Nevermind the bollocks, here's another religion topic
-
Wife drops me at work and proceed to hers, its not that bad.
-
Wife drops me at work and proceed to hers, its not that bad.
Our jobs are 2 hours apart, and the first one takes 30 mins to get to.
I don't feel like living all my life on the road to sooth the sensitivities of a few tree huggers now, rather than just waiting until we have sustainable options.
You can either make green energy better within 50 years while burning oil, or stop both.
-
Yes, but the absorbed energy is also not released immediately. So it is held for an indeterminate amount of time. The holding isn't technically required for global warming models to work, but it does happen.
A time usually measured in picoseconds. Excitations of rotational / vibrational modes do not tend to live very long.
-
Wife drops me at work and proceed to hers, its not that bad.
Works for you since you both work, presumably close to each other. But my wife is a stay at home mom. So to adapt your "solution" to my scenario:
- Entire family drives 35 miles to drop me at work.
- Wife drives 35 miles more to return home.
- During the day, wife runs errands as needed with the vehicle.
- Near the end of the day, wife drives 35 miles to pick me up at work.
- We all drive another 35 miles to return home.
Oh, and since we have three kids in booster or car seats, I guess we'd be keeping the less fuel efficient minivan and selling my sedan.
Compared to our current plan:
- I drive 35 miles to work.
- wife runs her errands during the day.
- I drive 35 miles home.
So your "solution" adds 70 miles of driving per day (350 miles per week), and reduces my family's overall fuel efficiency (my sedan gets about 8 MPG better than our minivan). Do you really want me to increase my carbon footprint that much? I thought the goal was to do the opposite …
-
Nuclear power and Tesla motors, what else do you need?
I had a second car when my wife worked far from me, and sold it when we started working in the same city. 2 cars isn't that absurd.
How much co2 is emitted to produce a Tesla motors electric car?
-
2 cars isn't that absurd.
While both of my parents were driving hours away to get to work, I was driving 40 mins to school.
Now we have three cars.
See how it gets to be four cars per family?
Tesla motors
How are you going to handle disposing a magnitude more battery waste?
A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.
While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.
Batteries have a massive energy debt.
-
What about smaller cars? Or at least most of them being smaller?
Sure you can do without 4 monster trucks.Mine can be filled with ethanol too (but I put gasoline anyway).
TBH, the larger difference in cars here is that a large portion of the population has none and has to suffer going in a bus crowded like a sardine can. But you wouldn't adapt to that.
What about more remote jobs?
-
Tesla motors
Have you looked at the price tag for a Tesla? The Model S is selling for US$59,500 and the Model X running with a US$5,000 reservation fee. That's in the luxury price range.
-
What about smaller cars? Or at least most of them being smaller?Sure you can do without 4 monster trucks.
I'd partially agree there.
Having a F150 lets me forgo renting an even bigger vehicle, and any time we're together I drive the car. So, the truck barely gets any miles, but it's still very necessary.
But I'd agree that a lot of people get towing packages and 4WD that don't need it.
But you can feel free to take it out of the private jetting to the global warming conference CO2 budget.
What about more remote jobs?
That's actually something I've jokingly said.
If Obama really cared about emissions, he'd make a law to get businesses to better support remote positions.
But, with remote positions comes distributed heating, cooling, and electricity costs, due to people staying home.
But I have to say.
At least you're starting to come up with rational ideas.
-
Any car sold in the USA is in the luxury range for me so I had no idea.
-
The Model S is selling for US$59,500 and the Model X running with a US$5,000 reservation fee. That's in the luxury price range.
Green energy consciousness is a luxury that they hoard from the plebs. The rest of us have our CO2-guilt to deal with, without any alternative.
And before you say, you can buy a green energy package from electric company, those can only support 5% of the population.
-
We have low emissions here too, and I have no idea what you americans do to emit so much co2.
Reason #1:
-
We need nuclear power plants at China.
-
Sure you can do without 4 monster trucks.
Sure, several of my friends have pickups, but a lot of them actually live on what we call horse property (property that's at least an acre, good for keeping horses if you know how). They have reason for owning pickups. As I drive into Phoenix, I see fewer large vehicles, and more sedans.
Mine can be filled with ethanol too (but I put gasoline anyway).
At least here in Arizona, all gasoline is at least 10% ethanol.
TBH, the larger difference in cars here is that a large portion of the population has none and has to suffer going in a bus crowded like a sardine can. But you wouldn't adapt to that.
Of course not. The transit here in Phoenix is terrible, and it doesn't even come anywhere close to where I live, so it isn't really an option.
What about more remote jobs?
That's up to the employers. But no matter how you work it, there are still many jobs that can't be done remotely.
Any car sold in the USA is in the luxury range for me so I had no idea.
My '12 Toyota Sienna cost ~US$30k brand new, my '07 Toyota Corolla cost ~US$19k brand new. Those are hardly luxury prices.
-
Americans change out their clothes more than Europeans.
I'm not sure what Europeans do when they have more than 2 children.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Those are hardly luxury prices.
Here they are sold as that. Common cars here are sold brand new for 10k, normally in a 5 year loan.
-
-
Brazil is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy and the biofuel industry leader,[3][4][5][6] a policy model for other countries; and its sugarcane ethanol "the most successful alternative fuel to date."[7] However, some authors consider that the successful Brazilian ethanol model is sustainable only in Brazil due to its advanced agri-industrial technology and its enormous amount of arable land available;[7] while according to other authors it is a solution only for some countries in the tropical zone of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa.[8][9][10]
-
I am convinced enough that my current world view is correct to live my life according to it.
