So, thejeff, since you're the resident inquisitor of AGW here: What do you ACTUALLY suggest we do? Your above post makes no concrete claims to anything: You say that shutting down all fossil fuel use would be a good start, of course moderated by the fact that the consequences would be too drastic. You say we should move "much harder than we are" from fossil fuels. What does that mean? How should it be implemented? If we accept everything the AGW preachers say, you know the emission cuts needed are rather massive. At the very least, FAR more than you will EVER get people to agree to voluntarily. So, do you support forcible, massive cuts of emissions, at the individual level?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, thejeff, since you're the resident inquisitor of AGW here: What do you ACTUALLY suggest we do? Your above post makes no concrete claims to anything: You say that shutting down all fossil fuel use would be a good start, of course moderated by the fact that the consequences would be too drastic. You say we should move "much harder than we are" from fossil fuels. What does that mean? How should it be implemented? If we accept everything the AGW preachers say, you know the emission cuts needed are rather massive. At the very least, FAR more than you will EVER get people to agree to voluntarily. So, do you support forcible, massive cuts of emissions, at the individual level?
Changes shouldn't happen on the individual level. They are worthless there. They need to happen at the societal level, and the only way to do that is through government.
1. Encourage municipalities to invest in solar and wind infrastructure to replace aging coal and oil. Encourage local governmental takeover of power grids. This has drastically reduced electric costs pretty much everywhere it has been implemented and cut down on greenhouse gasses.
2. Invest in controls software to optimize power production efficiency. Some areas that have done this have decreased redundant power from fossil plants that are more reliable by as much as half.
2a. Replace oil and coal backup power plants with natural gas ones, since they have drastically lower emissions but maintain the reliability.
3. Invest in nuclear power. Tell people worried about radiation to STFU, because they have no idea what they are talking about.
4. Invest heavily in electric passenger cars. Re-institute the manditory electric vehicle requirements California had on car manufacturers to force them to start investing and developing the technology. Accept that the vehicles are still a few years away from profitability.
5. Implement a tax on emissions from large industry. Corporations will optimize to reduce costs. Right now they can ignore carbon emissions because there is no cost associated with them. Implementing a cost for destroying the environment allows us to invest in remediation techniques or encourage them to find other methods to do what they need to do.
6. Don't charge a flat rate for electric costs. Make the first X watt hours have a lower cost than the next y. Users who use more electricity get charged increasingly higher costs. Scale this also off of when power is consumed to discourage use at peak times.
Just a few ideas.
A national energy grid with silver wires- this is necessary because power is easiest to make in the places where there aren't a lot of people but has to get to where the people are. Case in point..
Finish Yucca mountain
Put nuclear reactors nearish by to help power the country.
Set up wind farms
More research into alternate fuels
More forest land. Part of our CO2 problem is that the correcting mechanism has been weakened
More research into battery storage. Seriously, if you can get a carbon ultracapacitor to work most of the problems with solar go away over night
Solar freaking roadways. or at least walk ways.
BigNorseWolf: the biggest issue with alternative energy sources like Wind farms is storing the energy during their peak performance which can occur *when* the powergrid do not have great demand for it, so some of that energy collected is lost. I read a brief magazine article about a proposal to store the peak energy from Wind farms in compressed air in deep underground tanks so that the energy can then be drawn on when the powergrid need it (said article was on seeking out energy storage methods that have a decent efficient ratio of storing and then releasing the energy.)
I've actually seen a proposal that was linked from a thread on this board. Virtually everyone who posted afterwards was devoted to tearing the idea down.
Solar freaking roadways. or at least walk ways.
The biggest problem is that it was advertised as a "pave the world" idea when in reality it has some practical niche applications but is highly impractical in others, and the other applications are where the focus has been on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We must burn these "literature" books, as they are fanciful and blasphemous to the Math. There is only Math.
Seriously, this notion of "manmade global warming is a religion" is almost pathetically passive-aggressive. I'm sure it sounds good when you're talking to your buddies that agree with you, but applying it to a serious discussion just turns the discussion comical.
It's likely we'll survive. It's quite possible it'll be really ugly.
I think these two sentences are mutually inclusive!
