Wind and especially solar energy is too expensive and inefficient

>wind and especially solar energy is too expensive and inefficient
>nuclear is too expensive and risky
>hydroelectric is almost capped in most places
>even Germany will continue burning lignite coal until at least 2050
Is global CO2 reduction even possible?. Environmentalists hope we can decarbonize SOME western countries in the next few decades while the rest of the world continues to produce more carbon.

And this is not even mentioning other sources of CO2 like agriculture and deforestation The only way I think it can be done is drastic depopulation or shutting off most of the worldwide grid, which of course will never happen.

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/frances-nuclear-giant-areva-admits-to-400-irregularities-in-nucl/
keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/cheapsolarpower
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
skepticalscience.com/graphics/ChristyChart1024.gif
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>nuclear is too expensive and risky

But it's neither of those.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/frances-nuclear-giant-areva-admits-to-400-irregularities-in-nucl/
France has a bunch of old reactors that are having safety problems and to replace all of them would be an enormous cost. Pretty much every country who has them is seeing problems with meeting safety standards. And that really does not help public opinion either.

A lot of countries also have problems in dealing with nuclear waste.

It's a fear based meme mostly. Nuclear is held to unreasonable safety standards that are much stricter and demanding than any other industry, despite of it there's still fearmongering and the dangers are overhyped.

>Telegraph

Nice source, bro. Also this

Don't worry son. In Thailand over the past year 221 children died in hospital. The antibiotics REALLY are stopping working.

keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog/cheapsolarpower

Solar is getting fucking cheap. The above is from some dude who thought he proved that solar was shit, but just came out recently and said that he got BTFO. He says solar is gonna eat every other source of renewable power where it's sunny, and where it is not sunny we'll use nukes.


As far as nuclear goes, China's actually building nuke plants

yes

burn as much coal as posible, it will deplete quicker and the side effects, if any, will be far easier to notice

To be fair there's a lot of reasons to worry about nuclear waste past storing it. Personally, unless you have some retard working the plant or some company that just doesn't give a fuck, I find nuclear to be ok. It's not the best solution but it's better than many alternatives. The main problem being is what to do when the plants need to be replaced, as they have a pretty ok life span.

Back to the cost of solar is dropping retardly fast and the efficiency of solar is increasing at a rapid rate. At some point, rather in the not too distant future if it keeps on its current trends, there will be some sweet point in which it too expensive to use other sources of fuel over solar.

Also if someone figures out how the fuck to take excessive atmospheric Co2 and react it with basalt, in a cost efficient manner, they'll effectively stop climate change.

>unreasonable
I would not call preventing radiation unreasonable.

its 'possible' but the good thing is it isnt needed since global warming is bullshit

But muh consensus! 97% of climate scientists will lose their funding if they deny climate change. So climate change is a fact.

If you're not baiting, fuck off to

>especially solar energy is too expensive and inefficient
Stope reading there.

There's hope still. The Paris talks went pretty well, set up a good framework with goals that can be easily ratcheted up as they're met and could have completely dealt with global warming - if it had happened ten or twenty years ago.

There are bright spots - China has all but stopped approving future coal plants and built more renewable power than anyone else for the last couple of years. The number one coal giant, Peabody, went under recently - mainly because people are moving to gas and oil, but it's something at least. The low oil prices lately have been a mixed blessing, because it competes with both coal and renewables, but another upside is it's made new tar sands projects unviable for now so hopefully by the time oil prices hike back up to where they'd be economic, renewables will have outpaced them. Battery tech is chugging along, but more importantly recharging stations are gradually creeping in giving more support to electric car owners (also a mixed deal in the short term, but necessary and better in the long term).

The challenges aside from energy are agriculture and land use changes, and air and sea travel. The meat based diet of the Western world is unsustainable, especially if the developing world gets a taste for it. We cannot grow enough cows for everyone to have a big mac a week, let alone one (or more) a day - feed crops make up a third of all agricultural land, and space to grow them is often cut and burned out of rainforests and other CO2 sink-type landscapes, and cows also release huge amounts of methane, which is worse than CO2 in the short term. Textured vegetable/fungus/insect protein is the only way forward, with real meat a rare luxury. The other thing is holding sea and air transport to account, which currently they are not - people are going to have to do without the short, cheap flights that have become the norm.

