91–97 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remove the mandatory bribe quota first and the politicians will follow.
Mandatory bribe quota?
If you chop out the euphemisms and rationalization, it's a mandatory bribe quota.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway[1]. So it's better to break it down to CO2 immediately to avoid the stronger greenhouse effect of methane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_si...
Your link suggests your assertion "For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway" is just plain incorrect. In the atmosphere, methane becomes -CH3 (- used for dot because I don't know how to do that), the free radical eventually forms formaldehyde. Methanotropic soil bacteria can break down methane to CO2, but there is nothing to support your assertion that most of the ways methane breaks…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mandatory bribe quota?
You need X amount of money to run a campaign and you get money primarily by accepting campaign contributions from completely charitable wealthy donors and interest groups whose objectives just happen to align with your political ideology. If you chop out the euphemisms and rationalization, it's a mandatory bribe quota.
In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]) of all methods of electricity production. But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still looking a…
> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1] I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear. Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar. I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the…
Practically they are also very different. For one, the types of radiation you'd worry about at a plant penetrate more than just your skin. With solar, you can wear long sleeves, a hat, gloves and maybe some sunscreen on your face and you are very, very protected. To get the same kind of assurance in a nuclear plant you need significant infrastructure (or a lead suit).
You are spreading misinformation on the internet, and this is not good. Please don't do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1] I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear. Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar. I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the…
"Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar." Practically they are also very different. For one, the types of radiation you'd worry about at a plant penetrate more than just your skin. With solar, you can wear long sleeves, a hat, gloves and maybe some sunscreen on your face and you are very, very protected. To get the same kind of assurance in a nuclear plant you need significan…
Statistically, I have met people who will die of skin cancer caused by sunlight. Including quite possibly my grandfather.
Sure, you can say the blame lies with them, but the fact is that there are mountains of evidence that we don't manage ambient sunlight to a standard that would be acceptable in an industrial setting.
> You are spreading misinformation on the internet, and this is not good. Please don't do that.
No, I'm pointing out that people are irrational when it comes to radiation risk. In practice, it is completely plausible that a normally operating solar plant is more carcinogenic than a normally operating nuclear plant. Given how rare nuclear distasters are, and how overblown the responses are [1], it is even plausible that they are more carcinogenic than a failed nuclear plant in the modern era.
The risk of both solar and nuclear are low in practical terms.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b18...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need X amount of money to run a campaign and you get money primarily by accepting campaign contributions from completely charitable wealthy donors and interest groups whose objectives just happen to align with your political ideology. If you chop out the euphemisms and rationalization, it's a mandatory bribe quota.
What is the order of magnitude of X?
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?cycle=2018&di...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The global "energy" crisis is only an oil crisis. I don't see much crisis going on with solar, efficiency improvements, or even coal and gas...
An oil crisis is an energy crisis. Half the energy used in the US comes from either Petroleum or Natural Gas. Look up how much of it is solar. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/
Natural gas 409,806GWh
Wind 104,801GWh
Wind is significant.
https://renewablesnow.com/news/wind-solar-farms-produce-10-o...