Carbon Dioxide Reaches Highest Level In 4 Million Years (npr.org) 221
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere reached 419 parts per million in May, its highest level in more than four million years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced on Monday. After dipping last year because of pandemic-fueled lockdowns, emissions of greenhouse gases have begun to soar again as economies open and people resume work and travel. The newly released data about May carbon dioxide levels show that the global community so far has failed to slow the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, NOAA said in its announcement.
The May measurement is the monthly average of atmospheric data recorded by NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at an observatory atop Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano. NOAA's monthly average from its measurements came to 419.13 parts per million, and scientists from Scripps calculated their average as 418.92. A year ago, the average was 417 parts per million. The last time the atmosphere held similar amounts of carbon dioxide was during the Pliocene period, NOAA said, about 4.1 to 4.5 million years ago. At that time, sea levels were 78 feet higher. The planet was an average of 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, and large forests might have grown in what is today's Arctic tundra. "We are adding roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 pollution to the atmosphere per year," said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist with NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, in a statement. "If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, the highest priority must be to reduce CO2 pollution to zero at the earliest possible date."
The May measurement is the monthly average of atmospheric data recorded by NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at an observatory atop Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano. NOAA's monthly average from its measurements came to 419.13 parts per million, and scientists from Scripps calculated their average as 418.92. A year ago, the average was 417 parts per million. The last time the atmosphere held similar amounts of carbon dioxide was during the Pliocene period, NOAA said, about 4.1 to 4.5 million years ago. At that time, sea levels were 78 feet higher. The planet was an average of 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, and large forests might have grown in what is today's Arctic tundra. "We are adding roughly 40 billion metric tons of CO2 pollution to the atmosphere per year," said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist with NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, in a statement. "If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, the highest priority must be to reduce CO2 pollution to zero at the earliest possible date."
fatal flaw in human beings (Score:5, Insightful)
Edward O Wilson: "we have palaeolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology"
and if that wasn't bad enough, the people with the power and wealth think that as the world deteriorates their money and power will protect them. Generally it will, at least for a while, until food is more valuable than "money".
We can do something about this and it wouldn't even be much of a sacrifice, but it ain't gonna happen.
Look at Norway. Trillion dollar wealth fund built on the back of the planet even though they are "democratic socialist" society. And even now looking at tapping new oil reserves off the coast which will, in addition to contributing to CO2, will do substantial environmental damage.
Greed is real.
And, just to top off the greed, absolute fucking morons in the US who don't even understand what a virus is or that they have vaccines to thank for not getting smallpox, polio and Covid-19. Convincing them that climate change is a liberal conspiracy was simple, and was part of a well orchestrated campaign of lying to generally create the mythology that environmental regulations are holding back jobs.
Stupidity is real too.
Problem solved (Re:fatal flaw in human beings) (Score:3, Interesting)
Greed is real.
So use it to your advantage. Do people burn fossil fuels to raise the global temperature? No, they burn it because it makes them money.
Find a way that lower CO2 emissions makes people money. Electricity from solar power is cheaper than coal? Okay then, problem solved. People will not burn coal because that is a deal that loses them money.
Off shore windmills are cheaper than natural gas? Okay then, problem solved. If heat pumps and windmills heats a home cheaper than natural gas then that problem has
Re: (Score:3)
Electricity from solar power is cheaper than coal? Okay then, problem solved. People will not burn coal because that is a deal that loses them money.
This is already true. One of the US political parties keeps pushing for subsidies to burn coal, and fights against installing solar.
We are not in a completely free market, so you can't rely on "the magic of the market" to fix all of it.
Re: (Score:3)
These are great ideas...for 1920. It's far, far too late now. Many of us alive today will live to see a dramatic decrease in this planet's ability to grow food at scale. And when there are no more crops or animals to eat, people will eat people, because that's all that's left.
But that's not even the worst part. We may have a water shortage before that even happens. If today, you wanted to install a water reclamation system in your home, what would it cost? Do any even exist?
The situation is dire, and I'm so
Re: (Score:2)
You can live in denial if you like, or go through the stages of grief if you prefer, but It's really time to make peace with each other because this is it for humans on this planet.
Ask your doctor about Prozac.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway isn't a Socialist nation, they're Capitalist "Social Democrats". Very, very different from "Democratic Socialists", who are just Socialists that want to get elected before establishing a dictatorship.
