Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested * 2
    #26221478 - 09/30/19 11:14 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Net-Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day

Roger Pielke
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#19e2750335f7


More than a decade ago, Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner characterized climate policy as an “auction of promises” in which politicians “vied to outbid each other with proposed emissions targets that were simply not achievable.” For instance, among Democrats competing for the presidency in 2020, several, including Joe Biden, have committed to achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Candidate Andrew Yang bid 2049, and Cory Booker topped that by offering 2045. Bernie Sanders has offered a 71% reduction by 2030.

One reason that we see this “auction of promises” is that the targets and timetables for emissions reductions are easy to state but difficult to comprehend. Here I’ll present what net-zero carbon dioxide emissions for 2050 actually means in terms of the rate of deployment of carbon-free energy and the coincident decommissioning of fossil fuel infrastructure.

To conduct this analysis I use the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which presents data on global and national fossil fuel consumption in units called “million tons of oil equivalent” or mtoe. In 2018 the world consumed 11,865 mtoe in the form of coal, natural gas and petroleum. The combustion of these fossil fuels resulted in 33.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. In order for those emissions to reach net-zero, we will have to replace about 12,000 mtoe of energy consumption expected for 2019. (I ignore so-called negative emissions technologies, which do not presently exist at scale.)

Another useful number to know is that there are 11,051 days left until January 1, 2050. To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions globally by 2050 thus requires the deployment of >1 mtoe of carbon-free energy consumption (~12,000 mtoe/11,051 days) every day, starting tomorrow and continuing for the next 30+ years. Achieving net-zero also requires the corresponding equivalent decommissioning of more than 1 mtoe of energy consumption from fossil fuels every single day.

Another important number to consider is the expected increase in energy consumption in coming decades. The International Energy Agency currently projects that global energy consumption will increase by about 1.25% per year to 2040. That rate of increase in energy consumption would mean that the world will require another ~5,800 mtoe of energy consumption by 2050, or about another 0.5 of an mtoe per day to 2050. That brings the total needed deployment level to achieve net-zero emissions to about 1.6 mtoe per day to 2050.

The concept of an mtoe is pretty hard for anyone to get their head around. So let’s put the mtoe into a more comprehensible unit, a nuclear power plant and specifically the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station in Homestead, Florida. The amount of energy reflected in 1 mtoe is approximated by that produced by the Turkey Point nuclear plant over a year.

So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 Turkey Point nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a Turkey Point nuclear plant worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. The figure below illustrates the challenge.

Of course, in this analysis I am just looking at scale, and ignoring the significant complexities of actually deploying these technologies. I am also ignoring the fact that fossil fuels are the basis for many products central to the functioning of the global economy, and eliminating them is not nearly as simply as unplugging one energy source and plugging in another.

We can also perform this same analysis for the United States, which according to BP consumed more than 1,900 mtoe of fossil fuels in 2018. To reach net-zero by 2050, the US would need to deploy one new nuclear power plant worth of carbon-free energy about every 6 days, starting this week, and continuing until 2050. This does not include possible increases in future energy consumption.

What about net-zero by 2030, 3,746 days from today? Globally, such a target would imply, starting tomorrow, the deployment of >4 nuclear power plants per day, and for the United States, the deployment of a new nuclear plant about every other day.

There are of course some important, if technical details that might alter these round numbers, such as assumptions about capacity of energy generating technologies, gains in efficiencies in energy consumption between primary and final energy and assumptions about the overall energy intensity of the economy. So I encourage everyone to do the math themselves, and crucially, to ask politicians and policy advocates to present their numbers for the rate of deployment of carbon-free energy and the rate of decommissioning of current fossil fuel infrastructure.

We don’t often see these numbers for obvious reasons. The scale – no matter what assumptions one begins with – is absolutely, mind-bogglingly huge.

The world continues to move away from net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. In 2018 the world added more than 280 mtoe of fossil fuel consumption and about 106 of carbon-free consumption, according to BP. To move in the direction of net-zero, all of those additions (about 400 mtoe) would need to be carbon-free, while replacing and retiring about another 400 mtoe of exiting fossil fuel consumption. In a round number, the deployment rate of carbon-free energy would need to increase by about 800%.

Make no mistake, these numbers are sobering. They indicate in readily-understandable terms that the world, and the United States, are not moving towards net-zero carbon dioxide emissions and in fact, every day, we are moving in the opposite direction. Auctions of promises for emissions reductions don’t actually reduce emissions. Technology reduces emissions.

Can we hit net-zero by 2050? The scale of the challenge is huge, but that does not make achieving the goal impossible. What makes achieving the goal impossible is a failure to accurately understand the scale of the challenge and the absence of policy proposals that match that scale.

When you see an “auction of promises” in climate policy for emissions reductions, ask instead for rates of deployment of carbon-free energy technologies and rates of decommissioning of existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Then do the math, and see if it adds up.







