Skip to main content

View Diary: Researchers: Sea levels rising 60% faster than previously expected (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What the fuck? (9+ / 0-)

    Nuclear is your solution?  Jesus.  Could have been building thermal solar and PV for decades already.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:39:15 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not just any nuclear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      Nuclear that doesn't even exist yet.

    •  Ok and what do you do at night (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago

      and when the wind doesn't blow?  The 24x7 energy consumed by modern society is incredible.  I live in Ontario and we have 1,000 huge wind turbines across the province.  I've seen many days when those THOUSAND turbines produce 100MW - a fraction of 1% of demand.  If we were to run Ontario on wind, we would need TENS OF THOUSANDS plus some yet-unknown means to store energy, and a redundant grid to handle that 4-5x's over-capacity production when the wind blows hard.  You CANT run a grid that way.  The material cost, the land requirements, the cost of yet-to-be determine utility scale storage... it is craziness.

      The reason we haven't been building these things like crazy over past decades is because they just aren't practical, unless you want to pay multiple times the cost AND have an unstable grid.

      The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

      by mojo workin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:30:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's all about the C02 levels. You must choose (0+ / 0-)

      Unless you're a denier, then you must admit that C02 levels must come down.  Are you serious about that or not?

      Germany and Japan are both shutting down their reactors and will rely on coal, yes COAL for much of their power.  And if reactors here are shut down, the US WILL burn coal for another 100 years.

      You have to choose.  Do you hate nuclear more, or C02 more?  If you want to stop climate change and aren't just pretending, then you MUST shut down the coal plants first.  And that means accepting nuclear power, which this site pretty much refuses to do.

      If the rejection of nuclear power continues, the C02 emissions continue.  It's that simple.

      And no, thermal solar and PV don't work in Chicago in winter when it's dark and cold for 14 hours a day.   Last night there was no sun, and no wind.  I stayed warm by burning natural gas and emitting C02.  Do you get it yet?

      Stop C02 or don't.  Your choice.

      •  You have to solve the toxic waste problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        For reals.  Didn't Fukishima just have a bunch of toxic spent rods just sitting around waiting to pollute the area?

        What's the solution?

        Tell me how this is reliably solved.

        I think there's some other serious concerns too, such as building plants in flood zones.  Also, I hear nuclear power plants have to shut down in high heat else risk melting down.

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:24:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The toxic waste problem is solved (0+ / 0-)

          We know how to recycle spent fuel, and we know how to glassify and bury the residuals where they won't cause any problems.

          The issue is a political one now.  NIMBYs won't let the waste be reprocessed.  And they won't let it be stored anywhere.  That's why the spent fuel was still at Fukishima, because the politicians wouldn't let it be moved.

          Yes, nuclear plants shouldn't be built in flood zones, just like everything else.  The note about the nuclear plant having to shut down during the heatwave was that the cooling pond water was too warm.  But so what?  I'll take C02 free energy for 355 days a year, versus dirty coal energy for 365.  Are you serious or not?

          The solution is to shut up the politicians and NIMBY groups and let the engineers work.  Or we keep burning coal.

          Do whatever you like.  I'm done worrying about climate change until people like you decide to take this seriously.

          •  It is definitely a political issue (0+ / 0-)

            You just don't have the politics of it sized up correctly.

            Why does it matter if it can be glassified when the industry isn't going to spend money glassifying it?

            You want me to trust these guys.  They didn't glassify the waste at Fukishima.  I don't see how you have an argument at all.  They did not do it.

            Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

            by yet another liberal on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:09:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They weren't allowed to do it. (0+ / 0-)

              And if the industry won't do it, then we do it for them.  If that's what it takes to reduce C02 and eliminate coal, then it must be done.

              Either we're serious and we do everything possible to reduce C02, or we're not.

              Your argument is that because nuclear power hasn't been well managed in the past, that we can't use it in the future.  Just don't complain when you don't get the results you want.  And don't complain to me when the next superstorm is washing away the next American city.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site