Even then, we'll need CO2 capture to keep the temperature rise below 1.5-2 degrees - but it's still doable.

> Consensus = Truth!
fuck off to

It is real, it is happening, and the bubble that you're in is only going to keep getting thinner and thinner, until it just pops and you're literally forced to accept it.

I don't know what you're going to do then, if you're going blow your brains out, or just lose all will to even move out of the pile of your own shit you're sitting in.. but it's better just to accept it now, as difficult as that is for you.

You've been misled, you've been lied to. Hey, it happens to the best of us, move on.

Read up on Lysenko.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Irrelevant. That's not what's happening now. You would do well to stop listening to sources that are feeding you bunk. Believe me when I say you have nothing to show me that I haven't already seen, multiple times over, from other misinformed souls such as yourself.

It all comes from the same crock of shit, now doesn't it?

> Believe me when I say you have nothing to show me that I haven't already seen
> My fingers are stuck in my ears, my eyes are shut, and I am singing "la, la, la."
Yup, nothing but pure, unpoliticized science.

Climate change deniers and special Interest groups are the ones politicizing the science, that's why there are now so many morons that think they know better than the overwhelming majority of climate experts.

>supporting marxist globalist agendas like "climate change"/carbon controls

cultists who actually believe the "overwhelming majority of climate experts" memes are the ones who have politicized
And they are shilling for globalists/marxists that care nothing about science of the environment.

>anyone I don't agree with is a PINKO!!

Yep, we're all shilling for globalists. They pay us so well, too. We're almost as rich as all those scientists getting fat off all that delicious grant money. Hell, some of the climate scientists are probably approaching .01 percent of the wealth of an average oil company executive. So you know their rich.

Just follow the money, right? Cause all of the big money is with the climate scientists and others saying we need to stop destroying our environment.. that we live in. Greenpeace, that's where all the BIG $money$ IS.

No it's not. ALL of big money is on the denier's side, and you're a little guy backing up their agenda, then you are just a fool.

It isnt that wind, water and solar are too expensive. It is rather that coal and gas is so heavily subsidized by government entities that other forms can't compete.

Don't be naive.

>preventing radiation

Literally impossible.

Yea cuz "renewables", carbon trading or other green scams totally aren't massive economies
These scientists totally don't make their career pushing the climate change lie, right?

Thorium Reactors.

Build them on the sites of old reactors existing coal plants. Burn up all that old uranium fuel, reducing high level waste mass by over 90%. Enjoy reactor designs that are more inherently safe than any light water uranium reactor.

*old reactors AND existing coal plants

lol you guys are missing the big picture the solutions also involves using less energy, it is not solely a question of producing clean energy, there has to be a reduction in energy consumption.

and accomplish that with out lowering standards of living in the western/east asian world.

No, we are totally fucking fucked. Even if we discover the fucking holy grail of energy, it won't be used in places like Africa and most all of Asia. In the mean time, those countries are in their epoch of mass industrial expansion.

We have royally screwed the pooch. We are going to wipe ourselves off the planet and something else will evolve in a million years.

The best thing we can do is to find a way to preserve out knowledge and wisdom about how much we fucked up so the next smart thing to evolve won't make our mistakes right off the bat. Maybe laser etch it into the moon or some shit.

We will run out of minerals to make the panels with and run out of the energy needed to just make the panels in the first place. Liquid salt plants are the best best for solar.

This is 10,000% correct and this guy is a consumer whore who mines bitcoins and leaves his window open in the winter for fresh air while the heat is turned up.

Your standard is already horrifically shit and you don't even know it.

> This is 10,000% correct

Only if you're retarded. There is no need to lower energy consumption if energy can be produced cleanly. In fact as we as a species progress our energy consumption will almost certainly increase, we'll just produce energy in different ways.

My house is insulated well beyond standard. All my exterior doors have a second interior door a few feet from it. Making them effectively air/heat/cold locks. The curtains on my windows are insulated and on rails. So the heat has even harder time getting through the double pane windows. I keep the heat to 68 in the winter. The ac is set to 82 in the summer. I have a light colored roof. I drive an EV that I charge at night during off peak hours.

Why don't you deny the hole in the ozone layer?