And can't imagine anyone who thinks differently, eh?
-
I'm amused by the reaction to modelling in the denier crowd.
Because they noticed that the models suck?
-
So don't give me this bullshit about "it's a quite simple equation", because it apparently isn't.
Nazis have to stick to their mantra that it's all simple physics or else they'll notice that their numbers don't add up when you look closely.
-
I don't get why Fox is so Nazi-like about putting Simpsons clips on YouTube.
-
18-wheelers must be behemoths that will godzilla rampage any bridge. Roomy enough to have a bed, it's almost evil.
-
And can't imagine anyone who thinks differently, eh?
I can. Are you saying my convictions are stronger than those of most religious people, then? Interesting.
-
Anyway, most of the emissions come from the industry, not individuals. So reducing individual fuel consumption is nice, but it won't be enough to significantly reduce emissions.
-
convictions are stronger than those of most religious people, then?
Not at all. Just that you approach them differently.
-
completely safe
That phrase is (usually) a marker of someone who has decided to overlook all the other types of hazard out there in favour of harping on about their favourite bugbear. No way of supplying power is completely safe. Life isn't completely safe.
-
-
But cows aren't fossil, they emit back co2 that was absorbed by their food, in a cycle
-
-
-
That phrase is (usually) a marker of someone who has decided to overlook all the other types of hazard out there in favour of harping on about their favourite bugbear.
In this case, I'm using it as a way of poking at people who claim that nuclear is a safe viable alternative to fossil fuels.
-
I converted to USD to make it simpler, its between 30000 and 40000 brl
-
In this case, I'm using it as a way of poking at people who claim that nuclear is a safe viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Safer than coal…
-
-
-
-
Sounds like it is a magical effect.
-
The only things that can withstand the heat of four suns coming out of a dragon's face are:
- any body part of a dragon, including butchered internal organs
- terrain, including wooden walls built by dwarves. grass and trees will burn, though.
- closed doors, for some reason
- water (
) - metal furniture, including non-fire-safe metals like tin
- anything standing slightly above or slightly below the dragon's target (dragonfire only spreads horizontally, not in a cone)
-
The only things that can withstand the heat of four suns coming out of a dragon's face are:
Heat and temperature aren't the same thing; heat is energy, temperature is a description of the statistical arrangement of thermal energy within the components of the heated thing. Might as well say that mass and weight are the same…
-
That one in the picture is my current manager. He gives me some task speaking in riddles, then immediately disappear, and noone can find him for help until the task is done. Then he appears and tell me how it was done wrong.
-
@abarker said:
In this case, I'm using it as a way of poking at people who claim that nuclear is a safe viable alternative to fossil fuels.
Safer than coal…
Based on? Both need mined fuel, which is generally a dangerous process. But with nuclear fuel, there's the additional processing and refining that needs to be done (if that's safe, then why bother wearing dosimeters while doing it?). Then of course, the risks of nuclear plants are well known. After the fuel is no longer useful, it needs to be stored so that it doesn't get into the ecological system, generally for periods much longer than can easily be comprehended by individual people So how is nuclear safer than coal?
-
So how is nuclear safer than coal?
You've listed the problems with nuclear correctly. Now list the problems with coal.
First big issue: far more needs to be mined per megawatt-hour of energy produced. That has a whole lot of problems right there.
Second big issue: coal actually has quite a lot of emissions. Even if we just consider the radioactives (not the only hazardous part of fly ash!) we get far more deaths due to coal than due to all nuclear power everywhere. We also get more deaths per megawatt-hour.
Coal is really dirty.
Then there's the fact that coal is a key component of a lot of CO2 releases. That might be the biggest issue of the lot.
-
The nuclear fuel is very little, and only affect those near it.
We use hydroelectric, that has it's own environmental costs. Its cheaper to produce than coal here, though.
Solar is worth it's price anyway. Wind turbines are bad for the birdies.
-
Isn't coal dust carcinogenic?
-
Indeed. http://publica.fraunhofer.de/dokumente/PX-7269.html
Though you'll note that other particulates are also not exactly healthy.
-
You've listed the problems with nuclear correctly.
Well, I did grow up around nuclear. :P
We also get more deaths per megawatt-hour.
I wonder if that's in part becase of greater public awareness about the dangers of nuclear leading to better regulation. (just a postulate)
-
I wonder if that's in part becase of greater public awareness about the dangers of nuclear leading to better regulation.
I suspect that's the case. There's clearly a need for close regulation of the nuclear industry given that when there's an accident it can be really problematic (we received some of the fallout from the Chernobyl accident, despite it being half a continent away — there was an unusual wind pattern) but when people start blathering about how nuclear is The Great Evil and stuff like that then we know they've lost sight of all sense of proportion. To misuse a quotation, there might be a mote in nuclear's eye, but there's some huge beams in some of the alternatives' eyes…
-
Then again, we also have the shenanigans they did about 10 km from where I'm sitting now where they put low- to medium-level radioactive waste into a former salt mine.
The rationale was: The salt mine is stable and dry and it's only low-to medium level radioactive waste.
Only that the fuckers didn't do any kind of legible bookkeeping so no one knows exactly what is down there (due to the non-existing checks they could have smuggled in spent rods from wherever), the salt mine is not dry and actually leaking (no one knows where the water is coming from and where it's going) and the kicker was their chosen disposal method:
Create a huge cavern with a hole in the ceiling and them simply dump everything down this hole. Cover with salt afterwards.
Genius.
