of our poor sea creatures.

Spend a few weeks in Beijing and then come back here and tell us all about how not "dirty" energy production is in your imaginary world.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605045)

Wow, that's just retarded. Beijing pollution has nothing to do with CO2. You can't see, smell or taste CO2. In Beijing you can definitely see, taste and smell the pollution.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605789)

Wow, that's just retarded. Beijing pollution has nothing to do with CO2. You can't see, smell or taste CO2. In Beijing you can definitely see, taste and smell the pollution.

Drrr... you know what is really retarded? Thinking CO2 output is the only issue with energy generation. Just because someone makes an assumption does not mean everyone else has to propogate it.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (3, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605095)

That's not CO2 causing the smog in Beijing. Those are actual "dirty" particulates. Black Lung stuff. Burning coal in the last 50 years has become drastically better. Saying there have been no improvements is a lie. CO2 production isn't dropping but the truly poisonous stuff has largely been curtailed in the US. CO2 is a greenhouse gas not something causing Acid Rain. True it's helping warm the planet and disrupting the climate but then climate change is a fact of life on this planet. If you look at the output of a volcano such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines you'll see just how dirty mother nature can get. The incredible amount of sulfur dioxide pushed out by this one eruption was over 20 million tons. I think you'll see little reduction of CO2 without a massive change to another power source and currently the only viable alternative is Nuclear power but that comes with it's own problems.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604777)

Well, let's hear you repeat your utterly stupid statement in a few decades when the survival of the human race looks a lot worse than now.

Now is the time to be pedanatic (2)

OrangeTide (124937) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604981)

Well you can do whatever you want in a few decades because words won't mean anything any more.

But right now words mean something. And if you want to use words without us berating you, you need to use them accurately instead of blasting sensationalism everywhere.

Re:Now is the time to be pedanatic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605285)

Well you can do whatever you want in a few decades because words won't mean anything any more.

But right now words mean something. And if you want to use words without us berating you, you need to use them accurately instead of blasting sensationalism everywhere.

Well I hope there is some sarcasm intended with the new word "pedanatic". Words never did mean anything. Words can be used to represent or convey meaning. However much we may wish definitions to remain as we learned them - they don't. They leak and expand and become diffused and stop meaning what we wish them to mean.
Dirty means whatever I need it to mean.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605061)

If just one thing of what he said was wrong I am sure you can point it out rather than blabber about some apocalyptic nonsense you have dreamed up inside the deranged mind of yours.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (2)

Charcharodon (611187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605611)

I remember a few decades ago saying the same exact asinine thing as a younger man. The only thing worse now are the women are much looser, cars are cooler, electronics are cheaper.....oh wait. Never mind the future is pretty cool.

The real problem is not that we are polluting more, the problem there are a lot more people. Get rid of half the population and you'll get rid of half the pollution. Feel free to go first to set the example.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605979)

Get rid of half the population and you'll get rid of half the pollution. Feel free to go first to set the example.

You mean, like these people? [slashdot.org]

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604817)

Dirty is a stupid bullshit description of CO2. CO2 is a colorless gas. It doesn't look, smell, taste, feel, or sound like "dirt". CO2 is not even pollution in any rational sense. CO2 is food for plants.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is ONE of the determinants of average temperature of the surface environment. Big whoop. Warming up this damn freezer I live in is NOT being "dirty".

OK. Let's seal you in an airtight chamber with 100% pure carbon dioxide. After all, it's "clean", so it must be good for you, right?

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604849)

OK. Let's seal you in an airtight chamber with 100% pure carbon dioxide. After all, it's "clean", so it must be good for you, right?

After all, the standard toxicology test employed by scientists puts a person in an airtight chamber with 100% pure substance. That's how we know, for example, that the state of California finds things toxic and to cause cancer.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605093)

Water. It's deadly. Oxygen too!

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605075)

God, you are quite dumb. Let's say I dunk your head into a chamber filled with pure fresh water for say, 10 minutes. Then you can come out afterwards and tell me how good pure fresh water is for you. Were you born this dumb or did someone hit you repeatedly over the head with a heavy object throughout your childhood?

Re: Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605219)

Let's see how you survive in an airtight chamber with pure oxygen

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (4, Funny)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604871)

CO2 is a colorless gas. It doesn't look, smell, taste, feel, or sound like "dirt".