--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMorel Guy
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26221508 - 09/30/19 11:49 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Ya but then they'll just vote another Trump or Bush


--------------------
"in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur"

In filth it will be found in dung it will be found

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: Morel Guy] * 1
    #26222023 - 10/01/19 08:41 AM (4 years, 7 months ago)

its great to see you have a hobby promoting the nuclear power industry(or is it your job?), but there is no evidence that humans are influencing the climate, zero, none

conversely, there is accruing evidence that the sun controls all variables of climate, all of them, at near 100% efficacy

nuclear power is pure evil and so are those that promote it


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: killingravensun] * 1
    #26222709 - 10/01/19 02:00 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Was that directed at me? I was just posting an article. On the other hand, there is absolutely no sane reason to be against nuclear, imo. If done safely, it is the cleanest way we know of right now to generate carbon-neutral power. Yes, a handful have had accidents. What industries don't? You think burning oil and coal is better? Nuclear is clean and very safe, and the only real problem with it is that it is expensive. The low-level waste it generates is very easy to deal with safely and with virtually no impact. It's not perfect, and I don't like it that much, but it's the best option we have.

There is ample evidence that human activity is impacting and exacerbating the greenhouse effect. Honestly, some of your ideas are just kooky, like you like alternative theories for the sake of being special.

How do you interpret this graph as anything other than a total disruption of the natural cycle:




I'm just dying to see your response. And please don't come back with some nonsense about how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect has been understood rigorously for over fifty years.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26223023 - 10/01/19 05:39 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Was that directed at me? I was just posting an article.



forbes shills for nuclear energy often, you are either an uncritical dupe or a willing participant

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
On the other hand, there is absolutely no sane reason to be against nuclear, imo. If done safely, it is the cleanest way we know of right now to generate carbon-neutral power.



"I was just posting an article."

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Yes, a handful have had accidents. What industries don't? You think burning oil and coal is better?



i dont think much, i prefer to know, and scientifically burning oil/coal is better than creating mox fuel waste, plutonium is a hell of a drug

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Nuclear is clean and very safe, and the only real problem with it is that it is expensive. The low-level waste it generates is very easy to deal with safely and with virtually no impact. It's not perfect, and I don't like it that much, but it's the best option we have.



you sound like ad copy straight from headquarters
Quote:

Scientists say plutonium may be the worst of all the fission byproducts that could enter the environment as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. That's why MOX fuel rods that are piled up in spent fuel pools near the Unit 3 reactor, which consist of a mix of plutonium and uranium isotopes, have become the number one concern of workers at the plant.

Plutonium-239, the isotope found in the spent MOX fuel, is much more radioactive than the depleted Uranium-238 in the fuel.

Plutonium emits alpha radiation, a highly ionizing form of radiation, rather than beta or gamma radiation. External exposure to alpha particles isn't much of a health risk, because they have a low penetration depth and are usually stopped by skin. When alpha-emitters get inside cells, on the other hand, they are extremely hazardous. Alpha rays sent out from within cells cause somewhere between 10 and 1,000 times more chromosomal damage than beta or gamma rays.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, plutonium enters the bloodstream via the lungs, then moves throughout the body and into the bones, liver, and other organs. It generally stays in those places for decades, subjecting surrounding organs and tissues to a continual bombardment of alpha radiation and greatly increasing the risk of cancer, especially lung cancer, liver cancer and bone sarcoma.

There are documented cases of workers at nuclear weapons facilities dying within days of experiencing brief accidental exposure to plutonium, according to the Hazardous Substances Data Bank.

Furthermore, among all the bad things coming out of Fukushima, plutonium will stay in the environment the longest. One isotope of plutonium, Pu-239, has a half-life of 24,100 years; that's the time it will take for half of the stuff to radioactively decay. Radioactive contaminants are dangerous for 10 to 20 times the length of their half-lives, meaning that dangerous plutonium released to the environment today will stick around for the next half a million years.






Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
There is ample evidence that human activity is impacting and exacerbating the greenhouse effect. Honestly, some of your ideas are just kooky, like you like alternative theories for the sake of being special.



you assert there is ample evidence of AGW but provide none, zero, nada, i wonder why that is?

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
How do you interpret this graph as anything other than a total disruption of the natural cycle:





u liek graphs?


Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I'm just dying to see your response. And please don't come back with some nonsense about how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect has been understood rigorously for over fifty years.



the climate has not been understood at all in modern times, there is no scientist saying they know definitively how climate works or that all inputs are accounted for, and please dont come back with some baseless propaganda or i will shred it with science


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: killingravensun] * 1
    #26223043 - 10/01/19 05:51 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

When I posted the article, I was not thinking a thing about nuclear power. The author is not advocating for nuclear power. He is using the example of a nuclear power plant to illustrate the quantitative degree to which we are completely fucked. I don't know why you're interpreting it as propaganda. He's just saying that's what we'd have to do, strongly implying that we can't get out of this mess, and that ALL of the politicians are full of shit. It really has nothing to do with nuclear, in and of itself.