BigNorseWolf: the biggest issue with alternative energy sources like Wind farms is storing the energy during their peak performance which can occur *when* the powergrid do not have great demand for it, so some of that energy collected is lost. I read a brief magazine article about a proposal to store the peak energy from Wind farms in compressed air in deep underground tanks so that the energy can then be drawn on when the powergrid need it (said article was on seeking out energy storage methods that have a decent efficient ratio of storing and then releasing the energy.)
Organic batteries look the most promising long term solution.
Another company is working on flow organic flow batteries. They've recently formed the actual company and are working to release a commercially available battery in 2017 capable of 5-20 kWh of energy. The average home in the US uses about 30 kWh/day, so this could be enough to cover some evening and night time usage.
Basically imagine the propane tanks used for rural homes. Reduce the size to about 1/2 or even 1/4 and it being safe enough to install in the basement. All of the involved materials being readily available and fairly cheap. The expensive part is development and but even manufacturing isn't too bad. But it means a family could charge their battery during the day, often when power demands are minimal and many renewable energy sources are available (wind and solar) and store that energy for use in the evening and night.
My favorite is that "the media" is shoving this down our throats.
I forget, in the US, which news outlet is the largest now?
Fox News is most trust news channel.
Fox News has almost double the viewers of their nearest competitor.
Ooookay. We do have some concrete suggestions. Let's take it from the top.
More support for development of renewable energy, less for fossil fuels - including restrictions on further exploration.
So, wind and solar? Everyone's best friends in this discussion, but a deplorably useless fraction of energy produced. Heavily dependent on research before it will be anything but a fringe phenomenon. Has some points, such as smaller wind turbines for private energy production. Also, biofuels have so far been shown to take up unacceptable amounts of land that could be used for food.
Carbon taxes, preferably with a per capita rebate, mitigating the cost to the poor while still discouraging use.
Carbon taxes. This would depend largely on the amounts talked about. Since you're claiming there would not be a focus on the individual, I assume the individual carbon taxes would be pretty much negligible? If so, where would the gains come from? Note also that the carbon credits have been a massive failure.
Zoning changes and building code changes to increase efficiency.
Zoning changes? What do you mean by that? Building code changes are great, efficiency is great, but the houses already existant will be slowly replaced over, say, about a century. Do the maths for the extreme savings to be found here.
More research into atmospheric scrubbing.
Carbon sequestering? SO2 in the stratosphere? Sounds lovely, but I have not heard one useful thing that might come out of this so far. Very much research needed, no?
All in all, then, what you are suggesting is not even going to improve things, maybe only slow the rate of worsening. What it means in concrete terms is that in time X, things will still have gotten worse than they are now. You will excuse me if I don't really see the point.
1. Encourage municipalities to invest in solar and wind infrastructure to replace aging coal and oil. Encourage local governmental takeover of power grids. This has drastically reduced electric costs pretty much everywhere it has been implemented and cut down on greenhouse gasses.
More solar and wind. See above. Expropriation of power grids sounds like it would pretty much shut down every sort of private investment in power grids, and we recently discussed just how MASSIVE the private industry was compared to the government. It... doesn't sound like it would improve things. I could be wrong.
2. Invest in controls software to optimize power production efficiency. Some areas that have done this have decreased redundant power from fossil plants that are more reliable by as much as half.
Ah yes. The smart power grids, the ones that let the government check every detail of what every person connects to the power grid, down to the type of water boiler used, for how many seconds, and so on. Pretty thought. Still, probably points to be had here if you're willing to accept that level of Big Brother intrusion.
2a. Replace oil and coal backup power plants with natural gas ones, since they have drastically lower emissions but maintain the reliability.
Possibly. Go for it.
3. Invest in nuclear power. Tell people worried about radiation to STFU, because they have no idea what they are talking about.
Except the people in charge in these issues (IPCC, Greenpeace, etc) ABSOLUTELY ABHOR nuclear power. It's almost as if they want to remove the low-emission methods of energy production we do know about so that everyone will be forced to accept their programs of energy saving and repentance for our sinful lives...
4. Invest heavily in electric passenger cars. Re-institute the manditory electric vehicle requirements California had on car manufacturers to force them to start investing and developing the technology. Accept that the vehicles are still a few years away from profitability.
Electric cars are good. But they require massive amounts of Lithium as it stands, for only a moderate cut in emissions.
