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!

UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the its-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 433

An anonymous reader writes "On the heels of a study that concluded there was less than a 1% chance that current global warming could be simple fluctuations, U.N. scientists say energy from renewables, nuclear reactors and power plants that use emissions-capture technology needs to triple in order keep climate change within safe limits. From The Washington Post: 'During a news conference Sunday, another co-chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri of India, said the goal of limiting a rise in global temperatures "cannot be achieved without cooperation." He added, "What comes out very clearly from this report is that the high-speed mitigation train needs to leave the station soon, and all of global society needs to get on board."'"

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

Fuck this shit! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742379)

Global warming is a motherfucking scam! We do not have the millions of years of data we require to prove that climate change is man made. Don't believe this shit for another motherfucking second. If you think you have the data that we need I want the full weather data from July 4, 1776 for the location where Las Vegas is presently located. If you can't provide this data you sure as hell can't prove global motherfucking warming!

Re:Fuck this shit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742887)

*sigh*

You obviously haven't read any scientific journals on this matter. May I suggest that you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Re:Fuck this shit! (2, Interesting)

kenwd0elq (985465) | about 6 months ago | (#46743023)

WikiPedia may be the wrong thing to point to if you want "scientific journals".

Nor are the real "scientific" journals doing such a wonderful job, either. "Peer review" is a joke, and the track record of scientific journals retracting controversial articles is too long to put much faith in it. The mathematical models cannot predict the present by using inputs from the past. Contra Michael "Chicken Little" Mann, the "Medieval Warm Period _DID_ exist, and his own emails (leaked as part of the HadCRUT archive) prove that he was trying without success to explain it away. Kilimanjaro's snows have not receded. The glaciers in the Himalayas have not disappeared. Billions of people have not starved, nor has Australia been overrun with panicked Malaysians and Indonesians.

I got really suspicious when I saw that the same Socialist/World Government nostrums that Carl Sagan tried to prescribe for Global Cooling in the 1970s were being prescribed now for Global Warming.

My degree is in Physics; I always believe the actual facts. I haven't seen many, and most of them are on the "It's not a problem now, and may never be" side. And if we can only avoid collapsing the world economy with phony scare tactics, the world of 2060 will be rich enough to mitigate what minor effects there may be.

And if Siberia and northern Canada warm up a bit, there will be millions of acres of additional cropland that we can't use now. Maybe that would be a good thing.

Nuclear? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742385)

Nuclear!? You mean we're not going to downshift into canvas yurts and live off our hobby farms in the dark?

BUT BICYCLES!!! WINDANDSOLAR!!! HAVEN'T YOU BEEF EATERS BEEN LISTENING?

Re:Nuclear? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742429)

Since you're blowing off some anti-hippy steam, maybe run it through a turbine you insensitive clod.

Solar/wind/geo/tidal/wave/hydro/peltier power isn't actually a patchouli and reefer crowd, it's more a smart people who build things that solve problems vibe.

Re:Nuclear? (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 6 months ago | (#46742861)

Here is the ironic thing: Both the hippies and the Tea Party people I know are all over solar, wind, and other alternative energy.

I just wonder when the tipping point happens where people and businesses stop wanting to be beholden to Middle Eastern oil and dirty coal, and move onto nuclear [1]. With more energy than what we have now, we can easily use thermal depolymerization to toss waste plastic and usable crude oil.

[1]: Thorium reactors show great promise.

Re:Nuclear? (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 6 months ago | (#46742445)

Found the vegan!

Re:Nuclear? (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about 6 months ago | (#46742509)

I thought the green way was everyone getting a house like Al Gore's that takes the energy of 20+ normal family houses.

Re:Nuclear? (0)

blue trane (110704) | about 6 months ago | (#46742625)

How much compared to the Koch brothers' houses?

Re:Nuclear? (0)

microbox (704317) | about 6 months ago | (#46742637)

The house in question is also a large office space for many of Al Gore's employees. So its and apples and oranges comparison. But hey, BENGHAZI!!!!!

Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desired (4, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 6 months ago | (#46742389)

It's been what, like 50 years we've been using old tech? Nuclear is cleaner than coal barring an accident. Coal is guaranteed to kill and hurt people. With Nuclear you at least have a chance of everyone being healthy. Even if the country doesn't adopt some grand scheme of making a bunch of nuclear plants, making one here or one there would get our technology levels higher and create jobs for smart people.

