A conservationist biologist’s survey on our predicament:
Yes, lucrative careers await you in trolling obscure leftist sites by disagreeing with people.
There’s no business like show business.
Capitalism shouldn’t be tossed around as if it’s one cynical answer among many. It is the central answer to AGW. The drive for profits has everything to do with the exploitation of resources, of human beings, of “externalities” (read, pollution), of consumerism, imperialism, and the centralization of fossil fuels as the dominant energy source etc. etc.
Unfortunately you don’t have the benefit of time. In less than seven years you need to replace 93,400 GWh. The majority of this generation is in locations where natural gas is plentiful and cheaper than utility scale renewables. In fact the states that are reducing nuclear have literally admitted to replacing this source with natural gas, so Im really confused how you think renewables is all youre going to use.
“Also, this is not evidence that progressives are not for climate science. What a ridiculous thing to say.”
Its not a ridiculous thing to say, when the topic has been continuously brought by some of the most esteemed climatologists and progressive have completely ignored the subject.
Then stop producing children. That is the underlying addiction.
Believe it or not many people live happy productive lives without children.
Some may go into withdrawals after quitting, wondering what purpose there is in life.
But after a couple of weeks, it goes away.
Who needs stinkin’ facts? Certainly not peabrain right wing idiot pawns for the rich. This world is headed for destruction unless the peabrain right wing idiot pawns are destroyed, first.
Everything about it is a big charade! There’s no business like show.
we need to work on BOTH factors, per-capita emissions and # of people, but maybe the second factor is easier because there are millions of women having more kids than they want but for reasons of patriarchy, poverty, ignorance, religion cannot access birth control. On the other hand most people want to consumer even more. for billions of poor people, understandably so, making the first factor even harder to control
If I don’t like the news it’s fake.
Even when you are eventually able to replace this loss of generation, you have not reduced any CO2 output. Instead you have spent a decade and billions of dollars to accomplish nothing in terms of reducing risk for climate change- nuclear emits low amounts of CO2, even lower on average than some forms of renewables.
If at time you use natural gas to replace nuclear, you will increase your CO2 emissions. This is why even solutions like the Champlain Hudson Express in New York is somewhat of a faulty idea, as the construction will not be complete until late 2022, but Unit 3 of Indian Point will decommission in 2021. Therefore you need something to replace 7,600 GWh for at least a year, and looking at the current landscape it seems that natural gas will replace this loss of generation.
Now you apparently think that energy efficiency is going to miraculously make up this void, but if that’s the case why on earth are 3 natural gas plants under construction in New York/New Jersey?
Any time you use natural gas to replace nuclear you are significantly increasing CO2 emissions. According to the NREL Natural gas emits 461g CO2/KWh more than nuclear. So even if natural gas needs to replace 50% of the generation from a 5,214 GWh Nuclear Plant (like in the case of Iowa with Duane Arnold) you will experience a significant increase in emissions:
5,214 x 50% x 461 x 1,000,000 = 1,201,827,000,000 grams of CO2 per year.
Even if you’re able to make up the difference with renewables by 2025 (extremely unlikely) you would still have increased emissions by over 4 trillion grams of CO2, because you decided to eliminate nuclear before you could replace 100% of the generation. Congrats you have more renewables, but in your attempt to de-carbonize you have significantly increased CO2.
Birth rates generally drop in areas that are developed while they often remain high in undeveloped areas. The average age in many developing countries is quite low compared to the US and therefore population is sure to increase. Yes efforts should be made but progress on reducing per capita emissions if far easier. The US has already reduced per capita emissions of CO2 by about 25% and although the US population continues to increase emissions of CO2 have declined since they peaked around 2007.
One critical indicator of resource use and environmental impact is to measure our energy consumption. When you click on one of the countries in the graph below, you’ll see how that country compares to the United States in the size of its population, the amount of energy it consumes as a country, and the amount of energy consumed per person.
Go onto YouTube. Pick a bunch of cities from all over the world. Pick a hundred of them. They now all look the same. From Tokyo, to Moscow, London, Lagos, Capetown, Abu Dhabi, Sao Paolo, Melbourne, Los Angeles, Beijing, and on and on and on, by the thousands all over the world.
All the same resources being used to build all the same stuff.
I think “F” was commenting tongue in cheek. At least I hope that’s the case.
Even if you could prove that the radical change in weather events is cyclical, we do know for sure that the situation is getting worse. Why not start dealing with it now. It will be more cost efficient in the long run, and there is little to lose if it is all a hoax.
When I was a lad my dad and I had a talk. We were hashing over the idea of fate and destiny. I remember him saying, well you can believe in fate if you want to. But I suggest you rely more on caution when you step in front of a bus. G
The fact that going solar isn’t helping reach the goal is more a statement of the severity of climate change.
But what the hell, let’s hope our buried nuclear waste is safe for our kids kids. Short sightedness from the short bus riders.
its not short sightedness when you actually recognize what is in nuclear waste. The majority of nuclear radioactivity is confined to fission products that make up 97% of the radioactivity and decay within 500 years, but you seem to be concerned about actinide waste products that last a significantly longer time. My question is why are you concerned about this waste material, when you are only concerned about radiation?
If you are concerned about chemical risk and concentration of radioactive materials then it makes sense for you to be concerned about plutonium 239 risk. However if you were actually concerned about this isotope then you would be describing how we have yet to engineer structures capable of surviving for 250,000 years instead of 3,000 years. In reality the isotopes that last for 1,000 to 10,000 years are confined to titanium 44, Uranium 232, plutonium 238, Samarium 151, Nickel 63, Silicon 32, Argon 69, Californium 249, Americium 241, Niobium 91, Californium 251, and holmium 166m1 I highly doubt you are actually concerned about any of these isotope given their concentration in nuclear waste is particularly low.
In reality going solar isn’t reaching the goal because the loss of just 10 nuclear reactors completely voids the benefit of the entire solar industry.
You sound a lot like Gyro Gearloose. That’s a compliment, I think. G
Yes those are cities using resources but most of the world is living in poverty and bad drinking water.
767 million people, or 10.7 percent of the population, live in extreme poverty with less than $1.90 per day.
2.1 billion people live on less than $3.10 per day.
2.1 billion people lack access to safely managed drinking water services. (WHO/UNICEF 2017)
4.5 billion people lack safely managed sanitation services. (WHO/UNICEF 2017)
How about military pollution and fossil fuels.-- look it up-- i posted link above. There are way to many issues on the plate no matter what one believes or not. Look up 2018 mass die off.
You are using money and ignoring resources. They are two different things.
If someone earns $3 a day or $3 million a day, it makes no difference at this point. Both are running out of resources as every city fights over the same finite supplies.
Yes people live in extreme poverty. Now extend that to the headline above. Now define wealth.