U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
No, not nothing else. It's fine to look at all the other impacts of alternatives, in fact that's exactly what should be done. I'm simply pointing out that nobody except you introduced the concept of "green" here.
By all means, post your bigger picture. Let's see the global warming potential for life cycle impacts of various sources of electrical production.
I would recommend the article by Joseph Romm below, which discusses the "consensus" issue vis-a-vis the scientific facts. The naysayers are not going to prevent global warming by denying the facts. As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions." See Joseph Romm, "The cold truth about climate change" at:
The cold truth about climate change - Salon.com
The cold truth about climate change - Salon.com
Maybe it's time you thought bigger and preached bigger beyond the Book of CO2.
Only a complete and total moron would think that this is reversiable through reductions in energy consumption.
If energy consumption is the core issue, I suppose that the real discussion should center on how many 'consumers' should be allowed in order to maintain this state of equilibrium; that is the underlying issue of AGW that the proponents are awfully quiet on.
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf
Bigger picture. As an alternative, nuclear produces far less heat trapping emissions.
[/INDENT] Yeah, I can do your homework for you if you like. Here's a figure showing life-cycle GHG emissions for selected power generation. Nuclear is far lower than the standard fossil fuel sources, even lower than CCS:
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf
Bigger picture. As an alternative, nuclear produces far less heat trapping emissions.
But nuclear come with its own set of problems that most of us find unacceptable therefore it is a non starter.
I wouldn't say that is the central point of discussion at all. If energy consumption is the core issue, than maybe the real discussion should center on how to increase the efficiency of our energy production. As it stands now, electrical companies have little incentive to improve efficiency.
Limiting customers is a non-starter for anyone serious about discussing this issue.
Still over-focused on CO2. There is help for OCDs you know. So narrowly focused you completely missed the BIG picture AGAIN.[/INDENT]Yeah, I can do your homework for you if you like. Here's a figure showing life-cycle GHG emissions for selected power generation. Nuclear is far lower than the standard fossil fuel sources, even lower than CCS:
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf
Bigger picture. As an alternative, nuclear produces far less heat trapping emissions.
Are you talking about making the generators more efficient themselves or the means of driving them?
Yep. Sure does. Really no matter what source of energy someone wants to build, there's always going to be NIMBY's. There are plenty of nuclear plants with perfectly fine safety records, and of course not all nuclear generation is the same with regards to risk.
I see your point, however, possible efficiencies are finite; there will always be emissions based on the generation of power to satisfy the needs of the population. Let's face it, as the global population grows from 7 billion to 8 and 9 billion, etc, the 'emissions' per person will eventually upset any equilibrium point that is set today.
In the end, IF the issue of AGW is founded on emissions, the single largest factor will be the number of 'emitters' that are in the equation.
Bigger, making electrical production more efficient. From generation to transmission, and distribution. The current structure for rate applications doesn't incentivize producers to be efficient. It's only in jurisdictions with carbon taxes or emissions caps that electrical producers have an incentive to do more with less.
Hell, why not lift the CFC ban entirely instead of allowing nuclear industry exemptions.
You're absolutely right. It makes no sense for producers to be efficient and jack up their profits.
Here on the coast virtually every energy proposal has been met with opposition from NIMBYs. No matter the source. But they mostly all want cheap power. I don't see how they expect that to happen. I think some of it is a city mentality that everything you need is just there. Food is in a store just around the corner, flick a switch and the lights come on. Put your garbage in a can and it automatically disappears, turn on a tap and you got water etc.
Sure, but limiting the number of customers isn't a viable solution. So then we have to focus on what is available for solutions. Efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit. It doesn't require far off in the future technology.
Are you saying there are too many people wanting to work and eat on this planet?