A lesser known situation is if you actually create an energy surplus, food costs, logistic costs, and transportation costs get cheaper. So if we ramped our energy production up by 2-8x what we got now, people could charge their hybrid car at home for even less than they do now. I think this dream is often grouped up with a superconductor power grid idea which is unrealistic for the short term. I think for a better world, we should be aiming to create energy surpluses.

Sometimes I even have the strange thought that energy conservation ideas hurt society's growth. It would be almost better if we used more power in the short term so energy could invest in itself and provide more power at lower costs down the road. I mean it is better to conserve electricity, but I don't hear people championing the idea of creating a global energy surplus.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (5, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 6 months ago | (#46742441)

Nuclear is cleaner than any fossil fuel, properly managed. Overall, despite the accidents, nuclear's impact has been a lot smaller than that of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, accidents aren't seen as an opportunity to learn and eliminate old flaws, but to halfheartedly dump the whole thing, leaving behind ancient designs with known flaws instead of new, safer designs.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46742523)

France has done really well with nuclear.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742641)

France imports electricity from Germany whenever it's too hot or too cold. In either case, limited cooling is available. In the winter, this is exacerbated by the enormous consumption due to the French preference for electrical heating combined with a lack of insulation, because electricity is cheap for consumers in France. Besides, the argument that stopping construction of new nuclear power plants is the reason for older designs remaining in service is bogus: Older designs remain in service no matter what (except for a total ban, which is happening in Germany). Keeping old plants online is simply the capitalist thing to do: They're bought and paid for and still work. Why would you shut them down?

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46742731)

Pebble bed reactors solve the cooling problem. China is currently building a few of those, so we'll have a chance to see how well they work.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46743007)

Old stuff. Pebble bed reactors have their own problems. This one had atmospheric releases of radioactive material, contaminated the ground and groundwater below it (complete with increased Leukemia rates in the vicinity) and is currently much more radioactive than planned so that deconstruction can't begin: AVR Jülich [wikipedia.org] . This one was decommissioned after just six years due to the continuous repairs driving the costs up: Thorium High Temperature Reactor 300MW [wikipedia.org] .

The nuclear industry will always try to convince you that the solution to all nuclear power problems is waiting right around the corner, to convince the public that nuclear is still an option. Whenever and wherever they're allowed to continue, not only do they keep the old designs online, the "new" designs never deliver on the promises either. They keep covering up accidents, they keep playing down potential risks, they keep deferring risk to the public (nuclear power plants are uninsurable: if - when - the shit hits the fan, everybody pays the price, in more than one way.)

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46743039)

Old stuff. Pebble bed reactors have their own problems.

There is no power supply that doesn't have problems.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46743083)

True, but some power supplies don't come with the risk of making one of the most densely populated parts of the world uninhabitable. That risk is a bit of a drag if you live there.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46742835)

In the winter, this is exacerbated by the enormous consumption due to the French preference for electrical heating combined with a lack of insulation

That's why it's good that there's a EU directive that by the end of 2020, all new constructions will be required to be low-energy or passive houses.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 6 months ago | (#46742703)

And they are 'silently' switching to renewables, like the rest of the world, oops: the rest of Europe, Asia and Africa.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46742779)

, like the rest of the world, oops: the rest of Europe, Asia and Africa.

that's.....basically you showing you know nothing about the topic. How many new nuclear plants is China building? Do you know? Your comment shows you don't.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 6 months ago | (#46743009)

Guess why it is silent? Because it is so quiet as to not significantly increase the % of energy derived from renewables.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742665)

Nuclear is cleaner than any fossil fuel

And nuclear waste is not pollution. /sarcasm

Enough rhetoric already.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (3, Interesting)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | about 6 months ago | (#46742713)

Nuclear waste disposal from conventional fission reactors is a solved problem. Unfortunately, the storage of said waste kicks the NIMBY crowd into high gear. Here's an idea...how about converting it to relatively inert ceramic blocks (already available tech) and sink it at some remote subduction zone fault where it gradually gets folded back into the mantle? That ought to suffice until the perpetually "50 years from now" fusion energy generation crowd catches up.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742723)

And nuclear waste is not pollution. /sarcasm

Straw man.

Enough rhetoric already.

How is saying that nuclear is cleaner than any fossil fuel (Which generate far more pollution than nuclear, and in ways that can't really be stopped or contained.) rhetoric?

And how about: Enough with the straw men already.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46742855)

True, nuclear waste is not pollution unless it escapes in an accident. Fortunately, the volumes are so small that unlike with many other by-products of our industrial civilization, this one is actually amenable to being stored in controlled conditions, indefinitely.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46743003)

And nuclear waste is not pollution.