And forget Norway anyhow. The West isn't the problem. China is the problem. Don't tell Norway not to pump oil, tell China to stop buil
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The government of my country switched its opinion about AstraZenca vaccine multiple times in a week. It was safe, then they stopped using it, then resumed, then stopped again, finally they said that it was safe and to prove it, the elected politicians were vaccinated using it.
This gives good ammo to the anti-vaxxers. "Hey, look, I may not be a doctor to understand this vaccine, but I know for sure that the experts do not know if it's safe either!"
Same with the environment. If the government wants t
Re: (Score:2)
I am not talking about the really old cars. Sure, a car made in 1960s did not last very long, but a car made in the 80s did. They probably did not have good computer simulations in the 80s, so they had to make the parts more robust than they needed to be to just last the warranty period.
Re: (Score:2)
All my '80's cars rusted away.
Re: (Score:2)
After dipping last year? (Score:3)
After dipping last year because of pandemic-fueled lockdowns, emissions of greenhouse gases have begun to soar again as economies open and people resume work and travel.
Greenhouse gas emissions are the rate of increase of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. (Well, less sinks, but those are slow for CO2).
So "US greenhouse gas emissions being below their 1990 level" is an unusual meaning of "dip". It means that the increase was slightly less than what it was in 1990. Which wasn't very slow as renewableas weren't economically competitive back then.
The universe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Science can be questioned. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I think our species is doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
But PLEASE, someone prove me wrong, PLEASE! I'd rather not, some day when I'm on my deathbed, be thinking that my entire species is going to become extinct soon after I'm gone.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's TRUMP'S FAULT!"
"It's the RELIGIOUS's fault!"
Yeah, deep thoughts, dude. Very persuasive. Feel better now? Maybe bite your pillow or something, vent that spleen?
Re: (Score:2)
The species exists in more places than the USA.
Just thought I'd mention that.
To be precise, 95.75% of the population of the planet earth does not live in the USA.
So, I'm looking at your post and seeing just USA problems, really - very USA centric argument.
Almost as if you haven't actually considered the 95.75% of the rest of the global population... interesting ...
Can't argue with the figures (Score:2)
So what was the level measured 4 million years ago? I'm guessing around 418.8641.
We only just edged it there.
With current world population... (Score:2)
With current world population at approximate 7.9-billion, and other species growing as humanity grows in number such as cats, dogs, it is no surprise. In addition, all the machines like automobiles which are a massive in number...don't forget motorcycles, lawn mowers, etc. For farms, cows, pigs, chickens as food sources, etc.
Eventually we'll be like Venus, a runaway greenhouse effect, that is if we don't first destroy ourselves with a nuclear war, or some other catastrophe.
JoshK.
Re: (Score:2)
The world population is mainly at the expense of other animals, so if you are going to include machines separately, population should be a wash, or nearly so. The real problem (ISFA we're talking about CO2 levels) is the extraction of fossil carbon from oil, coal, etc.
I *doubt* that we'll get "a runaway greenhouse effect", though I must admit that the research on that is uncertain. But we may well get a largely desert land mass, most of which is too hot for people to live on. There's at least one model t
What are you wasting your time telling me for? (Score:2)
There's no point in eviscerating the growth potential of Western economies when China emits more than all of them combined, and will enjoy a massive comparative advantage as a result. We can aim for lower emissions without engaging in a panicked rush. Western economies are not the problem. China is the problem.
And why doesn't China care
Re: (Score:2)
There's no point in eviscerating the growth potential of Western economies when China emits more than all of them combined
Good news! They don't.
And a much higher percentage of their new generation is not fossil-fuel based than the US.
Also, we have a wee bit more control over what we do than what another country does.
Finally, this is a potential massive new industry for the US. We could be the ones that invent and build the new tech for everyone else. Instead, you want to give that away to Europe and China so you can be comfortable in your whataboutism.
Where is this sensor located again? (Score:2)
So, the sensor is on top of a volcano, one of the world's most active. Volcanoes emit CO2, a lot of it. Anyone else see a problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
Giddy up! (Score:3)
Soylent Green will be... (Score:2)
Soylent Green will be People.
We'll know this is truly serious when... (Score:2)
political leaders around the world unite and ban all non-essential uses of CO2. If CO2 is going to end human life, then we should prioritize it and start by eliminating the most frivolous uses.
For example, before we do something about CO2 in a fire extinguisher, we might want to ban champagne. Things like soda pop and other bubbly beverages are totally unnecessary. Dry ice, in all but science and medical labs. CO2 in basically any consumer application.