I hear you, friend. CO2 isn't even the end of dirty's improper use. There are thousands of girls all over the internet that are also called "dirty", even "very dirty". But upon close inspection, most of them don't have any dirt on them at all! And you can seriously inspect everything. Whats wrong with our society?!

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605273)

And you're a food for bacteria. Is it OK if I rub some salmonella on you?

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605483)

While I don't think this warrants an explanation, "dirt" in this context is synonymous with "contaminant."

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

krovisser (1056294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605733)

I've always thought that environmentalism is really just selfishness of the human species. The Earth doesn't feel or give two shits about how we treat it. It will keep on trucking until the sun explodes. So, by trying to save the environment, you really mean you want to save the environment for humans to keep living on. Possibly packing as many people on it as possible. I say find another suitable planet and a way to get there and pillage the place.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605817)

Want more stupid bullshit? TFS only compares the past twenty years. Let us go back to my high school days.

The place is West Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Penn Power's electric plant in West Pittsburgh emitted a black column of smoke, 24/7, 365. Back in the day, it was common for housewives to do laundry at home, then hang laundry out on a clothes line. Not in West Pittsburgh, though. Clothes hanging outside would come back inside grungy on the best of days, and when the wind was blowing directly from the electric plant, clothes would turn black.

I can't remember the exact year - it may have been 1971 - when the government forced Penn Power to put up a huge chimney, with "scrubbers" inside of it. After the chimney was put up, a few years of normal weather eventually washed 99.9% of all that soot away, or the vegetation absorbed it. Today, West Pittsburgh is as clean and pretty as any other town in the Beaver Valley.

So, the summary is going back to an arbitrary point in time at which government had ALREADY forced industry to clean up their acts.

Granted - "clean" is a relative thing. Until we reach the point where there is zero pollution, there will always be room for improvement. But grabbing an arbitrary point in time, without any comparison to previous times, then claiming that there is little or no improvement since that time is misleading, even dishonest.

Re:Dumb title: CO2 is not "dirty" (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605969)

*plonk*

Food for plants but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605995)

In a very general sense carbon dioxide is food for plants since plants take up carbon dioxide and fix carbon in the process of photosynthesis. However, carbon dioxide does raise atmospheric temperature and temperature increases, particularly of the kind we are currently experiencing (ie 26 times faster than the spike during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) can be extremely hard on many plants, which are unable to grow in conditions of tremendous heat and dryness associated with heat. Keep in mind that prior to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the flora of Northern Wyoming was dominated by a redwood forest. During the height of the PETM, the North Wyoming flora included desert palm trees.

As the Earth heats and we humans do in hundreds of years what it took nature thousands, expect to see plants like corn and wheat to be unable to grow in places like Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, either because of dramatically increase droughts or because of more frequent and more unpredictable torrential rains. Primary agricultural productivity is already down about 10% in the past two decades, don't expect that to slow, especially since plants will have more carbon dioxide available and will need to photosynthesize less to provide the plant with minimal energy needs, eliminating the need for plants to invest heavily in fruit or seed production to maintain itself.

Not all doom and gloom (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604671)

We are producing more pollution because we are using more energy. The fact that it hasn't risen and is in fact falling in many places is due to us cleaning up and using more renewables.

I suspect this is just a lame excuse anti-environmentalists will use to justify inaction.

Re:Not all doom and gloom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604729)

Exactly. If that were not true, all those dummies who put up wind farms and put solar panels on their homes must feel like real dummies~

##- Matrix Code Master -##

same pollution _per unit of energy_ (1)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604985)

Since we are producing more and more energy, the absolute amounts of pollution emitted each year is still increasing.

Basically all the "green" energy is offsetting the increase in "dirty" energy.

Re:Not all doom and gloom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605151)

We need to stop the production of kids or the demand will only increase. The problem is population control. If we don't get that under control we'll never get energy under control.

Society needs to learn that having no children is OK.

Re:Not all doom and gloom (5, Insightful)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605781)

More renewables isn't enough to provide anything more than self satisfaction. At the current rate, it would take centuries to have any significant impact, and the laws of reality will prevent it from ever providing a significant fraction. Despite extensive effort, Germany is discovering this right now, and they too are ramping coal and gas generation.