5. Implement a tax on emissions from large industry. Corporations will optimize to reduce costs. Right now they can ignore carbon emissions because there is no cost associated with them. Implementing a cost for destroying the environment allows us to invest in remediation techniques or encourage them to find other methods to do what they need to do.
The problem here is that adding such a tax will only give profits to the countries that do not implement that tax. There may be a solution for that, of course. The problem with remediation techniques is that the CO2 still gets into the atmosphere - and the AGW preachers are still claiming that even with NO further emissions, it's uncertain whether complete and utter disaster can be averted.
6. Don't charge a flat rate for electric costs. Make the first X watt hours have a lower cost than the next y. Users who use more electricity get charged increasingly higher costs. Scale this also off of when power is consumed to discourage use at peak times.
Is this the part where the individual level is hit?
All in all, better. Still unrealistic to believe it will be enough to appease the AGW high priests.
A national energy grid with silver wires- this is necessary because power is easiest to make in the places where there aren't a lot of people but has to get to where the people are. Case in point..
Replace the national power grid? Are you aware of the sheer, gigantic scale of such a project?
Finish Yucca mountain
It could be a good idea, but it would be a VERY MUCH better idea to complete the fissile cycle by building a large number of breed reactors. That way, we wouldn't face the loss of nuclear raw materials in 50-150 years. Also, it is dead in the water because OMG NUCLEAR!!!
Put nuclear reactors nearish by to help power the country.
See above.
Set up wind farms
There ARE wind farms. They are producing very little energy, in the grand scale of things.
More research into alternate fuels
Research is good, but doesn't solve our problems as they are. Also, alternate fuels need land.
More forest land. Part of our CO2 problem is that the correcting mechanism has been weakened
Yes, trees are good. But again, it needs land. Land currently used for food production.
More research into battery storage. Seriously, if you can get a carbon ultracapacitor to work most of the problems with solar go away over night
Research again. No protests from me.
Solar freaking roadways. or at least walk ways.
Replacing a significant part of the road network by solar roadways is a cost big enough that it's difficult to imagine. Niche use, yes. Large scale solution, no.
Come on, you guys. The only scenarios the AGW politicos say MAY save us are the ones with NO FURTHER CARBON EMISSIONS WHATSOEVER. What you have suggested doesn't even approach that. You can do better than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We must burn these "literature" books, as they are fanciful and blasphemous to the Math. There is only Math.
Replace the national power grid? Are you aware of the sheer, gigantic scale of such a project?
Yes. Its a gigantic scale problem, and its not going to be fixed with anything less. You can't put a bunch of nuclear power plants near cities (i'm VERY aware of indian point) . It solves most of your other objections. Case in point...
Replacing a significant part of the road network by solar roadways is a cost big enough that it's difficult to imagine. Niche use, yes. Large scale solution, no.
You put the roadways in arizona and have them feed the country, rather than trying to find sunlight in buffalo new york.
Yes, trees are good. But again, it needs land. Land currently used for food production.
We have more food growing than we need. We have so much corn we're turning it into soda. We have so much cotton its cheaper to ship it to china , turn it into clothes, and ship it back.
BigNorseWolf: the biggest issue with alternative energy sources like Wind farms is storing the energy during their peak performance which can occur *when* the powergrid do not have great demand for it, so some of that energy collected is lost. I read a brief magazine article about a proposal to store the peak energy from Wind farms in compressed air in deep underground tanks so that the energy can then be drawn on when the powergrid need it (said article was on seeking out energy storage methods that have a decent efficient ratio of storing and then releasing the energy.)
For a high tech solution there's capacitors.
For a low tech solution, you pump water up hill when you have excess energy and then put it through a generator when you need more juice.
Actually that is something I've always wondered about. My understanding of nuclear power is that it is clean, safe, and super effective as long as the plant isn't built and run by incompetent lobotomized monkeys. Why do people seem to fear it like a power plant is an unstable WMD being planted in their backyards?
Electric cars cut emissions dependant on area. You can graph the effective MPG of an electic vehicle. In the US, this means that the areas that use the worst methods to produce electricity, like coal, electric cars are as efficient as the best gas passenger vehicles. In my area, where we have decent hydro power, you are looking at more than double hybrid efficiency. Areas with decent solar programs would cut emissions by more than half. Passenger vehicles make up more than a third of the US carbon emissions.
