>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


I know what you're trying to say, but when your opening gambit is calling people nuclear industry shills, you sound like a lunatic. I mean, i think it's fair to say that only a lunatic would think there are not just one but multiple nuclear shills dedicated to promoting nuclear power on the sift.

Renewable so far isn't enough, and the cost of nuclear power mostly comes from handling the fuel and waste it seems. So with nuclear we have to spend a lot of money (and some fossil fuels) to handle the materials. On the other hand with fossil fuels, we spend less but hurt the environment more. But then we need to consider how long we can go on burying or sinking radioactive material and/or rendering huge areas of our limited planet uninhabitable, we need another solution which is almost certainly fusion.

Fusion is an engineering problem right now. Perhaps a technology/cost problem especially during a recession. Anyone with any money left to put into hopeful energy tech has it in the form of oil (because that's going nowhere and we damn well need it) and why would they promote that?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Nebosuke:
Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.

Nor does anything produce energy as cleanly as nuclear. It's shame the greens are so scared of the most promising clean energy alternative we currently have just waiting to be used.


So it's not just me...

I'd like to like environmental politics, but their approach to nuclear power is just so ignorant. Nuclear power is by far the best source we have for being clean, safe and effective. Yes, it has problems, but much fewer than any other source. It's cleaner than fossil fuel. Never mind the more obvious pollutants, nuclear plants release less radiation than coal plants.

Meanwhile, renewable sources like the wind farms that this video is pushing produce sod all. All the solar panels in Germany (one of the most solar-powered countries around) produce the same amount of power as Fukushima did, and that's only in the sort of ideal weather conditions that exist for a matter of hours a year.

As horrible as the Fukushima disaster was, this was about the worse case scenario. One of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded, striking near an old power plant and what happened? Zero deaths from radiation, with long term effects yet to be seen of course. Do we need land for agriculture? Yes, although it's debatable just how much as total food production isn't the problem. We also need electricity. We also need to cut pollution. If we invested in nuclear power, thorium in particular, we could achieve all these even before fusion is perfected. Also, we wouldn't need to have 40 year old power plants in earthquake regions if counter-productive environmentalists didn't try so hard to wreak the environment.

Care about the environment? Then support nuclear power!

>> ^Nebosuke:

Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.


Nor does anything produce energy as cleanly as nuclear. It's shame the greens are so scared of the most promising clean energy alternative we currently have just waiting to be used.

Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.

>> ^bcglorf:

@NetRunner,
The difference is I stated that we don't have a high confidence in projections of temperature change due to increased CO2 when all other factors are taken into account.

The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role. The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role.

But again, that's not true. Look at the very paper I linked. Seriously.

My more general point is that what you're saying these papers say is different from what the people writing the papers say these papers say. IMO, that should make you think you missed something, rather than make you start implying that the scientists are misrepresenting their work.
>> ^bcglorf:

Translating that to what should we do means we don't have a good idea how much lowering CO2 emissions will help, what we do know is it will be expensive to do it on a large scale today.

Here's another thing I think you should reconsider. Let's say you're right, and we have no idea how much reducing CO2 will help. Maybe it'll help a little, maybe a whole lot.

I think we have a pretty good grasp on the "cost" of moving off CO2, but I think your economic analysis is faulty too. The "cost" is not some deadweight loss we'll never recoup. It's also not as if fossil fuels will last forever, so it's a matter of when we switch, not if.

So the matrix of possible actions and their consequences are:

1. We switch now, but the CO2 effect was small: It costs us a bit more, but we get a more sustainable energy system that creates less pollution, and stave off whatever damage CO2 would've had to the environment. Probably a net positive, but it's possible it could wind up being a slight net negative.
   
2. We switch now, and the CO2 effect was big: We save ourselves from a major catastrophe that would've wrecked our economy. Big net positive.
   
3. We make no attempt to switch early, but the CO2 effect was small: We save a little money from waiting, but we also do some damage to the environment, and our economy. Maybe it's a slight net positive, maybe it's still a net negative.
   
4. We make no attempt to switch early, and the CO2 effect was big: We save a little money from waiting, but the damage to the environment wrecks our economy. Big net negative.
   

So basically the choice boils down to whether we like options #1 and #2 better or worse than options #3 and #4. I like #1 and #2 better than #3 or #4 by a wide margin.

And that's without even factoring in the idea that a massive fiscal stimulus right now might actually help our economy out of its current depression. In that case, not only would the costs be small, they'd actually be a net positive to our long-run economic growth, without even factoring in the environmental damage prevented.