Only after all CO2 emissions by non-essential things are
Re: (Score:2)
We should probably just stop talking about it.
I mean there's nothing newsworthy about a 4 million year peak in atmospheric CO2 levels.
It's a trace gas, I'm told. It can't possibly affect the environment.
Re:Oh, goodie! (Score:5, Insightful)
Talking about it is fine. The problem is , climate change discussions here tend to highlight the unfortunate reality that there seems to be a hell of a lot of people on Slashdot who seem to think their economic doctrine of choice is somehow more relevant than the group efforts of tens of thousands of scientists in determining what the hecks going on in the atmosphere.
Basically, there are a disturbing number of slashdotters who appear to really dislike science, despite this being a "news for nerds" site.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When "science" turns to "going outside during a pandemic makes you Hitler unless you're protesting for BLM then it's fine" and 1000+ scientists sign off on it, the rational among us begin to suspect their conclusions.
The economy matters. (Re:Oh, goodie!) (Score:3)
Economics is a science. It may have many elements of "soft science" where people make choices on feelings, rumor, and just random irrational whatever. The bits of economics that rely on psychology and sociology can be kind of pushed aside with the law of large numbers and enough rational thinkers to make it be more "firm" than soft. We can't just ignore the economics of energy policy because we know people are still people. If energy costs rise and there's no increase in economic output to offset it the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next time log in during a US election. Then you'll be okay with only checking in every decade or two.
We need solutions, not problems (Re:Oh, goodie!) (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm fine with discussing the problem so long as that discussion involves looking for solutions. What is the problem? Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Agreed? Agreed.
Now, we should break down the human activity that cause the most harm. About 1/3rd of the CO2 that causes CAGW comes from electricity production. About 1/3rd of CO2 from transportation. In the remaining 1/3rd a big part of that is cement, it's not all of that 1/3rd as there's plenty from agriculture and industry so I'll guesstimate that cement is maybe half of that 1/3rd.
What are the lowest cost, lowest CO2, electricity sources available to use right now. Something coming next year doesn't help, we need solutions today. Those are onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission. Solar and offshore wind costs more than nuclear power so we should stop doing that if we are to solve the problem without causing energy poverty. Start building those things now and we can get to zero CO2 emissions from electricity in perhaps 30 or 50 years. If we develop something new along the way then that's great but we need to use what we have now or we run the risk of just making the problem worse.
How do we bring transportation CO2 emissions to zero? First is we can at least lower emissions on the short term with natural gas. That's not a long term solution but it can cut CO2 emissions of trains, buses, trucks and shipping by 30%. Plug-in hybrids could lower that more and hopefully avoid a battery shortage. Large commercial ships can convert to nuclear power, as could many military ships. More electric trains, some plug-in electric cars, but battery electric vehicles can't get us to zero because batteries won't put satellites into space or bring people across oceans. For that we need synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, made net carbon zero by using CO2 from the air and energy from the zero carbon and low cost energy sources listed above. This is not a new technology, it's just cheaper to drill for oil than produce hydrocarbons. If we develop the technology then we could make it viable, but that will take some investment and the US Navy made a lot of this investment already but Congress has not funded more of it. Give the Navy the funds they asked for to develop this technology, and to build more nuclear powered ships, and the economics change. That's going to take more electricity production but if we put the labor and materials used for oil drilling into geothermal, onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission then we can still be on the path to zero carbon transportation in 30 to 50 years.
Cement is a large CO2 producer. It takes a lot of energy and releases CO2 from "cooking" limestone down to lime. A source of natural lime is basalt. We use limestone instead of basalt for a lot of reasons. This is also not new. People have been using basalt as a source of carbon negative cement and agricultural lime for a long time. That is expensive still but there is (or at least was) a group at Idaho State University working on this. This group and other like them proposed using that US Navy process of making carbon negative hydrocarbons to make carbon negative asphalt. We will need roads. We will need cement structures like dams and nuclear power plants. We can use carbon negative cement and tarmac to built roads, bridges, and so many other things. This is again likely a 30 to 50 year path to get to carbon zero.
There you have it. An outline to solving the problem of CAGW. We can give a zero carbon economy to our children and grandchildren. We have to start soon though. That 30 to 50 year countdown to zero carbon doesn't start until we decide it starts. The scientists tell us every part of that outline needs to be there or it won't work. It seems there's little opposition to most of those ideas, nuclear power and synthetic hydrocarbons has seen opposition. We need those two technologies too, or the countdown to zero carbon doesn't start.
It's science. Don't you believe in science?