Actually, that is correct. Nuclear waste is not pollution - until such time as a third party or the environment is exposed to it. Nuclear waste in a cooling pond is not pollution. Nuclear waste in your ground water is pollution.

Yup, that sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742707)

and it's not something that's particular to the nuclear industry.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46742451)

Energy conservation doesn't need to equal depraving ourselves of something. The usual tips about not leaving the lights on in empty rooms are fine, but you can apply the same reasoning for more modern things.

A small example would be Netflix. You can use a small box like an Apple TV [apple.com] , which has a 6W power supply, or something like an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 and use from 10 to 20 times more power for absolutely no reason.

Try to reduce your daily energy usage whenever possible. The first one to benefit is yourself, via a lower power bill at the end of the month.

Adding yet another box (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46742485)

You can use a small box like an Apple TV, which has a 6W power supply, or something like an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 and use from 10 to 20 times more power for absolutely no reason.

If you happen to already own the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 console, how much energy does it take to manufacture and ship an Apple TV box and an automatic HDMI switch box?

Re:Adding yet another box (2)

retchdog (1319261) | about 6 months ago | (#46742593)

The "embodied energy" of a laptop is about 1500MJ, so let's call the Apple TV+HDMI a generous total of 2000MJ. Shipping energy is relatively low and fits easily in the 2000MJ upper bound.

The Xbox360 uses ~120W to watch a movie, while according to ArcadeMan the Apple TV uses 6W. Thus you make up the embodied energy in about 2000000000/114 seconds, or about 200 days.

The Xbox One is a bit more efficient, using ~75W, for a makeup time of about 335 days.

Either one is less than a year, so if you want to minimize energy consumption, it seems like a good plan to buy an Apple TV.

Of course it isn't clear that this is the right thing to be doing, but if it is, the benefit seems obvious.

Re:Adding yet another box (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 6 months ago | (#46742819)

Each time I watch a two-hour movie on the 6W device, it uses around 43 kJ. On the 120W device a two-hour movie uses 864 kJ - a delta of 821 kJ per movie. Given the 2000MJ number you provide, that's over 2400 2-hour movies until break-even... might be my lifetime total.

Re:Adding yet another box (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 6 months ago | (#46742869)

Ah, yeah, fair enough, though the standby consumption of an xbox is also much, much higher than an appletv. The arithmetic is trivial, but I won't bother with it since I have neither.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46742549)

Energy conservation doesn't need to equal depraving ourselves...

Or depriving!

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46743041)

Try to reduce your daily energy usage whenever possible.

I would suggest doing a modest cost/benefit analysis first. Energy usage reduction is not that valuable for most people outside of a few big things. And who's going to consider the more ludicrous optimizations like changing your sex to male just so they can save a little energy usage?

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 6 months ago | (#46742465)

It think it would also help if we'd step away from the 'old fashion' reactors in favor of breeder reactors. Or the thorium based technology. When the kinks get worked out of that tech.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742535)

False. Look at nuclear's deaths per terawatt generated, and you will see that it is a very deadly form of energy generation, and shouldn't be used.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

david-the-go (1543321) | about 6 months ago | (#46742627)

[ Citation needed ] I did a quick Google for this and the statistics I found at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... [forbes.com] showed this to be wrong. There are plenty of other resources which show the same thing.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

marcgvky (949079) | about 6 months ago | (#46742679)

Anonymous coward, you are sooooooo wrong. How many deaths are projected for the next 10 years, by the WHO? Go back and hide under your rock.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742727)

Shut up faggot. Just keep sucking them faggot dicks. Keep taking that dick up your faggot ass. Don't you fucking dare speak shit on my post. Where the fuck are your sources faggot? And I'm not talking about the source of your faggot diseases.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 6 months ago | (#46742543)

A lesser known situation is if you actually create an energy surplus, food costs, logistic costs, and transportation costs get cheaper. So if we ramped our energy production up by 2-8x what we got now, people could charge their hybrid car at home for even less than they do now. I think this dream is often grouped up with a superconductor power grid idea which is unrealistic for the short term. I think for a better world, we should be aiming to create energy surpluses.

Uh, that's what's getting us into trouble with Hydro-fracking across the US in terms of going back to "burning stuff" vs. Nuclear. Natural Gas doesn't pollute like Coal but the production side of the equation destroys watersheds, releases more GHGs and has pushed energy prices down in the US. Nuclear is an unpopular scenario for a lot of people because of Fukishima, Three Mile Island and Chernoble. All you have to do is look at San Onofre in California to see how political wrangling has killed Nuclear energy in the US. Creating energy surpluses is considered anti-green because you're depleting resources, somewhere.