Actually that is something I've always wondered about. My understanding of nuclear power is that it is clean, safe, and super effective as long as the plant isn't built and run by incompetent lobotomized monkeys. Why do people seem to fear it like a power plant is an unstable WMD being planted in their backyards?
This is true. Nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels and produces less long term waste. Pretty much the only reason it isn't prominent is because it is easy to scare people.
Replace the national power grid? Are you aware of the sheer, gigantic scale of such a project?Yes. Its a gigantic scale problem, and its not going to be fixed with anything less. You can't put a bunch of nuclear power plants near cities (i'm VERY aware of indian point) . It solves most of your other objections. Case in point...
Replacing a significant part of the road network by solar roadways is a cost big enough that it's difficult to imagine. Niche use, yes. Large scale solution, no.You put the roadways in arizona and have them feed the country, rather than trying to find sunlight in buffalo new york.
Yes, trees are good. But again, it needs land. Land currently used for food production.We have more food growing than we need. We have so much corn we're turning it into soda. We have so much cotton its cheaper to ship it to china , turn it into clothes, and ship it back.
Personally, I think centralizing power production is a huge waste. The transportation costs are huge the further from the plant you are. Localize power distrobution with safe methods like solar very close to the city, then have larger nuclear facilities spattered outside.
|
Actually that is something I've always wondered about. My understanding of nuclear power is that it is clean, safe, and super effective as long as the plant isn't built and run by incompetent lobotomized monkeys. Why do people seem to fear it like a power plant is an unstable WMD being planted in their backyards?
Fear isn't rational.
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima put a really big imprint in the cultural memory.Radiation is undetectable and will kill you in the scariest way people can imagine, wasting away from cancer.
There are also legitimate concerns such as:
Nuclear plants can produce fissile materials for bombs so it's hard to let other states get it, which we need to mitigate climate change.
Radioactive waste. We still don't really have a solution to this and adding more and more to the problem doesn't make it easier to deal with.
Expense. Cleanup makes it unprofitable, so companies require truly massive subsidies to build more.
Not sustainable. Like coal and oil, there's a limited supply of fissile material so eventuall we'll run out.
Edit: And of course, that entire conspiracy thing always sets me off. My spouse is awesome and IS NOT part of any conspiracy. It burns me to have people talking about some vast conspiracy when there is none...unless you think my spouse and relatives are part of some major illuminati plot...in which case...actually for once I'll refrain on saying my opinions on that...And yet you come off in this discussion as attacking the people who are saying there isn't a conspiracy and supporting those who say there is.
You might not intend to, but it's really hard to read your "There's no consensus, no agreement, I'm not going to say whether AGW is real or not" line as anything else.
For the record, if it wasn't clear, I find the idea of a vast conspiracy among scientists laughable. No matter which net.kook topic it's supposedly suppressing.
You've misunderstood (Besides the fact that as far as I know the Global warming (or is AGW supposed to be Atmospheric Global Warming which is more correct [edit: and yet oddly not broad enough], but not a term that I've really heard referenced to) you refer to is a media/political construct whereas climate change is more the scientific reference...last I checked science was discussing the climate or atmosphere of the Earth, or at most the outer part of the Earth's crust and NOT the globe/sphere of the earth inclusive of the mantle and core itself), I have no statements on what the majority believe. It can be convenient to refer to climate change in whatever terms the public finds popular at the time (whether it was global cooling previously or global warming today) but the thing is, the science has never really changed it's terminology and the science has been built up upon itself. Nothing really was ever disproven in regards to many of the big theories from decades ago...ONLY the perception as it was spread by the media. But, I'm probably not being clear enough or basic enough for people to understand what I'm saying. It could be I just lack the ability to convey it in basic enough terms for people to understand what I'm stating...and I apologize for that. However, the science is NOT wrong...but I would say the media presentation of it has been in the past and in many ways still continues to be.
It's merely the claim of the 97% (I thought I've been clear enough about that). There's tons of evidence to show that this figure is inaccurate...BUT if there was any truth you'd go to the people who talk to the public the most to begin with, which are the meterologists (especially those who have a minor speciality in climatology).
It doesn't matter however, and overall I'm bowing out. AS my spouse aptly put it, people really don't listen to the science and they ALWAYS will read what they want in what you write. It doesn't matter how wordy, or how verbose, or how descriptive you try to be and how specific, people will always add to what you've stated and try to make more of what you've said than what you've actually stated.