Re: (Score:2)
Get the fuck out of here with that.
If your argument is that the more expensive option is devastating, then we may as well throw fission out the window too and get back to burning that sweet, sweet coal.
Now, I'm not anti-nuclear myself (though I won't lie, I'm anti-nuclear within sight of my house) but if you're going to frame any anti-nuclear standpoint as "causing energy poverty", you do the entire discourse a disservice, because you open yourself up to this:
Stop propos
Still only three choices. (Score:2)
You lost me at energy poverty.
You'll figure it out. We are down to three choices. We have fossil fuels. We have energy poverty. And we have nuclear fission. Anything else people have brought up, like fusion, is years away from practical if it is ever practical.
I choose fission. You appear to have chosen energy poverty.
Give me something as cheap as coal, or gtfo.
I did. Nuclear fission.
Is solar power cheaper than nuclear power? Okay then, problem solved.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
Re: (Score:3)
You'll figure it out. We are down to three choices. We have fossil fuels. We have energy poverty. And we have nuclear fission. Anything else people have brought up, like fusion, is years away from practical if it is ever practical.
Ignoring the fact that wind is cheaper per kwh (and for construction) than fission, again-
If the jump from nuclear to more expensive than nuclear, then the jump from coal (or even more so, natural gas) to nuclear is the same.
Therefor, you *cannot* say stupid shit like "My more expensive option isn't energy poverty, but yours is"
It's stupid. You're not stupid (I don't think), so don't say stupid shit.
I choose fission. You appear to have chosen energy poverty.
Oh fucking christ.
You choose your pet, I choose to keep options open an evaluate them with more nuance t
Re: Still only three choices. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fission is actually cheaper than all other forms of energy. It isn't in the US, were over-regulation, following very old standards, includes an obligation for producers to spend on extra unnecessary safety (really unnecessary, there's no actual increase in safety, even marginal) when their price drops below that of other sources. This makes sure that fission can never actually reach its actual low baseline cost, which, when left to actual modern engineering practices goes down to about $0.02/kWh. The cheapest alternatives all cost 6 to 12 times more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost of wind and solar have dropped between 70% and 90%, respectively, over the last decade.
Nuclear is dirt cheap because the demand for fuel is nil.
Nuclear is not the way forward. It just isn't. The math doesn't support it, completely ignoring all the problems with it- particularly the main problem I see here:
Your belief that US overregulates its nuclear industry.
*that* is why nuclear will die. Because fucking idiots like you will kill us all.
Re: (Score:3)
The math doesn't support it, completely ignoring all the problems with it
Well, I'll ignore what I usually ignore, that is, moralistic virtue signaling. Instead, I'll point to this critical review [rootsofprogress.org] of Jack Devanney's book "Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop". Devanney is CEO of a company that develops and builds next generation molten salt nuclear reactor power plants, and is currently building one of those in Indonesia under a pilot program by that government, so he has some experience, both theoretical as well as practical, on the mathematics of the thing. Check the review, read
Re: (Score:2)
Guy who only gets paid if people build more nuclear power plants says that nuclear power plants are cheaper than every independent analysis says.
Yeah, that's totally trustworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Guy who only gets paid if people build more nuclear power plants says that nuclear power plants are cheaper than every independent analysis says.
Let me guess: you spent less time reading the text than writing this reply, right? I mean, supposing you even went to the trouble of opening the it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Well on on hand, 1. He only gets paid if people build his nuclear power plants, and 2. there is a very, very, very, very, very long history of nuclear power CEOs lying about how much their power plants cost, how safe their designs are, and how long they can run.
On the other hand, we have every analyst on the planet whose income doesn't depend on building more nuclear power plants, and we also have the per-MWh cost of actual completed power plants (Which, btw, are much higher than promised when they were des
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a particular reason I need a new person to lie to me about nuclear power, or can I just substitute all the previous liars about nuclear power?
Here, let me show you the logical fallacy you're committing. It's called "ad hominem", and it consists in pretending to refute what someone said by attacking the person while ignoring what they actually said. You'll find more information about it on Wikipedias's related entry [wikipedia.org], including typical patterns and a list of the few instances in which it's logically valid.
Re: (Score:2)
> Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Agreed? Agreed.
Not agreed. The earth is clearly cooling despite the high co2. Its time to re-examine your premises.