Unless there's a major push towards Nuclear on a lot of fronts it'll wither and die globally. Maybe we need like a GLAAD organization for Nuclear ??

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#46742581)

A lesser known situation is if you actually create an energy surplus, food costs, logistic costs, and transportation costs get cheaper. So if we ramped our energy production up by 2-8x what we got now, people could charge their hybrid car at home for even less than they do now. I think this dream is often grouped up with a superconductor power grid idea which is unrealistic for the short term. I think for a better world, we should be aiming to create energy surpluses.

The more cheap energy you can get, the more cool stuff we can do.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (2, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | about 6 months ago | (#46742711)

Sometimes I even have the strange thought that energy conservation ideas hurt society's growth. It would be almost better if we used more power in the short term so energy could invest in itself and provide more power at lower costs down the road. I mean it is better to conserve electricity, but I don't hear people championing the idea of creating a global energy surplus.

The nations with the highest power consumption have ceased excessive breeding. They're all near or below replacement population growth among their indigenous population.

That right there is an outstanding argument for surplus energy.

A degree of conservation is a fine thing, but it's also a cop-out and a means of comfortable people to pull up the ladder behind themselves. Our millions of elite Al Gores will always live comfortably regardless of how hungry and cold they make you. Thousands of elderly Briton pensioners are learning all about that as the UK inflicts energy poverty on them.

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46743035)

The nations with the highest power consumption have ceased excessive breeding. They're all near or below replacement population growth among their indigenous population.

That right there is an outstanding argument for surplus energy.

You know what they say about correlation/causation right?

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742931)

Interesting. How do you propose to make nuclear net positive profitable, risk- and debt-free?

Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46743171)

The sad thing, is one can almost say "Nuclear is cleaner than coal *even with* an accident".

Active countermeasures required. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742409)

A satellite shade, something that can block a small percentage of total radiation on a day to day basis could really mitigate the warming without being impossible.

The idea of getting all the coal/oil/shale corpos and attached governments to give up on their investments and monopolies seems a lot less possible by comparison.

Re:Active countermeasures required. (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46742461)

Mr. Burns?

Re:Active countermeasures required. (1)

egr (932620) | about 6 months ago | (#46742475)

Nah, professor Wernstrom.

Re:Active countermeasures required. (0)

Virtucon (127420) | about 6 months ago | (#46742553)

Make condoms and contraceptives available to the general population and limit families to two kids.

Re:Active countermeasures required. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742767)

actually there are very few places in the world left were the birthrate is significantly higher then 2.

the world population will top out somewhere between 9 and 10 billion people. that increase is inevitable* as the older smaller generations are replaced by the generations that are all roughly the same size.

(* short of major disaster of course)

Nope. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742413)

Humans are too greedy and too unreliable for nuclear to be the safest option.

Fix humans? That's way too hard.
Use something else? Doable.

Unless we just really have no problem with every X years some spot on earth becomes uninhabitable for the next 50,000 years...

Re:Nope. (3, Informative)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about 6 months ago | (#46742447)

Unless we just really have no problem with every X years some spot on earth becomes uninhabitable for the next 50,000 years...

More like 300 years at most, with most of the affected area clear in under 100. The offending isotope is Cs-137, which has a half life of about 30 years. The long lived stuff isn't volatile enough to be released in significant quantity.

Re:Nope. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742561)

with every X years some spot on earth becomes uninhabitable

Uninhabitable by whom? The Chernobyl exclusion zone, at least the part that hasn't been repopulated by evacuees, has become an amazing ecology of formerly rare species. The same thing has happened in the Urals where the Kyshtym disaster depopulated hundreds of kilometers of wilderness.

The net effect of both of these events is probably an increase in non-human engineered biomass.

Also, 300 years is the real figure for what you have in mind. Dangerous quantities of contamination from light water reactors is composed primarily of Sr-90 and Cs-137, and both of these are effectively gone in 300 years.

I'm not sure I buy your condemnation of humans either. The US Navy and the French have both been safely operating large number of reactors for a long time now. "But they Navy officers were cheating!" Yeah, and they got called on it and have been mustered out. That's a sign of a healthy organization. "But Tim Giardina was a degenerate gambler!" Yep, they flushed his ass as well.

If you're not firing people you're doing it wrong. An organization balkanized around protecting careers has ceased to prioritize competence.

Re:Nope. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46743077)

Unless we just really have no problem with every X years some spot on earth becomes uninhabitable for the next 50,000 years...

