White House to unveil dire climate warning in new report

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You sure rising population's got nothing to do with it?

See, this is what happens when you oversimplify or ignore data you don't like or attribute everything to a single cause, MF. Me, I'm agnostic on AGW, for reasons I've explained. You ain't convincing me with this kinda stuff.

I presume you're interested in convincing me and other undecideds. If I'm wrong, please disregard.

It was the result of a study... No more need be said

Chernobel and Fukushima ring a bell?

Only a massive volume of bank transfers can save us now.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Less than the cost of coal-fired power plants, that's for sure.

If you don't mind glow in the dark wildlife. One thing for sure about nukes is that they will kill everything on the planet.
WE don't even have any coal plants in BC yet. Never going to have nukes.
Modern coal plants don't emit anymore than gas fired plants. And how is that nuke powered car of yours doing.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
In this thread we learn that Chernobyl and Fukushima disqualify nuclear energy development and studies are bad.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
See you learned something today. Compared to nukes fossil fuel is benign.

I learned that you have no idea what you are talking about today.

Our findings also have important implications for large-scale "fuel switching" to natural gas from coal or from nuclear. Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollutants and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced (ref. 2).

Also, such fuel switching is practically guaranteed to worsen the climate problem for several reasons. First, carbon capture and storage is an immature technology and is therefore unlikely to constrain the resulting GHG emissions in the necessary time frame. Second, electricity infrastructure generally has a long lifetime (e.g., fossil fuel power plants typically operate for up to ~50 years). Third, potentially usable natural gas resources (especially unconventional ones like shale gas) are enormous, containing many hundreds to thousands of gigatonnes of carbon (based on ref. 6). For perspective, the atmosphere currently contains ~830 GtC, of which ~200 GtC are from industrial-era fossil fuel burning.

We conclude that nuclear energy — despite posing several challenges, as do all energy sources (ref. 7) — needs to be retained and significantly expanded in order to avoid or minimize the devastating impacts of unabated climate change and air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning.


Climate Change: News - Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Try the veal.



Best in the city.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Yes the climate does change and droughts do happen.

One of the hazards of living on a planet with a climate.

For further reading and reference see Sahara Desert and Ice Age.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Yes the climate does change and droughts do happen.

One of the hazards of living on a planet with a climate.

For further reading and reference see Sahara Desert and Ice Age.

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. Pray for rain!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. Pray for rain!

For further reading please research the Sahara Desert and the Ice Age with regards to the ever changing climate of our planet.