There is a strong movement to increase CO2, if we can, perhaps as high as 1200ppm. It wont be able to stop global cooling, but it has other benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the lowest cost, lowest CO2, electricity sources available to use right now. Something coming next year doesn't help, we need solutions today. Those are onshore wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear fission
Nuclear fission fails for lowest cost and lowest CO2. Nuclear is more expensive than any other energy source currently in use, and it takes a lot of concrete to make a nuclear plant. "Available right now" is also questionable, given how long it takes to go from groundbreaking to all generators pushing electrons. Plus the "available right now" designs are really old and not very good.
Also, offshore wind is not some sort of new, exotic creature. There's tons of it already built in Europe, where the seaflo
Re: Oh, goodie! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Oh, goodie! (Score:4, Insightful)
The earth will be fine. It has had widely varying climate.
The problem is the "living things" which have adapted to a remarkably small range of climate conditions. We are changing the climate out of the range where many living things have evolved to survive. These changes are happening much too fast for living things to evolve so we are seeing populations die off and ecosystems collapse.
Re: Oh, goodie! (Score:5, Insightful)
If we only have to go back 4 million years (which is 0.1% of the earths age), then we are not outside the bounds of what is geologically normal.
It's outside the bounds of what is normal for current ecological systems. For example, our species only goes back 300,000 years. Our entire genus homo only goes back 2 million years.
The earth has stuck around for over 4 billion years and our current CO2 levels are in the lower 50% of readings throughout that time.
Right. But the problem is how it is affecting us, the economy, and current ecosystems and biodiversity. Which are on the centuries to millennia timescale. And how it affects infrastructure, which is on the decades to centuries timescale.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Extreme weather patterns beyond what we have seen historically is already a problem.
Admittedly, It is a situation that in the long run will fix itself. After our society collapses due to starvation then pollution will go down. I don't think we want that outcome.
I still don't understand the end game for deniers. If we have efficient products, emission-free energy production and emission-free vehicles, then we also have a cleaner atmosphere to breathe. It's a health amount of economic activity to keep people
This get posted every time and miss the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because everyone says about saving "the planet" and not us.
Maybe rephrasing it as "saving future humans" or something like that would work better?
Re:This get posted every time and miss the point (Score:4, Interesting)
As many have noted, saving the "planet" is nonsensical.
It's seen far more extreme climates than we could possibly create, in both extremes.
But let's be realistic- human civilization isn't going to survive a large swing in either direction.
Human beings might, sure. But civilization? No fucking chance.
Re:This get posted every time and miss the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people (I am not going to look for direct quotes of various forums and such) were talking about this as if they were saving "the planet". Something along the lines of "we have to save the planet from evil humans". I guess it could be interpreted as saving the civilization from its own members, but for some reason it gave me the idea that the person saying that was meaning "save the environment at the expense of humans", that the "planet" or the "environment" have been corrupted by parasites, called humans and now we must save it from them.
IMO there are two ways to save the civilization though. One would be to try to figure out how to reduce the pollution and maybe return the climate to where it was (until it starts changing on its own). Another would be to figure out how to survive despite the changing climate. Maybe some large CO2 capture devices, powered by nuclear or solar power (ones that take up less space than trees or other non-edible plants) would work better? Maybe lifting some (preferably shiny) dust into the atmosphere would reflect some of the sunlight back out and reduce the global warming that way? Maybe the second option would create lots of jobs building the power plants and CO2 capture devices and would actually help more people, even if it would be worse for the "environment" compared to the first method?
However, it looks like the current way of trying to solve the climate change is by also trying to eradicate the middle class and ownership. While electric cars could produce less pollution than gasoline powered ones, various proposals very quickly get into electric cars -> self-driving cars -> only the mega-rich will own cars, you will just rent them. While I am OK with eventually converting my gasoline powered car to electric (at still keeping it as computer-free as possible), if the real intention is to make it difficult if not impossible to own a car then maybe I should be against electric cars in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Some people (I am not going to look for direct quotes of various forums and such) were talking about this as if they were saving "the planet". Something along the lines of "we have to save the planet from evil humans". I guess it could be interpreted as saving the civilization from its own members, but for some reason it gave me the idea that the person saying that was meaning "save the environment at the expense of humans", that the "planet" or the "environment" have been corrupted by parasites, called humans and now we must save it from them.
OK- there are *definitely* people around who really do think that humans are a parasite, etc. They're morons. They may be useful due to alignment of goals, but that level of misanthropy doesn't fucking help anyone. It's one thing to be a misanthrope in the face of non-danger. It's another entirely when facing a real existential crisis that takes real brainpower to figure out how to navigate.