My basically unrelated opinion, given the above, is that nuclear is a good option for emission-free technology. I don't know whether you're aware, but the latest nuke plant tech is very efficient and very safe. As I said, I don't really like it, but imo it's our best option for comparatively clean energy.

As far as climate change, we can disagree, who cares. I fully acknowledge the planet has been a lot hotter, and through a fuck of a lot worse, than we're giving it. But I feel, just looking around at all the records that are being broken, weird weather in my backyard, water crisis acceleration, etc., that there was a quasi-stable equilibrium that we have completely ruined. I don't think the sky is falling, but we've created a bubble of instability and it's having obvious consequences. If these manifestations are not obvious to you, too, I don't know what to tell you. The climate is changing above and beyond the natural cycle. But like I said, we can disagree. It doesn't matter.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26223101 - 10/01/19 06:20 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
When I posted the article, I was not thinking a thing about nuclear power. The author is not advocating for nuclear power.



of course its a nuclear power puff piece, wow, bernays really worked his magic on you

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
He is using the example of a nuclear power plant to illustrate the quantitative degree to which we are completely fucked. I don't know why you're interpreting it as propaganda.



its subtle yes, but still propaganda, the metronomic use of nuclear power as a metric is a clever backdoor assurance of its viability to address the problem, the nod to wind power is a nice touch considering its well known now that wind cannot meet modern energy needs no matter how many turbines go up, another subtle confirmation that nuclear can save us all

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
My basically unrelated opinion, given the above, is that nuclear is a good option for emission-free technology. I don't know whether you're aware, but the latest nuke plant tech is very efficient and very safe.



emission free? you mean co2 emissions, right? because nuclear emits radiation, amirite? given the choice between co2(plant food) and plutonium(pure death) i will take co2, thank

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
As I said, I don't really like it, but imo it's our best option for comparatively clean energy.



bullshit

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
But I feel... quasi-stable equilibrium



your personal anecdotes are irrelevant, the climate is inherently unstable, look at the paleoclimate record

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
The climate is changing above and beyond the natural cycle.



no it is not, without evidence that is just your (wrong) opinion


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: killingravensun] * 1
    #26223240 - 10/01/19 07:16 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Wow man I can see why you like all these fringe theories. You like to posit things that aren't there. The article is clearly not advocating we build a nuclear reactor a day! It's a thought experiment! Come on! You're being ridiculous. The main point of the article is to point out how fucked we are, and how full of shit politicians are, by showing people how to calculate the numbers. Not that we actually build thousands of nuclear reactors. This is not hard.

Nuclear reactors do not emit radiation. It's all contained and controlled. The low-level waste is processed and stored so as not to emit radiation. I'm wasting my time here.

dude


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26223307 - 10/01/19 07:54 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Wow man I can see why you like all these fringe theories. You like to posit things that aren't there.



is the term "fringe theories" used as perjorative? are the only theories of merit those promoted by the many? are you trying to belittle me because i explore theories to ensure i am well informed? are you positing that a limited knowledge of just certain approved theories and information is somehow superior to being aware of all theories?

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
The main point of the article is to point out how fucked we are, and how full of shit politicians are



its an apology, the whole global warming hoax didnt really pan out, and one of the biggest losers were nuclear power interests, so this is a last ditch effort to rally for the team in hopes the public might see the error of their ways and finally give a shit about climate change

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Nuclear reactors do not emit radiation. It's all contained and controlled. The low-level waste is processed and stored so as not to emit radiation.



holy shit captain science, you mean the shit never gets sideways? thats awesome cause it would be awful if the shit got china syndrome and whatnot

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I'm wasting my time here.

dude



by here, you mean the internet, right?


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26227854 - 10/03/19 05:12 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Im down for nuclear power. The CO2 emissions are definitely affecting the climate. Ice caps are melting way faster than they should be. Summers are getting hotter. This year was the hottest summer on record. The climate is changing quicker than it would naturally.

But building that many nuclear plants, as in one per day, seems impossible. Where would we fit them all? Can it actually be done?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #26227869 - 10/03/19 05:20 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
The CO2 emissions are definitely affecting the climate.



can you link to any science that backs this up?


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 70,093
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 8 hours
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: killingravensun]
    #26227890 - 10/03/19 05:31 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Let me find some. It will take some time thou.

Can you use science to demostrate that rising CO2 levels has zero effect on the climate?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #26227958 - 10/03/19 05:53 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
Let me find some. It will take some time thou.

Can you use science to demostrate that rising CO2 levels has zero effect on the climate?