I appreciate your wanting clarification, but I think you are correct. The more I write, the more people add onto what I write or interpret it to say things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated. Perhaps that's the problem between the science and the media...and the public and the studies.
The only disappointment I have overall, is I've tried to say all these problems or errors people see in the science...they don't exist. They've actually been accounted for in the actual research papers and studies...but just like many of my posts have been extrapolated to say things they don't...the same happens apparently in the media in regards to the reports and other areas of interest. People go with the popular media terms (global cooling of several decades ago and global warming today actually ARE THE SAME TYPE OF SCIENCE AND DO NOT CONFLICT...if one would have actually read the research and studies...but then...many of those studies had no reference to global cooling OR global warming because that's a social construct and not the scientific terms).
Once again, that last paragraph probably is going to be misinterpreted completely, but I have NO idea how else to convey it. IT is absolutely NOT anti-AGW or pro-AGW...but I suppose to understand WHY it isn't would be to understand WHY the science of it is actually rather solid, has been pretty solid for decades, and the difference between the science of it and the media presentation of it.
Too wordy again for my own good, but thanks for seeking clarification, sorry I haven't been able to be as clear as I probably should be.
Edit: One last thing I'd like to bring up which did have to do with the main topic, mentioned it once before, but the entire mass extinction thing actually is already occurring and has been for decades. Anyone who thinks this is new news...well...it's been know for a while. I suppose the media can make anything sound NEW...but it's been known. It's also been alarming for quite a while...so anything that can drum up awareness I suppose is a good thing...but the expectations that things will actually change...How long can scientists sound the alarm and not get depressed that no one notices the fire?
This and the next comic for the short version[/url]
Because they said that three mile island and chernobl were perfectly safe too, nothing bad could happen. They said there was only a small amount of radiation. They were doing han solo at the intercom of the death star "Everything fine here..." while they were leaking radioactive coolant.
This and the next comic for the short version[/url]
Because they said that three mile island and chernobl were perfectly safe too, nothing bad could happen. They said there was only a small amount of radiation. They were doing han solo at the intercom of the death star "Everything fine here..." while they were leaking radioactive coolant.
3 Mile Island is a safety success story. The safeties kicked in and it shut down safely.
This and the next comic for the short version[/url]
Because they said that three mile island and chernobl were perfectly safe too, nothing bad could happen. They said there was only a small amount of radiation. They were doing han solo at the intercom of the death star "Everything fine here..." while they were leaking radioactive coolant.
who is this? What's your operating number?
All in all, then, what you are suggesting is not even going to improve things, maybe only slow the rate of worsening. What it means in concrete terms is that in time X, things will still have gotten worse than they are now. You will excuse me if I don't really see the point.
A few things.
1.) I'm not sure why you think shooting down people's ideas in this forum even matters. Nobody here is an expert on this. They're not SUPPOSED to be able to come up with good, scientifically sound solutions. Saying "Oh yeah? Give me a good solution!" to some schmuck on the internet for a world-spanning problem and then feeling smug when *gasp* nobody can come up with a single fool-proof plan is ludicrous.
2.) You...seriously don't see the point in slowing the rate of worsening?
It gives you more time to come up with a permanent solution. Just because AIDS is incurable doesn't mean the drug cocktails they take to prolong their lives are POINTLESS.
Is it less effective than a permanent solution? Well, yeah.
Is it still better than doing nothing at all? Also as obviously, yes. In time X, the worsening will be Y. How is in time X the worsening being Y-1, or even Y/2 a bad thing?
All in all, then, what you are suggesting is not even going to improve things, maybe only slow the rate of worsening. What it means in concrete terms is that in time X, things will still have gotten worse than they are now. You will excuse me if I don't really see the point.
Well, some of the studies say we are already past the tipping point where exponential temperature rises are inevitable, so by that logic doing anything is just a waste and we should all just throw our hands in the air and face our inevitable doom.
So, thejeff, since you're the resident inquisitor of AGW here: What do you ACTUALLY suggest we do? Your above post makes no concrete claims to anything: You say that shutting down all fossil fuel use would be a good start, of course moderated by the fact that the consequences would be too drastic. You say we should move "much harder than we are" from fossil fuels. What does that mean? How should it be implemented? If we accept everything the AGW preachers say, you know the emission cuts needed are rather massive. At the very least, FAR more than you will EVER get people to agree to voluntarily. So, do you support forcible, massive cuts of emissions, at the individual level?