It isn't a problem of inaction, but of the wrong action, which is arguably worse. "Environmentalists" would have us continue to pour money and resources into uneconomical "solutions" which can not possibly achieve our objectives. Once all of our money and resources are spent, implementing a workable solution becomes near impossible. The problem is that they refuse to face reality and have taken the only workable solution off the table. (Or they choose to live in a different reality, where pro-environment is synonymous with anti-human, and a collapse in population is an accepted part of the "solution".)

The crucial point is that none of our current technologies are capable of providing affordable power at the scale we require. Renewables like wind and solar are hugely resource intensive, making them inherently costly both to the environment and people. They are also unreliable, and require a non-existant storage technology which is an even more difficult problem than fusion. Pumped hydro storage is the only one currently available that is even close to economical at the scale required, but it isn't universally available. We should not be pursuing an energy policy that by its very nature requires a miraculous breakthrough to succeed, and would otherwise result in spectacular failure.

Those that appreciate the scope of the problem often remark that we need a "broad mix of technologies" to meet our energy needs. That is a translation for "none of our current options are sufficient", but it is a resigned mentality, because there is no guarantee that a combination of insufficient technologies will ever be sufficient. Rather, there is good evidence that the sum total will never be sufficient in the absence of reliable baseload electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear.

Fortunately, like you said, it is not all doom and gloom. There happens to be a proven technology that would be sufficient if we developed it. It has been providing clean and cheap electricity for decades with a minimal environmental footprint, the only issue being the large (and growing) up front capital cost, and the fact that we can't build plants fast enough. While useful, conventional nuclear to which I am referring is not the solution, and will never be sufficient. Fortunately, unlike the other options, nuclear has huge unrealized potential, and with a bit of development, it could become the solution we seek.

Molten salt reactors are fundamentally different from conventional nuclear, and solve all the problems which plague solid-fueled conventional reactors, while safely operating at vastly greater efficiency. The so-called nuclear waste problem is a product of conventional reactors which are nearly 100% inefficient , and that is not an exaggeration. The fission process is such that if not completed, it produces nasty intermediate products which then contaminate the rest of the fuel, a problem severely exacerbated by only consuming a tiny fraction of the fuel, before pulling it from the reactor and adding it to the growing pile of "spent fuel". The truth though, is that "spent fuel" is almost entirely unspent, and the problem essentially disappears if we completely consume the fuel. Rather than a waste problem, it is a vast reserve of energy waiting to be tapped.

The problem isn't producing clean energy, it is doing so affordably, so that the entire world embraces it. Robert Hargraves discusses this in his book, THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal [thoriumene...ancoal.com] .

Just imagine how (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604681)

Just imagine how bad dirty it would have been if instead of ramping up energy production by coal, we would have added more nuclear power plants.

Luckily governments decided to step away from it.

Oh, wait.

Dirty (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604721)

In case anyone is wondering, they're using CO2 as the sole measurement of 'dirty,' ignoring things like sulfur, mercury, and lead, which are probably important.

The article had one fact of which I was unaware, but should be entertaining:

"The boom in natural gas availability [mainly from fracking] pushed natural gas prices down last year to a 10-year low in the US. But the drop in US demand for coal sparked a drop in the price of coal, which in turn sparked a shift in Europe where coal replaced much of the more expensive gas to supply power stations."

Re:Dirty (1, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604793)

Not that much. Sulfur, mercury, and lead kills people. C02 kills civilizations, so the emphasis is pretty much spot-on.

Re: Dirty (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604879)

please explain which civilization was killed by co2.

Re: Dirty (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605109)

Maybe he's talking about the Dinosaurs.

Re:Dirty (1, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604885)

Not that much. Sulfur, mercury, and lead kills people. C02 kills civilizations, so the emphasis is pretty much spot-on.

Where would be be today if not for Bush Jr. eating all those leaded paint chips?

First thing Obama did was have the Oval Office repainted.

Re:Dirty (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604933)

Your uncle Al would be proud.

Re:Dirty (3, Insightful)

blueturffan (867705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604941)

C02 kills civilizations, so the emphasis is pretty much spot-on.

I thought that was chlorofluorocarbons.