Honestly, I don't even care about convincing those with their heads up the butts anymore. I think it's going to take a certain very obvious level of catastrophe happening before we say "Oh shit, we need to focus on fixing this NOW. It has to be the TOP priority for humanity."

And we'll get to that point, I have no doubt. There will still be deniers, of course, but by that point they will look so utterly ridiculous that no one will take them seriously.

Unfortunately for Humanity, by the time we get to that place, it may very well be too late to do anything at all about it, and there is a real possibility that life as we know it will end on Earth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
one existed in the 1960s in Oak Ridge for a short period of time, but lost funding

then the LFTRs(which are MSRs) came
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute

Thorium shows great promise and I wouldnt be surprised if it ends up being the main source of fuel in 50-100 years.
Most MSR designs use over 99% of their fuel. A LFTR's waste is safe within 350 years. To produce 1 gigawatt electricity for a year, takes 800kg to 1000kg of thorium or uranium/plutonium waste, meaning that not only can we use just thorium we can also use uranium and plutonium waste to power it, which we store insane amounts of inside caves and shit.

If everyone would just jump on the nuclear bandwagon instead of insisting that their inherently dangerous we would get so much further energy wise.
LFTRs wont melt down, unless an asteroid comes down to earth and hits it. They have freeze plugs on the inside which immediately stabilize any reaction that is happening, as opposed to most current reactors who take a long time to power down/stop the reaction.

France. Mostly nuclear and still fucking there. It's actually the best alternative option besides the renewable sources that are quickly becoming cheaper. We just need to ride it out on a combination of those until the development of a fusion reaction.

You have left wing idiots like Bill Maher saying Obama is winning the War on Coal. Which is why coal company profits are down and coal is being burned less.

When in reality it is fracking that that created such a glut of natural gas. That is is now significantly cheaper than coal. Natural Gas also burns a lot cleaner than coal and petroleum liquid fuels. which is how the USA has been able to reduce co2 and other emissions so much in the 21st century.

Yet total fucking denial of the fracking gas and the fall of coal.

People like him also think all nuclear is bad. Simply because of the only to notable civilian reactor incidents ever, in 70 years. Chernobyl and Fukushima both caused by a incompetence in safety management.

>Yet total fucking denial of the fracking gas and the fall of coal.

What did he deny exactly?

your claims are based off of modern technology. Computers used to be incredibly bulky and inefficient, now look at them. I'd like to think the same could be accomplished with our methods of harnessing energy.

that fracking has made natural gas cheap to replace coal. which is why coal mines are losing money and shutting down.

a reoccurring guest told him this not like two weeks ago. yet maher just keeps on going on about how it is Obama killing coal.

But where's the denial?

Burning natural gas is cleaner than oil or gasoline, and it emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion. But not all shale gas makes it to the fuel tank or power plant. The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas. At least one scientist, Robert Howarth at Cornell University, has calculated that methane losses could be as high as 8 percent. Industry officials concede that they could be losing anywhere between 1 and 3 percent. Some of those leaks can be prevented by aggressively sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads. But there's another upstream factor to consider: Drilling is an energy-intensive business. It relies on diesel engines and generators running around the clock to power rigs, and heavy trucks making hundreds of trips to drill sites before a well is completed. Those in the industry say there's a solution at hand to lower emissions—using natural gas itself to power the process. So far, however, few companies have done that.
Source:
Matt Nager/The New York Times/Redux

>The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas.

has anyone considered living with elevated levels of co2? why is this never discussed? changes need to be made either way, i'd rather not fuck over industry for unvalidated endgame projections.

Nuclear is not too expensive, and it's definitely not too risky. The problems are all appearance.

>Is global CO2 reduction even possible?.

No. Embrace carbon. It's going to be around for a while.

And during that period, we really need to invest in fusion research. Really large sums. Like 1% GDP. In the end we'll probably end up with a fusion fission hybrid, which will be better than anything we had so far, lower energy costs and bring back rapid growth.

-Seconded.

Also I like the idea of solar (fossil fuels being just a round-about solar energy storage medium), but it's too expensive/inefficient as it is.

coal mining is infinitely worse.

coal ash and particulate emission is radioactive.

hundreds of people die every year in coal mining accidents.

Nuclear is less than ideal, but it's still a hell of a lot better than coal/fossil fuels. Ideal would 100% renewable energy, of course.