IMO there are two ways to save the civilization though. One would be to try to figure out how to reduce the pollution and maybe return the climate to where it was (until it starts changing on its own). Another would be to figure out how to survive despite the changing climate. Maybe some large CO2 capture devices, powered by nuclear or solar power (ones that take up less space than trees or other non-edible plants) would work better? Maybe lifting some (preferably shiny) dust into the atmosphere would reflect some of the sunlight back out and reduce the global warming that way? Maybe the second option would create lots of jobs building the power plants and CO2 capture devices and would actually help more people, even if it would be worse for the "environment" compared to the first method?
I don't think surviving despite changing climate is possible.
I don't think people fully appreciate the climate this p
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a bit of an overreaction.
You don't have to buy a $150k Tesla.
You can always buy yourself a Leaf, or a Volt.
I think it's quite silly to think that car manufacturers- a highly competitive segment- will all decide to quit trying to sell cars to middle class people.
I was talking about how it's presented by some people. I am not a fan of new cars in general (gasoline or electric, I think they are too complicated and difficult to repair, I won't go into details here), but I am up for converting my current car to electric once the technology gets better.
However, some people have been saying that string of events in my previous post as a goal. They talk about how "an average car spends the vast majority of time not moving" and such.
As for the other stuff:
entire world is a literal jungle
Wouldn't that mea
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a fan of new cars in general (gasoline or electric, I think they are too complicated and difficult to repair, I won't go into details here)
Nearly all of what you're used to repairing doesn't even exist on EVs. All of that complicated stuff in the engine is replaced by an electric motor which will run for hundreds of thousands of miles with no maintenance or attention -- and when it does break, you won't fix it, you'll replace it -- and a big battery, which is similarly maintenance-free (and unmaintainable).
Of course all of the stuff around the tires, wheels, brakes, suspension, etc., is pretty much the same on EVs, with the same level of rep
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly all of what you're used to repairing doesn't even exist on EVs.
Most of what I am used to repairing is body rust (mainly), followed by suspension, various linkages etc - parts that do exist on electric cars. The engine is quite reliable actually.
Now, I do not know how it is with electric cars, but on at least some newer gasoline cars a "simple" job, such as replacing a lightbulb in the headlamp is something that is supposed to take a mechanic 45 minutes. I can replace a lightbulb on my car in less than 5 minutes.
Another concern (specifically for electric cars) is for ex
Re: This get posted every time and miss the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe you can build an icewall to keep the sea out.
Re: This get posted every time and miss the point (Score:5, Informative)
Grab a globe.
Take note of other things at Britain's latitude.
Ask yourself why it's so warm.
The gulf stream isn't something that should be taken for granted, in the context of increasing the average temperature of the planet.
Altering the temperature of the ocean will result in our ocean currents changing.
A warming climate could very well turn britain into a block of ice (until the warming got far more drastic)
Global warming was always a bad name (even if it's technically accurate) because it does a terrible job at relaying the actual danger we face: rendering large swaths of highly populated land non-arable, or otherwise unable to support the populations that live on them.
That does not mean that (Score:3)
Re: This get posted every time and miss the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) is slowing down. Once it shuts down completely, Europe will be colder, not warmer. Good luck growing crops in France when it's too cold all year round.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get the scale...
2C is 40% of the delta since the last ice age. That is a lot in 2 centuries.
2C of increase averaged globally doesn't mean +2 everywhere. For instance, the Arctic is already at +3C, while the world is at +1C.
If I put my feet in the oven, and my head in the fridge, my average temperature is OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh, goodie! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we only have to go back 4 million years (which is 0.1% of the earths age), then we are not outside the bounds of what is geologically normal.
Except that geology has nothing to do with the current emissions, and humans weren't around 4 million years ago depending on a delicate balance of the planet to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Geology would like a word:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need to save planet, nor environment, nor nature. They will all be just fine due to evolution, just like they have been so far.
Question is, do we want to live in a world where
- all fish have been replaced with jellyfish,
- bees replaced by cockroaches
- and where brain eating fungus is common friend
- as are many bugs that eat our harvest.
Re:As someone who just turned off their furnace (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, the Trump voter in its natural state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's the Trumpers who force people to have babies they don't want.
WTF? There's a ban on adoption? Pretty sure that there's a lot of people in the USA willing to take in children that the parents cannot or will not care for.