Maybe it was ozone?

No...it's methane. Wait...

Sulfur dioxide you say? No, that one used to be bad because of acid rain but now I'm reading that it helped cool the planet and by reducing atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide we've actually made global warming worse.

Then again, I remember not too long ago that diesel exhaust was horrible and we needed to get rid of diesel engines, but now I read that they're much better than gasoline engines.

So today CO2 is a civilization killer, but I'm sure there'll be a new environmental pollutant to worry about soon.

Re:a new environmental pollutant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605127)

There is a new environmental pollutant to worry about soon. Humans.

Re:Dirty (1, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605135)

I wonder, if we got rid of all that CO2 and the global temperature dropped 10 degrees or so and a few billion people starved to death would these people that think they have all the answers step up and admit responsibility? Moot point I guess because short of cutting off electricity to a few billion people there is no real answer to the CO2 problem.

Re:Dirty (3, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605921)

Go find the nearest spray can. See the label which says "NO CFCS"? Chlorofluorocarbons WERE a huge concern, until we stepped up as a civilization and made the necessary changes to solve the problem. You don't hear about that problem anymore because we solved it. It didn't go away on its own. It didn't fade away like some green-fad. We recognized an environmental issue and solved it, and now the ozone layer is recovering. [dvice.com]

Similar points can be made about the other things you mentioned. Those are all bad, we are taking steps to address them, or at least figuring out if it's feasible to use a replacement or change our industrial/ag processes to minimize those pollutants. We aren't just ignoring them. And you're right, there WILL be new environmental pollutants to worry about. That doesn't invalidate the concerns over the previous ones we've identified.

Science constantly moves forward, adjusts, corrects itself when it makes mistakes. That's not a weakness, that's its chief virtue. It's the meddlesome lay people, the politicians, and the mouth breathing ignorant masses who believe you have to stick with your story, your narrative, or be deemed unprincipled or untrustworthy.

Try honesty, it really is the best policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605033)

How does the association with a substance killing people make something dirty? You fail to bring logic to the table, or even a basic English dictionary definition. You are asserting this because that is how you feel, at an emotional level, what the word "dirty" means? Have you tied up the negative connotation of the word dirty with your negative feelings about rising CO2 levels?

Let's explore some facts first. If you expose an individual to CO2 that is 5x of normal (from 0.04% to 0.25%), that isn't going to directly kill most people. It may destroy the environment, and indirectly kill everyone, but it isn't directly toxic to human beings at the levels we're talking about. But if you were to expose someone to an atmosphere of 0.01% mercury vapour, they would die as a direct result of mercury poisoning. (and quickly!)

Calling CO2 dirty, implying that it is a directly toxic contaminate, is dishonest. Subversion, misdirection and lies do not help people recognize the dangers of CO2 levels in our atmosphere and oceans.

Facts, scientific rigor, transparency, and intellectual honesty provides a much firmer foundation for making arguments.

Re:Dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605081)

Without CO2 plants would not produce Oxygen and Nitrogen so therefore no civilization at all.

Dumb-Ass. You may want to take Al Gore's lower appendage out of your mouth for a while, seems to be cutting off your air supply to your head.

Re:Dirty (1)

mjdrzewi (1477203) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605085)

Not that much. Sulfur, mercury, and lead kills people. C02 kills civilizations, so the emphasis is pretty much spot-on.

OSHA's maximum safe level is 3% (30,000 ppm) and 10% (100,000 ppm) is considered lethal so 400 ppm is no big deal.

Re:Dirty (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605539)

Are you being sarcastic?

Please tell me that you're being sarcastic and you didn't really mean what you just wrote down.

Pretty please?

Re:Dirty (1)

BurningFeetMan (991589) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605167)

Glass of water from a lead pipe, with a chaser shot of mercury to cure your ails?

Re:Dirty (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605141)

Indeed, I hate when radical greens confuse pollution with greenhouse emission.

Re:Dirty (2)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605315)

The rise of coal use in Europe isn't completely due to economics. Part of it is due to Germany shutting down their nuclear plants and having to offset that electricity generation by increasing the production at their existing coal plants. They are also building (or planning to build) coal plants to help offset the loss of their nuclear plants.