If X is big (like say greater than 50,000 years, for example), then it's not that big a deal. Chernobyl and Fukushima won't be considered uninhabitable for that long.

Plus, you can always put another nuclear plant in that spot.

Don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742423)

Let this lump of shit known as Earth fucking burn.

Gotta board this train soon (0, Troll)

buybuydandavis (644487) | about 6 months ago | (#46742431)

Because if Gaia continues to refuse to cooperate with climate models, the gig will be up and we'll never be able to squash the little economic freedom people have left.

Re:Gotta board this train soon (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46742563)

It's continued to warm and the ice has continued to melt at an accelerating rate [skepticalscience.com] . Isn't that what the models have predicted for decades?

Re:Gotta board this train soon (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46742629)

Would that be like the no more snow in the UK, or there won't be any glaciers in the Himalayas? Or they'll all be gone in Greenland in the next 10 years(as said in 2000ish). Don't worry I'm sure it can be blamed on everything. [numberwatch.co.uk]

Re:Gotta board this train soon (0)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 6 months ago | (#46742645)

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Renewables (5, Insightful)

masonc (125950) | about 6 months ago | (#46742439)

The long and short of it..we're buggered. Thankfully, we will all be dead when it gets really shitty. If you think that the countries of the world can band together to reduce emissions and turn to renewables, you are smoking the funny tobacco. I install solar in countries that have the highest electricity prices and the most sun, but they refuse to implement renewables, preferring that good old diesel products. People are inherently stupid, short sighted and greedy. Nothing but war and pestilence will cause change. Nothing else ever has.

Re:Renewables (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742529)

They're not stupid, they're human, with the view-span of a human, ie. a few years or a few decades at best.

And since capitalism is a human-made system, we can't expect it to do much better.

Indeed, it's good news that we'll be dead when it gets really shitty.

Re:Renewables (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46742975)

The long and short of it..we're buggered.

It's not much of a buggering to be honest. I'm more concerned about poverty, overpopulation, and desertification. Some of these can be made worse through extreme global warming, but they are major problems, bigger than global warming even in the complete absence of global warming.

Nothing will happen (5, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | about 6 months ago | (#46742453)

Human minds just aren't made to react to something so abstract, so distant, so far away. Look at the crisis building up with the US economy, national debt, and so on - something that could cause a whole generation to undergo a great depression yet nary a thought is given to it.

For example, on the economic situation, this guy was made the US's top accountant for over a decade, and appointed to posts by both R and D presidents and yet he makes videos that can barely garner 2k views about the situation (since September):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

I guess if there was a girl twerking in it, it might work.

Anyway, that's how it is. We react, many don't think too far ahead. Both situations are basically simple concepts in theory (global warming is built on the green house effect which is simple to demonstrate, the economy on interest and other high school math), but so many interests go in and muddle issues, that the average guy doesn't know what to believe, so even those with a modicum of forethought are stymied by special interests.

And the special interests want status quo. Nothing will happen. That's the tragedy of democracy and why it never really lasts long. Power and money is like water, it always gathers and concentrates.

Re:Nothing will happen (0)

jez9999 (618189) | about 6 months ago | (#46743027)

For example, on the economic situation, this guy was made the US's top accountant for over a decade, and appointed to posts by both R and D presidents and yet he makes videos that can barely garner 2k views about the situation (since September):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v [youtube.com] ... [youtube.com]

I'd have voted it up if they hadn't disabled comments.

Freeman Dyson says warmists are WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742455)

about the cause of planetary warming.

"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson

"What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either. And yes, Michael Mann, I am talking to you.

Re: Freeman Dyson says warmists are WRONG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742871)

all the more reason NOT to mess with it wouldn't you say?

but there are a couple of things we do KNOW. one is that the ONLY way for the earth to loss the energy the sun gives it, it by radiating it out into space in the form of infra red radiation.
and we also know that greenhouse gasses are opaque to infra red while being transparent to most other wavelengths.
so greenhouse gasses allow the sun to warm up the earths surface(using a variety of wavelengths), but slow down the release of energy out to space.

btw, Dyson doesn't disagree with this, he acknowledges that AGW exists.
"[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

his main issue is that he doesn't believe the models currently used are accurate, because they fail to take into account many factors.

The Real Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742467)

Cut the population from ~7 billion to ~3 billion. Start with ebola and work up a good one. That eliminates the problem of selection. Random chance will take care of it.

Re:The Real Solution (0)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 6 months ago | (#46742571)

Cut the population from ~7 billion to ~3 billion. Start with ebola and work up a good one. That eliminates the problem of selection. Random chance will take care of it.

you first.