I find this just baffling. If a mother cannot kill her child then that's "forcing" a child on them. It is not. It's not "health care" to kill a child that's been conceived. It's not birth control to induce a mother to an early birth. That child will be born, we just don't have to kill the child in the process. I guess there is "control" on when
Re: (Score:3)
WTF? There's a ban on adoption? Pretty sure that there's a lot of people in the USA willing to take in children that the parents cannot or will not care for.
The number of children in foster care for years indicates otherwise.
It's not "health care" to kill a child that's been conceived
If you're strangling me, I get to kill you in self-defense, right?
Let's assume your erroneous assumption that a fetus is a person. That would mean if fetus is causing harm to the woman, she gets the same self-defense rights, yes?
Every pregnancy causes permanent damage. That's why very few women survive having lots of children. Which means she's got a self-defense right to not be harmed by the fetus.
It's not birth control to induce a mother to an early birth
Considering you won't pay for the NICU
Re: (Score:2)
After watching some presentation on nuclear fusion it seems quite apparent that the problem with nuclear fusion is not containing the pressures, neutron loss, radiation damage to materials, or most any of what you listed.
The problem with fusion power is how to make a reactor small enough that anyone could afford to build one.
After seeing Dr. Robert Bussard talk about the Polyell Fusor I'm convinced we can make it work. It just has to be big enough. How big? We'd have to give them enough funding to find o
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. wish I were a plant. Hopefully a drought tolerant one.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, in the future I'll try to make my color commentary more nuanced in order to stay abreast of the current science.
Basic science is for schoolkids (Score:3)
In the real world there are more complex effects that need complex science to measure. Eg the difference between C3 and C4 plants in response to rising CO2 levels and the fact that as CO2 goes up its a law of dimnishing returns wrt plants since like all other biochecmical processes , plants carbohydrate synthsis mechanism has a hard speed limit. Oh, and they apparently also thicken their leaves which is bad news too:
https://www.washington.edu/new... [washington.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear is already heavily subsidized by the government and plants have closed due to lack of profit. Why is subsidizing solar and wind energy any different?
Re: (Score:2)
By subsidizing wind and solar the government is destroying the profit of nuclear power. By not allowing new nuclear power the government is raising the costs of energy. Normally this rise in costs would make nuclear power profitable again but the wind and solar subsidies are structured in a way that nuclear power simply cannot make a profit since as the prices rise so do the wind and solar subsidies. Wind is paid a subsidy for selling power to the grid, so they can pay people to take the power and still
Re: (Score:2)
By subsidizing wind and solar the government is destroying the profit of nuclear power
The profit of nuclear power that only exists because of government subsidies that are much, much larger than the subsidies on wind and solar.
How are nuclear power subsidies different?
The size. Nuclear power subsidies are much, much larger than wind and solar subsidies.
Insurance for a nuclear plant costs $0, because we're the insurers. That's an enormous subsidy.
And while there are requirements that new nuclear plants pre-pay for their decommissioning costs, those costs are routinely off by two or more orders of magnitude. Which also leaves taxpa
Re: (Score:2)
Not turning off the existing ones that are still actually safe is a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
If your oh so clever bloggers cant figure out how to stick a battery in between the renewables and the more efficient gas version. Then I don't think they are really worth listening to are they?
They are just telling you what you want to hear.
If that was the highlight of your and their analysis. That says a lot about both of you doesn't it.
Good news everybody! Problem solved. (Score:2)
So you are telling me that the problem of CAGW is solved. Right? Did you hear that everybody! Problem SOLVED!
Okay then. We solved the problem. We have solar cheaper than coal. Offshore windmills are cheaper than natural gas. Only an idiot would waste money on drilling for natural gas, or building a nuclear power plant. We solved the energy problem for all time. We just put some batteries on our solar panels and there's no problem.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Problem..
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't technical so much as administrative. Politicians are paid to ignore the problem, and people like you are paid to convince their constituents not to hold them accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this is an administrative problem.
The problem was just removed a couple days ago when the US Energy Secretary when before a House energy panel and told them that we will need nuclear power or the lights go out. Maybe not in those exact words but we just saw the nations' energy problems solved.
I will say we need to hold elected officials accountable for this energy problem. It will not be solved with more windmills, and certain not Chinese solar panels. China has been caught using cheap coal
Re: (Score:2)
Did your bloggers do a proper analysis? Or did they just tell you what you wanted to hear?
How about you read them and tell me what you think? Did they do a proper analysis?
If the problem is solved. Why the need to copy paste the nuclear rants every chance you get?
Why the need for the solar power shills to come out every chance they get?