Re:Dirty (1)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605367)

"But the drop in US demand for coal sparked a drop in the price of coal, which in turn sparked a shift in Europe where coal replaced much of the more expensive gas to supply power stations."

While unfortunate, I don't think that really matters in the bigger picture. If the price of coal dropped in Europe despite the availability of U.S. coal, that implies demand is down relative to supply, meaning the total coal used by the U.S. and Europe combined is still down. If consumption were up, coal prices would likewise be up, and Europe would have shifted back to natural gas.

I think this quote from the paper is more relevant to the specific issue of reducing coal consumption:

"The extent to which fast-growing economies depend on coal is substantial. China and India accounted for almost 95% of global coal demand growth between 2000 and 2011."

So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43604805)

Throw another spotted owl on the fire and lets warm this bitch up!

Captcha reads: Remorse - LOL As if I had some.

That's what happens... (4, Insightful)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | about a year and a half ago | (#43604993)

...when your country completely discounts nuclear as the best option for an environmentally friendly energy source. Solar and wind can never be primary energy sources - they are not constant power sources. They can only supplement a steady power source. And they waste so much real estate compared to the alternative that even environmentalists don't like them, especially wind farms. I live in the shadow of one of the biggest wind farms in the United States, and it's an obnoxiously terrible use of land with comparatively little energy in return. At least now they're required to cover the cost of their eventual removal and land restoration.

Frankly I'd rather live next to a modern, safe nuclear power plant. China is appropriately proceeding with caution on the development of their next plants based on lessons learned with Fukishima (see recent slashdot posting) but they did not have a knee jerk "OMG nuclear is bad!" reaction. You fix it, you evolve the design, you move on. That's engineering. You don't go hide in a cave. Even Japan is coming round to the fact that ditching their nuclear reactors wholesale would result in an unacceptable level of energy dependence, plus they'd be burning dirty.

Nuclear is the only future in which we can have the energy abundance we have now, and do it clean. We CAN have both, unlike what some people may like to tell you.

Re:That's what happens... (1, Interesting)

Kylon99 (2430624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605043)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/energy-japan-mof-idUSL4N0AT00Y20130124 [reuters.com]

"Japan's LNG imports soared 11.2 percent to a record high of 87.31 million tonnes in 2012, driven by an increased need for fuel to generate electricity after the
nuclear sector was hit by the Fukushima crisis, government data showed on Thursday."
"Japan paid a record price for crude at $114.90 per barrel last year, compared with $108.65 in 2011."

This goes to what you were saying. There may be alternative energy sources for some countries, but for some, the only way to go is nuclear. Japan is indeed trying to restart most (they've restarted 2) of their reactors, despite the intense protest against doing so. But their fuel costs have caused them to go from a net exporter country to a net importer country. And now they are screwed.

Even if they're increasing LNG, they're still burning coal and oil. All of these pollute, and the dirtier they are, the more people they kill, more than thousands per year. Nuclear kills no one, probably because we are so paranoid about it.

Re:That's what happens... (1, Insightful)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605055)

Not necessarily.

Wind power energy cost is at grid parity right now, and is virtually CO2 neutral.

I mean, yeah sure, wind is intermittent; but it doesn't melt down, and storage can be done with hydro, pumped hydro or electric cars, or you can fill in with a bit of fossil or biofuel when the wind doesn't blow.

Wind power is growing at ~25% per annum. It's only about 3% at the moment, but with that growth rate, it's going to be huge.

Some countries like Denmark are already at 30%, and are aiming for 50%, and Denmark isn't even very good for wind resources (although they're surrounded by hydro, which certainly is good.)

Nuclear is more expensive than wind, and is also poor at load following; you normally find nuclear needs hydro as well; because it's so expensive to build it runs flat out and then the hydro does the load following- nuclear is better for baseload.

Re:That's what happens... (4, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605429)

wind is intermittent; but it doesn't melt down, and storage can be done with hydro, pumped hydro or electric cars

But you need to plan to replace the wind turbines about every 12 years, and this cost must be factored in to the cost of the power.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Hydro is mature. All the good locations already have hydro plants; and environmentalists are trying to get existing hydro plants torn out to benefit river wildlife, so just forget about building new hydro plants.