On a different topic and only talking in regards to the changing energy as a topic instead of the other stuff, while I'm still here at least.
I'd say put solar panels on the top of EVERY house. Much of the energy problems you'd have with a grid go away, AND you have a much cleaner energy source AFTER they are all installed.
Furthermore, except for adapation of the electrical in the houses, you don't have to store the energy as long as you have HIGHLY efficient panels. They then could work even on cloudy days. Make it so they are well insulated...and you have a situation where you can heat/cool in the day and rely on the insulation to keep it thus at night (I actually already use this situation in some of the place I'm at).
It would take adaptation from people (Oh's Noes...don't have my ipad on 24 hours a day!), but I think the moving to that would be easy enough.
However, the biggest problem you have in changing the energy situation is NOT on a national scale. Even with the United nations, you probably will NEVER get a unified situation to get all nations to agree to the protocols. China may sign anything, but they totally disregard such items at whim and the same goes for India and many other nations (IN MY OPINION...). If only one or two nations do things to try to change an energy equation, overall it's not going to affect the way things people do things on a global scale. This can affect everything from manufacturing (while factories in the US go quiet at dusk...those in China and India would be happily chugging away, which could create quite the discord economically speaking...and that's just the start).
However, if people would adapt to a solar situation, I think it could actually be done with most people retaining MOST of the comforts of life and a minimal amount of sacrifice, whilst at the same time retaining the technological edge that exists in the world today.
Edit: On tax penalties, I personally don't think that's the way to go and are not as effective as what I propose above. IF you make it free to install those panels...and show HOW MUCH MONEY people can save by going solar...I think the idea may sell itself. Taxes don't normally inspire people all that much in my opinion...free money on the otherhand...
Now I'm out, have fun guys.
This and the next comic for the short version[/url]
Because they said that three mile island and chernobl were perfectly safe too, nothing bad could happen. They said there was only a small amount of radiation. They were doing han solo at the intercom of the death star "Everything fine here..." while they were leaking radioactive coolant.
Well, don't quote me on this, as, as always, I only vaguely know what I am talking about, but I've heard that with three mile island even the people right at the site only received a radiation dose equal to that of an x-ray scan or two you would get in a hospital.
I believe in the case of Chernobyl the reactor was built wrong right from the beginning in addition to the later incompetent running of it.
Of course, most governments will tell you nothing is wrong and to keep calm even if this was happening. So there is that=/
The problem here is that adding such a tax will only give profits to the countries that do not implement that tax. There may be a solution for that, of course. The problem with remediation techniques is that the CO2 still gets into the atmosphere - and the AGW preachers are still claiming that even with NO further emissions, it's uncertain whether complete and utter disaster can be averted.
5. Implement a tax on emissions from large industry. Corporations will optimize to reduce costs. Right now they can ignore carbon emissions because there is no cost associated with them. Implementing a cost for destroying the environment allows us to invest in remediation techniques or encourage them to find other methods to do what they need to do.
Except then you can implement tariffs to equalize the tax. Sure it goes against free trade, but free trade is bad for people and only good for large corporations anyway.
This and the next comic for the short version[/url]
Because they said that three mile island and chernobl were perfectly safe too, nothing bad could happen. They said there was only a small amount of radiation. They were doing han solo at the intercom of the death star "Everything fine here..." while they were leaking radioactive coolant.
Well, don't quote me on this, as, as always, I only vaguely know what I am talking about, but I've heard that with three mile island even the people right at the site only received a radiation dose equal to that of an x-ray scan or two you would get in a hospital.
I believe in the case of Chernobyl the reactor was built wrong right from the beginning in addition to the later incompetent running of it.
Of course, most governments will tell you nothing is wrong and to keep calm even if this was happening. So there is that=/
And the corporations running the plants will cut corners and lie to the government about safety, even before the government starts lying to you about it.
There are some designs that are theoretically safer and don't rely so much on after the fact safety measures.
True, I would be interested to see the actual data on how safe nuclear power is compared to other power sources though, from what I've heard it actually has a pretty good track record.