Thank you NetRunner,

I agree completely with your statement,

"As for the denier label, that's easily settled. Do you agree that man-made CO2 emissions are causing significant changes to the planet's climate?"

It matters because:

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

P.S. The IEA is a conservative, pro free-market organization...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

Also, every rebuttal you make to me starts with "You don't understand the points I'm making."
Oh how wrong you are, I read the single paper you cite, I know about Mann's graphs, your argument is a collection of luke-warm contrarian spin. It's disgusting that you can't recognize that or won't admit it. (Or you're a professional troll, in which case Kudos, job well done).

>> ^TheFreak:

@kceaton1
We're not goimg to see government investment in technologies like fusion windustriesing industries like coal and fossil fuel hold so much control over the government. The status quo will be maintained for as long as the big money industries can buy the government and wage their public campaigns to convince people to defy theor own interests in the name of small government and anti-liberalism. Didn't you know? Science, education and investment in new energy technology is a conspiracy of the liberal elite to make us all slaves to big government.
As long as the mammoth energy industries are calling the shots and writing the news items for fox news we will see no advancement in science that threatens the cash flow.


It's nice to hope though, isn't it. Like I said, when Obama said, "I want America to think of a BIG project for us to work on, what is it?", I thought right off the bat, fusion, duh. I certainly knew there would be impediments towards that road, but it seemed as likely as sending someone to the moon.

If we screw over our own future, whether that be the world or just America, it won't be that surprising at all. We are all too willing to let the unrepentant psychopaths, sociopaths, and straight up bad human beings into power.

@kceaton1
We're not goimg to see government investment in technologies like fusion while the fossil fuel industries hold so much control over the government. The status quo will be maintained for as long as the big money industries can buy the government and wage their public campaigns to convince people to defy their own interests in the name of small government and anti-liberalism. Didn't you know? Science, education and investment in new energy technology is a conspiracy of the liberal elite to make us all slaves to big government.

As long as the mammoth energy industries are calling the shots and writing the news items for Fox news we'll see no advancement in science that threatens the cash flow.

Edited for spelling. Stupid mobile keyboard.

fossil fuels are profitable. first you overcharge for oily gunk, then you tax the people who need energy with a carbon tax

>> ^Barseps:

Not wanting to look like a chump here, but assuming this machine isn't either powered by fossil fuels or an independant power scource (i.e. battery).......... Didn't it ummmm cross anybody's mind to just UNPLUG the damn thing?
The white bit on the top of the concrete finishing machine is the fuel tank.


(Also, it bugs me just slightly that they call it a Zamboni at the beginning.)

Not wanting to look like a chump here, but assuming this machine isn't either powered by fossil fuels or an independant power scource (i.e. battery).......... Didn't it ummmm cross anybody's mind to just UNPLUG the damn thing?

No waste left behind, except when there is -- consider the eons old refuse we're currently burning as fossil fuel. The reason so little seems to be wasted in the natural world is that something has evolved to use almost all of the available waste streams.

The video conflates two different ideas: the design life for a manufactured product, and consideration of how to handle that product at the end of its life. It's hard to imagine an iphone so perfect that it wouldn't be irresponsible not to plan for its demise at the time of manufacture.>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^Buttle:
Perhaps it's worth reflecting on the apparent fact that we ourselves seem to be programmed to fail after, roughly, grandparenthood. Seems to have worked fairly well for our species, as well as many others.
except when you fail, where's no waste left behind. If you can make my iphone fail the same way, I think you'd be a very rich man.

This shit has got to stop. Oil, gas and coal are a fucking joke. We need a full blown 3rd industrial revolution, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

It's not only possible, despite what the fossil fuel industry will scream at you if you suggest it, it's the only wise decision left to make. 7 billion people, climate change, and a legacy of inequality and human suffering, and fossil fuel corporations keep telling us we "need" this shit.

Many of the discussions from the thorium guys revolved around "why... why... why..." There was one mention near the end about needing a few people to get involved in the Thorium energy process for it to happen (via social media). But there's no mention of the issue of political corruption/lobbyists which is the real cause of the problem and why fossil fuels, weaponry related technologies continue to dominate. They touch on it I guess, when they talk about Nixon firing the guy who ran the successful throium reactor for 6 years, but they could have gone further.

>> ^Peroxide:

Interesting, but his notion of a global society requires renewable energy at the base of it, rather than fossil fuels.


indeed indeed.
and maybe fossil fuels need to be more properly viewed as a "means" to renewable energy, rather than a competing source.