I'm pretty sure pumped hydro storage is in a similar situation... you need a giant reservoir uphill of a source of lots of water you can pump. Where can you build a new one of these, and will the environmentalists approve?

Using a decentralized group of electric cars as an energy-storage system is an interesting idea, but I don't think you can dependably store very much that way in the near future.

I have hopes for molten-salt solar plants, which can keep producing power after the sun goes down because the salt holds so much heat. And it would be cool if we could work out a good way to use hydrogen to store excess energy from wind or solar... but it takes a lot of electricity to strip hydrogen out of water, and hydrogen is tricky to store.

And just as you will face opposition to building more hydro, you will face opposition to building solar in the desert.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/its_green_against_green_in_mojave_desert_solar_battle/2236/ [yale.edu]

Nuclear is more expensive than wind, and is also poor at load following; you normally find nuclear needs hydro as well; because it's so expensive to build it runs flat out and then the hydro does the load following- nuclear is better for baseload.

I agree with your final statement; nuclear is indeed better for base load and not good at load-following. But probably natural gas is a better near-term way to reliably follow loads.

By all means get renewables into the mix, but don't make the same mistake the U.K. made, wasting huge sums of money on a system that doesn't work very well. (Right when demand is most heavy in winter, the wind farms stop producing. Quote: "In winter, when the most intense cold period coincides with a high pressure front, most wind turbines do not work.")

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2008055/Energy-giants-want-billions-windfarms.html [thisismoney.co.uk]

One no-brainer idea: homes and businesses in warm places (Arizona, Florida, Texas, etc.) should have solar panels on the roof. This will produce peak power during peak demand times (when everyone is running the air conditioning, the sun will be shining). This is only a tiny part of the overall energy picture, though, and will happen on its own as the cost of solar panels keeps falling.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605663)

I bet that the turbines can be built better to last much longer.

Environmentalism is always a tradeoff- trading off riverbeds against global warming for example. And the thing about hydro is that it doesn't matter if the hydro is already deployed, wind generally allows you to make better use of it, because when the wind blows you can hold back the water, and the evaporation losses are very small, and so it's very efficient. Pumped storage is OK too, but it's a rather less efficient.

Actually the solar panel thing isn't as good as you'd hope. Solar energy is still much more expensive than nuclear or wind, although it's getting there.

The gas thing, $10 billion sounds like a lot, but it's over 7 years or more, it's not as bad as it sounds, and wind is otherwise cheaper than nuclear anyway. Also, although you probably can get that high pressure front effect sometimes, wind speeds are generally higher in winter. That quote "In winter, when the most intense cold period coincides with a high pressure front, most wind turbines do not work." is only a partial truth.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605971)

I bet that the turbines can be built better to last much longer.

Perhaps, but better turbines also cost more. What does that do to the bottom line?

Solar energy is still much more expensive than nuclear or wind, although it's getting there.

Solar panels already pay for themselves. The question is, how long does it take. People will install solar roof panels even without subsidies if the payback period is short enough.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/how-much-does-solar-cost/ [ritholtz.com]

The gas thing, $10 billion sounds like a lot, but it's over 7 years or more, it's not as bad as it sounds

First, the U.K. spent a lot of money to build out wind. Now, the U.K. must spend a whole lot more money because the wind is not reliable. So, this money, whether it is as bad as it sounds or not, is in addition to the already a lot of money the citizens in the U.K. have spent.

See also: "The U.K. government's effort to expand renewable energy generation will boost household electricity bills by 54 percent by 2020."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-14/u-k-green-energy-plans-boost-power-bills-54-by-2020.html [bloomberg.com]

wind is otherwise cheaper than nuclear anyway.

Nuclear is mostly expensive because of the lawsuits and delays. If wind power was plagued with similar levels of lawsuits and delays, cost of wind power would similarly skyrocket.

And wind power is not suitable for base load, whilst nuclear power is.

Also, although you probably can get that high pressure front effect sometimes, wind speeds are generally higher in winter.

The U.K. has already decided that wind power alone is not reliable enough to provide power, and natural gas backup is required.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6957501/Wind-farms-produced-practically-no-electricity-during-Britains-cold-snap.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Please provide a reference to support your claim that wind power generation will increase during winter... I'm keen to read it.