Anybody can rationalize any idea that they have, whether or not it's right or wrong.  That's why science works from a criterion of falsifiability.  The question you should ask is whether his hypothesis allows any way for it to be disproven.  If his entire argument rests on the assumption that any evidence to the contrary of what he thinks is an obvious lie perpetrated by a cabal of liars who lie about everything then it's about as far away from science as you can get.  :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #26227961 - 10/03/19 05:56 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
But building that many nuclear plants, as in one per day, seems impossible. Where would we fit them all? Can it actually be done?





The article only uses nuclear power plants to illustrate how much carbon-neutral power would have to be generated to become carbon-neutral by 2050. It's a thought experiment. Remember this part:

Quote:

I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. The figure below illustrates the challenge.




Only a measuring stick. The author is not at all serious about building a power plant a day, or 5,000 in the next thirty years. It's only a way to crunch the numbers.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26227979 - 10/03/19 06:06 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Whether or not the author likes nuclear reactors, we're going to need to start depending on them if we want to keep the global civilization that we know.  They're actually about the cleanest and least destructive source of power that we're going to have for the forseeable future.  Even with spectacular, high profile failures they have a way better safety record than coal fire plants and they disturb the environment way less than hydroelectric dams, wind farms and the sort of prospecting that needs to be done to manufacture solar panels (though photovoltaic power is definitely something that ought to be used in tandem with nuclear reactors).  As far as actual emissions go, they just produce steam.  The radioactive waste is really easy to handle too, since the spent fuel is literally just transmutated ingots of metal.  There's about as much (if not less) of a chance of that stuff spilling than there is of your car's engine block liquefying all over your driveway.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,886
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: chibiabos]
    #26228000 - 10/03/19 06:14 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

I agree, as I have stated above. My previous point is that the article is not really about building a nuclear reactor a day.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #26228339 - 10/03/19 08:23 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
Let me find some. It will take some time thou.



indeed it will

Quote:

LogicaL Chaos said:
Can you use science to demostrate that rising CO2 levels has zero effect on the climate?



thats not how it works, you cant prove a negative, its logically impossible

as for rising co2, the rise follows the temperature, not the other way around, first it warms and then the co2 rises


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekillingravensun
destroying angel

Registered: 04/03/19
Posts: 738
Loc: cult of the sun machine
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: chibiabos] * 1
    #26228347 - 10/03/19 08:27 PM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
Whether or not the author likes nuclear reactors, we're going to need to start depending on them if we want to keep the global civilization that we know.  They're actually about the cleanest and least destructive source of power that we're going to have for the forseeable future.  Even with spectacular, high profile failures they have a way better safety record than coal fire plants and they disturb the environment way less than hydroelectric dams, wind farms and the sort of prospecting that needs to be done to manufacture solar panels (though photovoltaic power is definitely something that ought to be used in tandem with nuclear reactors).  As far as actual emissions go, they just produce steam.  The radioactive waste is really easy to handle too, since the spent fuel is literally just transmutated ingots of metal.  There's about as much (if not less) of a chance of that stuff spilling than there is of your car's engine block liquefying all over your driveway.



wow, i get the feeling you really believe this sales pitch, good thing people like you are a very small minority and will never get your way


--------------------
evil always wins, good can only do good, evil will lie and cheat until it fools good into doing evil

freedom is the ability to take wrong action, right actions are constrained by nature

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: killingravensun]
    #26228710 - 10/04/19 01:06 AM (4 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Science is a big conspiracy to make you look like an jackass.  :whatever:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: real carbon emissions numbers for anyone interested [Re: killingravensun]
    #26228725 - 10/04/19 01:36 AM (4 years, 7 months ago)

I like graphs.  The one you posted is straight out of the climate change denialist's tickle trunck of horsey.



It does not take into account the increase in solar energy over that time.  When that is done a correlation of temp and CO2 appear.

This video addresses that.


Edited by JohnRainy (10/04/19 03:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Interesting read Pinhead 1,016 2 11/24/03 03:40 AM
by Demiurge
* So you think you know your math huh...
( 1 2 all )
Lana 5,264 29 04/30/03 06:20 PM
by ExtravagantDream
* Interesting: How Windows boots
( 1 2 all )
jong21 2,706 22 08/04/04 02:12 AM
by Phluck
* Hubble Space Telescope's Days are numbered.... Le_Canard 2,369 13 01/21/04 01:08 AM
by Le_Canard
* Cracks and Serial Numbers HSIHd 576 1 04/03/03 02:50 PM
by Nirvana
* im interested in gentoo sherm 919 5 09/26/04 04:03 PM
by Phluck
* Real Player accelerator jong21 457 0 02/10/04 11:04 PM
by jong21
* Global Warming???
( 1 2 all )
crazyman 3,237 24 02/01/05 09:35 PM
by crazyman

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
1,546 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.