Re:The Real Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742957)

"you first" isn't random.

Re:The Real Solution (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46743153)

It's not uniformly random, sure, but it is a probability distribution and hence, random enough for our purposes.

Re:The Real Solution (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46742671)

Cut the population from ~7 billion to ~3 billion. Start with ebola and work up a good one. That eliminates the problem of selection. Random chance will take care of it.

Scratch a leftist, find a malthusian. I'll bet you're against GE crops and the green revolution too, not to mention golden rice. And are more than happy that greenpeace let millions of people in Africa die, over a lie.

Re:The Real Solution (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 6 months ago | (#46742781)

Greenpeace lets people die in Africa?
How retarded is that oppinion? Over which lie, btw?

Re:The Real Solution (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 6 months ago | (#46742763)

Considering that a third of the worlds CO2 exhaust comes from the USA and that 'country' only has about 5% of the world population I'm at your side: it will work great! Ah, well, I'm not that good at math. Hm, you wanted to release ebola in Africa only, great plan, I guess we can settle there later!

Re:The Real Solution (1)

smhsmh (1139709) | about 6 months ago | (#46743121)

This "solution" is on the correct track, except the estimate of the reduction necessary is probably a severe underestimate.

My premise is that with current modes of energy use and energy production, the planet cannot support anything like the current load if most of the 7 billion aspire to energy consumption (actually, CO2 production) that is any significant fraction of the rates for the developed world. The easiest (both technically and morally) approaches are improvements in energy efficiency and reduction of the carbon load of energy production, but they will never be enough to save the planet. Decades ago the Chinese government realized they needed drastically to reduce population growth, and implemented the one-child policy with that government's usual brand of unacceptable and heavyhanded bureaucracy, but despite the implementation it was the right idea. If the 2+ billion people of India and China aspire to achieve merely a third of the average carbon loading of a USA citizen, the planet is cooked.

There are many ways to reduce human population. Disease, famine, war, and all of the tired historical paradigms are possibilities, although it is impossible to predict which will arrive first. But without effective remediation, one or the other will suffice to correct the current imbalance. It is _late_ in the game to try to reduce population (and to further reduce energy consumption, and reduce the carbon loading of energy production, but alone together will not be enough) but we have to try.

One good approach would be international promise of pariahship. The developed countries who understand the problem (North America, Western Chine, Japan, perhaps a very few other East Aisa countries, and some others who have achieved ZPG by indifference of the population, (Russia?) should unite and declare pariahship at any country that has not committed to Negative Population Growth, i.e. one child per couple. The pariahs could obtains no visas, no internet communication, no banking, and no commerce at all.

Unfortunately, this can't work because it would require intelligent cooperation between the governments of the several countries. So we're all cooked.

Ah, the joys of getting old (4, Interesting)

buybuydandavis (644487) | about 6 months ago | (#46742471)

Any other old geezers remember just *who* it was that put the kibosh on the general use of nuclear power in the US?

Are we ever going to get an "oopsie, so sorry" from all the environmentalists who squashed the US nuclear power industry? Who have fought fracking tooth and nail, while it has been the prime enabler of decreasing US carbon emissions?

Re:Ah, the joys of getting old (0)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 6 months ago | (#46742497)

I would savor the irony, if it was possible for them to learn from their mistakes. But of course, it isn't.

Re: Ah, the joys of getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742973)

except i'd rather have todays nuclear power plants then those from 30 years ago.

Re: Ah, the joys of getting old (4, Informative)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46742987)

except i'd rather have todays nuclear power plants then those from 30 years ago.

You might not have noticed, but today's nuclear plants in the US are from 30 years ago.

Re:Ah, the joys of getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46743055)

Nuclear requires responsible regulation and monitoring to prevent disaster *today*. So clearly, everyone, including self-proclaimed environmentalists, prefer fossil fuels because that just results in a disaster *tomorrow*. Nothing like "pass the buck" downriver.

Almost all the dangerous isotopes emitted by Chernobyl disaster or Fukushima lack-of-foresight accident will be decayed in a few generations. They will no longer pose a threat. At about the same time, the CO2 emitted today will continue to warm the planet as it will not yet reach new thermal equilibrium. So which pollution is worse? AGW that will continue to cause problems literally 1000 years from now and affect the entire planet *by design*, or nuclear, whose *accidents*'s most troublesome isotopes like strontium and cesium will be all but completely gone and no longer affect their small, local areas?

Nuclear, by definition, is the cleanest energy source because we manage *all* its waste. This does not happen with any other energy source.