Wikipedia seems to agree with you: the capacity factor numbers for winter are higher than for summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Variability_and_related_issues [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's what happens... (3, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605509)

Wind power energy cost is at grid parity right now, and is virtually CO2 neutral.

I mean, yeah sure, wind is intermittent; but it doesn't melt down, and storage can be done with hydro, pumped hydro or electric cars, or you can fill in with a bit of fossil or biofuel when the wind doesn't blow.

Pumped hydro is about 70%-80% efficient [wikipedia.org] . So wind would have to be about 0.7-0.8x grid parity for stored wind energy to be economically viable. Charging losses for an EV [evworld.com] are about 25%. So if you also factor in losses converting the EV's DC back into AC for transmission on the grid, it's going to be worse than 70% overall.

Also, yeah wind doesn't melt down. But it killed more people in 2011 than nuclear, despite providing only about 1/10th the power. The difference is that those deaths caused by wind weren't splashed all over the TV for weeks on end. It's not that wind is inherently safer. Don't get me wrong, after hydro, wind is the most viable of the renewables and I fully support its build-out. But a lot of people are basing their support on incomplete or inaccurate information, colored by what stories make jucier headlines on the evening news.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605697)

Nuclear doesn't kill people, but fallout causes large areas of land to have to be evacuated, and causes MASSIVE economic damage. The nuclear pushers will claim that modern reactors don't melt down, but there's no good reason to think that that's 100% so. And if it's not, then they will sometimes and the more reactors there are, the more chance of it happening.

Note also that hydro- just ordinary hydro, not pumped- is virtually 100% efficient at storing wind energy; in many cases you just hold back the water and release it when the wind drops. Many hydro systems are now being fitted with bigger generators to make that work better.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605133)

Solar and wind can be primary energy sources in that they can provide a majority of electrical generation. With a smart grid (which uses variable pricing to keep demand below the level of supply), you only need a small amount of emergency nighttime power to prevent brownouts/blackouts.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605171)

Existing nuclear fission and proposed fusion reactors create a very bad pollutant, heat. That heat energy is a waste product of the steam turbine used to make electricity. Heat changes things so that animals and plants can't live anymore. Nuclear reactor waste water still kills fish.

Every common electric turbine uses something to boil water and make steam. Heat's what we need to eliminate from our power generation.

I run at 97 deg. F, or less than half the boiling point of water. Why can't make energy at lower temperatures?

Re:That's what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605331)

...when your country completely discounts nuclear as the best option for an environmentally friendly energy source.

Welcome to the 21st centruy from your Coma [imdb.com] .

Solar and wind can never be primary energy sources

And yet - Are Traditional Utilities Becoming Obsolete? The next time youâ(TM)re driving around town, observe the community and see how many homes and businesses have installed solar panels [theenergycollective.com]

So some in the "business" of making and selling power don't agree, and that would be something you'd have missed while in the Coma [wikipedia.org] .

(A fun fact they didn't teach the oldsters: That oil and coal - that is the result of Solar power!)

Frankly I'd rather live next to a modern, safe nuclear power plant.

Until your book deal pays off about your time in a Coma [wikipedia.org] you might want to look into land next to Chernyobyl or Fukushima. Modern Nay-sayers would claim its a bad idea, but why not allow the pro-nukers to show how wrong the Nay-sayers are by getting the land at a low price?

You fix it, you evolve the design, you move on.

Yes fixing. An inside source gave Team 10 a picture snapped inside the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) showing plastic bags, masking tape and broom sticks used to stem a massive leaky pipe. [...] [enenews.com] Modern "fixing" doesn't do that kind of thing, a fact you would not understand having just rejoined humanity from your Coma [imdb.com] .

Before you entered the Coma [imdb.com] the Brittish were replacing the bones of the dead with broomsticks as part of a radiation coverup [newsandstar.co.uk] plan but the rest of us learned of it while you were still in that Coma [imdb.com] . So there has been no upgrade in Broomsticks-as-radioactive-repair technology, and yet you'd think Engineering might do a better job with say an Inanimate Carbon Rod [wikia.com] ?

Best of health to you and recovering from your traumatic brain injury.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605537)

Nuclear is way too expensive. It has no future. Look at Great Britain where the power companies demand a price floor of 0.140 GBP per kWh, guaranteed for 40 years. Or look at Finland where the new power plant has been delayed for years and is way over budget.