All in all, then, what you are suggesting is not even going to improve things, maybe only slow the rate of worsening. What it means in concrete terms is that in time X, things will still have gotten worse than they are now. You will excuse me if I don't really see the point.A few things.
1.) I'm not sure why you think shooting down people's ideas in this forum even matters. Nobody here is an expert on this. They're not SUPPOSED to be able to come up with good, scientifically sound solutions. Saying "Oh yeah? Give me a good solution!" to some schmuck on the internet for a world-spanning problem and then feeling smug when *gasp* nobody can come up with a single fool-proof plan is ludicrous.
2.) You...seriously don't see the point in slowing the rate of worsening?
It gives you more time to come up with a permanent solution. Just because AIDS is incurable doesn't mean the drug cocktails they take to prolong their lives are POINTLESS.
Is it less effective than a permanent solution? Well, yeah.
Is it still better than doing nothing at all? Also as obviously, yes. In time X, the worsening will be Y. How is in time X the worsening being Y-1, or even Y/2 a bad thing?
1. The levels of things that would have to be done to have done penance enough for our sinful lifestyles in the eyes of the AGW synod are so far beyond "Add more solar and wind, tax energy more, work to increase efficiency and do more research" that it might be different worlds we're talking about here. The people pushing the AGW agenda are dead serious when they say they want humanity's carbon emissions to be ZERO within the foreseeable future. ZERO. As in, NONE. No food production. No travel. No heating. No waste. No pets. No production. No communication. No nothing. Stamped earth floors and no cooked foods. Nothing that could produce any sort of CO2 AT ALL. Think about it, and do so sincerely. What would it mean? How would we all live if their central plans (Agenda 21 comes to mind...) are implemented? How many of us would they allow to live, to "save the planet"? The only large capacity energy production that doesn't produce carbon emissions is nuclear power - but the SAME PEOPLE want to shut down every single reactor. Also consider whether or not the people at the top of such a system would be exempt from all these limits or not.
2. Not really. With more time spent, we get more problems related to this to solve. So the issue becomes: If we can't solve the problem, and we know we can't given the dangers even with ZERO emissions, we are going to effectively make it worse - and the sacrifices we would have to make to do even the little we do would be gigantic.
What we should be doing is take a leaf from the book of bacteria instead. When exposed to environmental damage such as heat, bacteria increase their rate of mutation, to increase the chance of some part surviving. Shut down international oversight and coordination, so that each country can find what solutions are possible without stifling limits. Let people explore societies of different kinds. Send people into space. Build underwater habitats. Make genetic modifications of various species to see what can help. Test various substances. Develop new energy sources... but under a huge, inflexible central plan, none of that is going to happen.
The AGW posse is clamoring for a static, sorry, SUSTAINABLE world with tight controls of every aspect of human life, and with no intention of keeping democracy working. It is a world without hope. Whether or not that is what you want for your children, consider: Democratic states have at least been honest about the environmental damage they have caused. China and Soviet, apparently, by contrast, didn't cause any such damage. If you believe authoritarianism has an answer for any problem, much less one of this caliber, you're just dead wrong.
*Looks at thread*
Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I don't see anyone here advocating returning to living in caves and eating raw meat.
So, sounds like that whole big rant has jack and all to do with what anybody here is actually talking about.
1. The levels of things that would have to be done to have done penance enough for our sinful lifestyles in the eyes of the AGW synod are so far beyond "Add more solar and wind, tax energy more, work to increase efficiency and do more research" that it might be different worlds we're talking about here. The people pushing the AGW agenda are dead serious when they say they want humanity's carbon emissions to be ZERO within the foreseeable future. ZERO. As in, NONE. No food production. No travel. No heating. No waste. No pets. No production. No communication. No nothing. Stamped earth floors and no cooked foods. Nothing that could produce any sort of CO2 AT ALL. Think about it, and do so sincerely. What would it mean? How would we all live if their central plans (Agenda 21 comes to mind...) are implemented? How many of us would they allow to live, to "save the planet"? The only large capacity energy production that doesn't produce carbon emissions is nuclear power - but the SAME PEOPLE want to shut down every single reactor. Also consider whether or not the people at the top of such a system would be exempt from all these limits or not.
I can honestly say I have no idea who you are talking about. I have never seen anyone advocating anything even closely related to this in a serious setting.