Yeah I'm still not really buying this stuff. (0)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 6 months ago | (#46742489)

Doesn't seem like the best idea to try and make policy based off a questionable study. After all all it said that the rise in temperature data had nothing do to with simple clime fluctuation. It didn't really address anything else.

Re:Yeah I'm still not really buying this stuff. (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46742667)

I'd agree with you if it was just one study. But there have been hundreds of studies (starting in 1896 [wikipedia.org] ), and they nearly all agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet by 2 degrees Celsius or more [wikipedia.org] . And we've observed the temperature rise nearly 1 degree Celsius with a rise in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm, which appears to confirm those studies.

Debate... Debate... Debate... (2, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 6 months ago | (#46742493)

To paraphrase a movie: "Climate Change is People!" There's too many people on this world, all wanting the same thing and that's what's causing this. Depletion of our resources is occurring at an accelerated rate all because of more and more people and the rush for economic expansion. Fundamentally there will be two paths ahead, one which means controlling population growth and the second the upheaval of the worldwide economic engines both of which are driving the higher CO2 levels. Of course if a volcano or two erupt here and there it won't help but neither is allowing for commercial deforestation and destroying watersheds. Well before we all burn up, we'll have wars over water and other key strategic resources. We know it's on the horizon because we all can't get along on this planet and we'll never come to a consensus on wealthier nations changing their ways while allowing less developed nations a chance at economic growth. We're about due for another World War aren't we?

My suggestion is to invest in Mountain-top real estate in a Northern latitude and live like Euell Gibbons. [wikipedia.org]

NIMBY rules (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 6 months ago | (#46742531)

As someone who works at the company [nexteraene...ources.com] that is the largest generator of wind and solar power in North America I know how hard it is to get Nuclear projects off the ground. Most people will agree that Nuclear is a very cost effective and efficient means of power generations but mention building it anywhere near their zip code and they go ballistic.

Re:NIMBY rules (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 6 months ago | (#46742615)

What we really need is for the federal government to step up buy the land put its foot down and say protest all you want we are building this fucker one way or the other. Anyone caught on the construction site will be shot for for trespassing in a secure location.

Re:NIMBY rules (3, Interesting)

stoploss (2842505) | about 6 months ago | (#46742709)

Most people will agree that Nuclear is a very cost effective and efficient means of power generations but mention building it anywhere near their zip code and they go ballistic.

I live 15 miles from a nuclear plant. I am pleased about this, but I wish they would tear it down and build a replacement plant with at least twice the generating capacity and a Gen 3.5 (or Gen 4, since I'm wishing) design.

But, barring that, yay... I have locally-produced nuclear power at home!

Re:NIMBY rules (2)

exabrial (818005) | about 6 months ago | (#46742729)

We need a little more forward-looking NRC. Need research into alternative fuel types (breeder reactors, thorium cycle, pebble bed, etc). AP1000 is a great step forward, but we need competition with even more designs.

This is the part that makes Warmist heads explode (0)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46742555)

"renewables, nuclear reactors and power plants that use emissions-capture technology needs to triple in order keep climate change within safe limits."

To make 'renewables' a significant part of the equation you have to include projects like Glen Canyon, Foz do Iguaçu and Three Gorges - remember, the technology that all the folk singers loved to whine about before the first atom split. And the cost of capturing the carbon that coal (essentially pure carbon) emits os so high that we might as well spend the same money on a few hundred reactor starts.

The other step we will absolutely have to take if AGW is as bad as Warmists are hoping is geoengineering to sequester carbon already in the atmosphere and oceans. This means projects like iron-seeding large enough areas of ocean over abyssal depths that algal blooms will pull significant amounts of carbon to the bottom.

Build Gen4+ Nulcear Plants Exclusively (1, Interesting)

marcgvky (949079) | about 6 months ago | (#46742601)

I am really proud of Bill Gates putting his money where his mouth is, with his investment in Thorium burners.

Overall, nuclear is a huge opportunity to safely service base and peak loads. This should always be combined with renewables and sustainables. The NRC-lefties need to be given direct guidance from the Executive, or they will never issue any new permits. Also, the DoE needs to quit wasting my money on fail-solar companies and build huge-super-safe-gen-4+ nuclear reactors EVERYWHERE!

Start in my back yard, please. Seriously.

The Emperor Has No Data (0)

mbeckman (645148) | about 6 months ago | (#46742653)

All of the dire predictions in this new report come from computer simulations, not actual data. The simulations have proven to be worthless at predicting current climate (for example, no simulation predicted the current stalling of temperature increases). Simulations are not data. And the absence of data is not data. The truth is that we lack the computational ability to simulate climate change at all. Maybe someday, but we currently LACK EVEN THE DATA needed to identify all the variables and interactions that create climate. So even if computation capacity were to increase several orders of magnitude, we lack the foundation for the computations.