As a technology, nuclear is perfectly acceptable. However, just about anything else is cheaper, with the possible exception of hamsters on treadmills.

Besides, nuclear is unviable because it is a constant power source. You can turn it down, but that is stupid because the marginal cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant is approximately zero. Therefore you can only have a few nuclear power plants covering a small amount of the supply, or you will end up paying the nuclear company 0.140 GBP per kWh for power which you then have to pay to get rid of.

And after all that you need a lot of reserve power, because nuclear tends to have sudden several-month downtimes. If you try to be economical by building identical power plants, you get hit extra hard because any design issue will take all of them offline at once until it is fixed. Ask Sweden how it felt to hit the equivalent of 3USD/kWh at peak because multiple reactors had to be taken out for repairs for months.

Wind turbines in cold climates produce most of their power when it is most needed, in the winter months. Solar in warm climates produces most power when it is most needed, during the day.

Wind turbines in cold cli (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605949)

No. The northern segment of the US qualifies as cold. Wind turbines run most during the winter, yet intermittently even then, and the electric power is needed mostly in the summer for air conditioning. No one heats their home with electricity, it's far too expensive. Industry needs steady reliable power which wind can't provide. Wind turbine power is bursty which is exactly the opposite of what the second-to-second grid needs.

Re:That's what happens... (0)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605551)

I don't care how much steel and concrete is encasing the deadly poison. I am also similarly unimpressed with how clever the engineers who built the reactor think they are: I don't want that shit anywhere near me, and many people feel the same.

There is nothing unreasonable about this. Regardless of the reason, there will always be the possibility of a fuck up that breaches the containment.

Duh (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605035)

That's what happens when you ship your manufacturing to the third world and refuse to build nuclear plants at home.

I was going to blame slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43605271)

For wasting tons of energy in debating why "everyone else" pisses away tons of energy on useless activities.
But since no information was lost (or gained). the universe is safe.
Carry on.

Not surprising at all (1)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605433)

Until nuclear is no longer suppressed for political reasons energy generation will be dirty.

Environmentalists need to take their heads out of their asses.

Re:Not surprising at all (0)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605565)

>> take their heads out of their asses.

I would say the same about the engineers behind Three Mile Island. And Chernobyl. And Fukushima...

Re:Not surprising at all (1)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605585)

And all of those accidents combined have killed how many people? Compare that to the projected effects of climate change...

Re:Not surprising at all (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605681)

There was a 28% rise in thyroid problems for Babies born after the Fukushima incident. For Chernobyl, more than 500,000 have died from Cancer related issues, and more continue to live with the effects of the Radiation. The dome that houses the Radioactive site is already crumbling. You have to look at long term effects, not the short term loss of life, which will be minimal.

Re:Not surprising at all (2)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605753)

Citations, please. Your numbers for Chernobyl are not reflected in the U.N. report. [unscear.org]

Re:Not surprising at all (2)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605647)

>> take their heads out of their asses.

I would say the same about the engineers behind Three Mile Island. And Chernobyl. And Fukushima...

Three Mile Island? You mean that marvel of engineering in Pennsylvania in which, despite being the site of the nation's worst nuclear accident, NO ONE DIED and which did not result in a single case of cancer?

Methinks you're the one who needs to pull your head out of your ass.

Re:Not surprising at all (1)

krovisser (1056294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605767)

Yeah! Those dumb engineers.... Compare them to the political and environmental tards that are forcing old and obsolete nuclear power plants to keep running despite not being originally designed to run as long as they are. I can't say much for 3rd world countries or areas near fault lines, but nuclear power is needed, desperately. Lower deaths per KW/h, by far. Cleaner by far. The only thing stopping it is this stupid stigma.

Turn lights off, unplug appliances (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605507)

and for chrissake turn your damn computer off.

I've been turning this one on and off for going on 5 years and it hasn't died or fried a drive yet.

re energy (2)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43605891)

Well the time for " ZPG " is past .
It is time for a negative population growth
or remove some of the population ( or nature will do it for us -- and not in a nice way)

we DO need to be back to PRE World War 2 population levels

that WILL solve the energy and food needs

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?