It's not solved, but you pretend "really smart people" know the answer and the answer is nuclear.
If solar power is already cheaper than coal then why all the "butthurt" about a need for a solution? Wasn't the entire goal to get solar cheaper than coal so that we won't need fossil fuels any more? Oh, right, they forgot the sun goes down at night.
And then you get butthurt when the answers are shown to be wrong. And based on faulty reasoning.
I get "butthurt" when I see people make a claim on how I'm wrong but don't cite sources, and when they
Re: (Score:2)
You really should read up on the the Shoreham Long Island plant. It was already generating test power before it was scrapped. Residents are still paying a fee for the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
There are close to 450 civil nuclear power plants operating in the world today, what could I possibly learn from reading about that one plant? How not to build one? How about instead I look at the successes? How about YOU look at the successes?
There's still only three choices. Nuclear power is the least objectionable of them.
Until someone comes up with a new option it will be those same three choices. Nuclear power, like capitalism, is the worst except for all the others.
There is no good option, only t
Re: (Score:2)
How long does it take to build a solar PV cell factory?
Yeah, it's too bad that factory can only build one solar farm and then we have to build another factory.
Oh wait...
We don't have the mining capacity for enough solar PV cells to meet our needs. We do have enough mining capacity to provide the concrete, steel, copper, aluminum, and uranium to build nuclear power plants and fuel them.
Because that mining capacity for uranium just appeared one day, so we can't possibly shift mining capacity to other minerals as demand changes.
Analysis by Larsen and Rez shows that we would do better in terms of carbon emissions if instead of installing low capacity factor wind or solar systems and backing them with natural gas, we simply used a combined cycle natural gas plant.
That analysis used industry estimates for the emissions of combined cycle natural gas plants. Those estimates were off by quite a bit once the plants were actually built. It also used older technology for both the wind and solar estimates.
Finally, there
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal is generally a poor choice, though there are a few places where it can be made to work. Ocean thermal is a very low quantity/unit time source of power.
OTOH, solar and wind can be built a lot more quickly than nuclear, require less oversight once built, and are reasonably competitive already. Large solar plants can do things like storing power in molten salt, so the battery thing isn't a limitation. And there are lots of deserts where it gets lots of sunlight quite reliably.
I do want better bat
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, solar and wind can be built a lot more quickly than nuclear, require less oversight once built, and are reasonably competitive already.
Solar and wind power require a lot of land, materials, and labor. All resources many nations will not have enough of to supply the energy they need. That cost will rise as the places to build them are developed.
Large solar plants can do things like storing power in molten salt, so the battery thing isn't a limitation.
Fourth generation nuclear power can store power in molten salt too. If solar power can use that to manage supply and demand disparities then so can nuclear power. But since that's still theoretical we are talking about something we can't build today, and so is not one of those three choices. We
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple other choices. You didn't mention geothermal or ocean thermal power.
Still three choices. Nuclear power. Fossil fuels. Energy poverty. Relying on intermittent and/or dilute energy from wind, water, sun, or drilling in the dirt until we hit some hot rocks, is the path to energy poverty.
Choosing nuclear power doesn't mean excluding all else, we can and should still choose what is low in cost, low in CO2, low in resource demands, and high in safety. Geothermal is generally a good idea. Ocean thermal does not look like a good idea. Onshore wind looks good, offshore wind l
Re: (Score:3)
CO2 is not pollution. A pollutant is "a foreign substance that makes something dirty, or impure"
That's one potential definition. It's not the only definition. You don't know how dictionaries work.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a glass of water for you to drink. I added some natural substances that were already present in small quantities.
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're wrong. Most of the planet is closer to the equator than to the poles. More of it is frequently too hot for comfort than frequently too cold for comfort, and much of it falls into BOTH categories. If it heats up, the land nearer the poles become more habitable (once adjustments are complete) but the land around the equator becomes a lot less habitable. The ocean surface has slightly different rules, but few people live on the ocean surface, and fewer will live on small islands as they su
Re: (Score:2)
the reality is way more of this planet is way too cold currently.
Have you ever seen a globe?
Hint: The area around the poles has much less surface area than the areas around the equator.
We have also had cold records in the past year.
That's because warming isn't the only effect. You're going to have temperatures heading towards both extremes, thanks to things like the increased energy in storms and the breakdown of air currents that used to keep things relatively stable.
Plus you apparently don't grasp that "weather" and "climate" aren't the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are missing a sarcasm tag. Not everyone will pick up on that.
Re: (Score:2)