It is discussed, and it's exactly what we will do in some of the medium future cases. The financial and human misery cost will still be immense in such scenarios. In the more extreme scenarios, the planet will literally become too hot to sustain life, so there won't be any living with it.

...

The future may be like soylent green.
>overpopulation
>poor, vegan diets
>recklessly out of control governments
>frequent assisted suicides

When coal is mined, its uranium and thorium levels are completely negligible to say the least. But when these elements are just 10 times concentrated in coal ash, suddenly it is deadly and abhorrent.

>When coal is mined, its uranium and thorium levels are completely negligible to say the least. But when these elements are just 10 times concentrated in coal ash, suddenly it is deadly and abhorrent.
I don't think it's about concentration per se but more the fact that radioactive coal doesn't pose a risk to anyone who's not handling coal
Coal ash disperses in the atmosphere and is inhaled by everyone even remotely nearby.

Its complete speculation.

The leap in deadliness from one concentration to ten times that concentration is ridiculous. You can completely and entirely ignore the radioactive effects of coal. The radiation doesnt effect people exposed
So why is a simple ten times concentration suddenly a public health concern?

Natty gas

>So why is a simple ten times concentration suddenly a public health concern?

Drink 10 times as much water as you normally do. Water is harmless right? Why should 10 times more of it be harmful?

>every country with nuclear power has
>problems in dealing with nuclear waste
FTFY

are you suggesting the renewable energy lobbyists are larger than the fossil fuel lobbyists?

One cup of water is good for you.
Ten cups of water is good for you.

Are you suggesting multinational corporations like GE that produce wind turbines are small family businesses with no lobbying capacity?

Drinking 2 L of water a day is good. Drinking 20 L of water a day can kill you.

because coal power plants leave huge piles of radioactive ash outside. putting people who live near it at higher than normal risk.

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

Oh boy, it's THIS thread again.

nuclear sure is expensive, but newer reactor designs are so much safer...but we're stuck with the old reactors because the goddamn NIMBYs don't want any new reactors built, even though it would reduce overall risk.

>overwhelming body of evidence = a few guys' opinions!
even your infallible prophet admits that "we" referred to developed nations, not the IPCC
>wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
deniers just can't post without lying, huh?

>
>>overwhelming body of evidence = a few guys' opinions!
>We ignore our failed predictions and pretend they never happened.
ftfy
Look at this graph of all your failed predictions.
Source: Source: Dr. John R. Christy, the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

>nb4 Schmidt and Nutter.
Completely debunked, Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>
>even your infallible prophet admits that "we" referred to developed nations, not the IPCC
>>wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
>deniers just can't post without lying, huh?
>Hurr durr its an evil lie made up by evil deniers WattsUpWithThat.

Butt hurt warmists can't handle the truth. Here's the actual site and translation:
"Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

>wind and especially solar energy is too expensive and inefficient
>nuclear is too expensive and risky
"Too"? You are making all this criteria up.

>Nuclear is too risky

Not really, it's safe as long as it's under control.

In regards to that image, just because they did not say CO2 causes global warming, doesn't meant they said CO2 doesn't cause it

PINATUBO
INATUBO
NATUBO
ATUBO
TUBO
UBO
BO
O

(also, nice repetition of the "tropospheric hot spot" meme. you know that only deniers think that the tropospheric hot spot is some sort of guaranteed fingerprint of manmade warming, right?)
>skepticalscience.com/graphics/ChristyChart1024.gif
>hurr durr I said the critique of this graph is wrong, therefore the critique is wrong and my graph is right.
>hurr durr simpletonscience, evil warmist graph

first off, I referenced LOLWUWT as evidence IN FAVOR of my point, you imbecile. your own favorite "evil denier site" backs me up here! now see this quote from your own linked translation, retard:
>First of all, we have industrialized countries the atmosphere of the world community quasi expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute by the climate policy de facto the world assets to.
defines "we" as "industrialized countries" in the first sentence, and uses it again in the second with nothing intervening to suggest that it refers to anything BUT said countries.

as for your tired old meme image, 97% of papers that took a position said that AGW is a thing. your guy arrived at the 99.7% figure by counting in all the papers that have nothing to do with climate change and therefore don't say anything one way or the other.
it's like claiming that science rejects evolution because most biology papers don't explicitly say that evolution happens.