It's the a Emperor all over again.

Re:The Emperor Has No Data (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742737)

There as always been climate change.

How much of European history is about climate change. For example, the nomads of the steppes heading west searching for greener pastures because of drought.

And what about carbon levels, high carbon levels must have been excellent for vegetation, an 80 tonne brontosaurus must have needed a lot of forage.

The last time there was global warming the north men raided and invaded Europe, and the Mayans built their civilization.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, run for your pocket books.

Re:The Emperor Has No Data (1, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#46742759)

Considering that the climate varies according to natural variation such as solar output and volcanic eruptions, both of which we cannot predict, I don't think it's surprising that we can't predict climate exactly, especially over the short term. And just because we can't predict climate exactly doesn't mean the predictions are worthless. That's a false dichotomy.

The Emperor Has No Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46743005)

the fact the models leave much to be desired doesn't change the facts: AGW is a real danger.

the models try to quantify how great the danger is, and so far haven't done a great job, but that it is a danger is a irrefutable fact.

The premis is flawed (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742677)

A rise in CO2 does not cause a rise in global temperature, it's the other way around. Temperature rises naturally first, then several hundred years later CO2 follows. Eventually temperate cools, then several hundred years later CO2 follows. These frauster liars are trying to usher in a worl government to save the planet, run by a small number of unelected tyrants.

press this button! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742807)

i like the part where towns with a meteorological station grows to be a city and the
station hasn't moved at all but is now surrounded by concrete and asphalt on all sides ...
also nuclear produces awesome clean waste ... for the next generation. we have to fucking shepherd
it for like .. for ever.
if the freaking ocean rises we just freaking move ... but if some dumbass
drops a coin made from pure cobalt-60 people are gonna drop like flies in a 100 meter radius and it's gonna
get worse.
also the climate is not something we are ever gonna control .. like ice ages? duh? this shit fluctuates.
"global warming" is just an invention of the beggar underling-class to get them 0.1% rich people
to get a stiffy:"WOW! you are so great! you changed the climate of THE WHOLE world!"

Too bad we don't have the will (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46742947)

Accidents at nuclear plants are to be expected.
There have been at least three, two breached containment big time.
That's enough to say that they are not a fluke.

The risks of nuclear might be less that the risk of climate change if two things were addressed.
      1) The waste storage plan. Fuel pools at reactor sites outside containment is bonkers.
      2) A failsafe, shutdown and walk away plant design is needed.

Inspite of the dire need, I don't see either of these getting fixed.
Fusion may be more likely.

When is the "UN" not the United Nations? (3, Insightful)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 6 months ago | (#46743075)

When it's the "UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Here's the BBC's description of IPCC: "The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis." http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc... [bbc.com]

Relax, people. There's no U.N resolution here; there's no consensus of nations here recognizing the urgency that requires this "tripling" of non-carbon-based energy. It's easy for the press to say this is the report from the U.N., when it's not.

If you get 12 scientists in a room that have volunteered to produce a report on global warming, what would you expect them to produce? Something that says everything's peachy?

You won't see this old boy freaking out over something dumb like this.

RK-9000 is banned in Illinois. (4, Interesting)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#46743091)

The RK-9000 is a mechanical keyboard made by Rosewill which is the inhouse manufacturer for NewEgg. What does a keyboard have to do with anything?

You cannot find a more "green" keyboard then a mechanical keyboard. Each keyswitch is rated at 50 milliion keypresses. If a letter foes buy a new keyswitch. ( Though I would buy a whole bunch of them ).Desolder the old switch solder in the new. My miniUSB port just broke and I wil be soldering in a new one as soon as it arrives. If the controller goes I can get a new one. I can probably get a new PCB if I have to. They are made to last and when any part breaks, it can be repaired or replaced.

So why are they banned in Illinois. Thanks to our idiot of a governor. ( Second only to Gov Moonbeam ). He created a law regulating e-waste. The law says that for a manufacturer to sell their product, they have to register and certify that they recycle a certain amount of their products. [1] So for this reason, instead of being able to buy a long lasting green keyboard, you have to buy a cheap will fall apart soon keyboard.

More and more the wacked out conservationalists ae acting like this,.

[1] In fact when you sto[p and think about it, many electronics products can last forever,so companies may never even get the chance to recycle a large percentage.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?