@Metal-Brain
But the cost of coal does not seem to be taking into effect the added CO2 to the atmosphere which I suppose you discount as meaningful.
@sonhouse saidCorrect.
@Metal-Brain
But the cost of coal does not seem to be taking into effect the added CO2 to the atmosphere which I suppose you discount as meaningful.
I thought you accepted that on the sea level rise thread. Are you being indecisive? You had every chance to prove your case there and you have not.
CO2 is a plant nutrient. More of it in our atmosphere is one of the best things to happen to our CO2 starved planet. 0.026% is such a small amount you are foolish for thinking it makes much difference in temps.
You already know methane is a far worse threat pound for pound and rising temps will cause a positive feedback of methane production and hasten the loss of Greenland and Antarctica and glacier ice around the world.
The only good part about methane is it will poop itself out in a few hundred years, perhaps way too late for the fate of humanity.
CO2 AND methane will hasten all of that.
@sonhouse saidTalk is cheap and all you are doing is repeating gossip.
You already know methane is a far worse threat pound for pound and rising temps will cause a positive feedback of methane production and hasten the loss of Greenland and Antarctica and glacier ice around the world.
The only good part about methane is it will poop itself out in a few hundred years, perhaps way too late for the fate of humanity.
CO2 AND methane will hasten all of that.
Take it to the sea level rise thread. Make your case there.
@metal-brain saidSo in your mythology, the sea is not rising, and a hundred years hence, everyone will be A OK?
Talk is cheap and all you are doing is repeating gossip.
Take it to the sea level rise thread. Make your case there.
@metal-brain saidI don't understand why you keep posting more links without any context or quotations. What are you referring to in the 57 page report you posted earlier that made you think that coal was cheaper than nuclear? It didn't say that.
That is assuming the cost of the nuclear power plant does not go over budget. They always do. That was the whole point of the article I posted. Your article was based on estimates and estimates are often very wrong. There is a reason most electricity is generated by coal and NG. It isn't a mistake.
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/
The only way to accurately compare cost is to levelize it over time. Remove the coal subsidies. Add in the high cost of coal as a fuel source, relative to nuclear. The reports I showed used actual project costs, actual fuel costs (not over budget as you claim) If the fuel is cheaper, the initial capital investment is worth it.
@wildgrass saidhttps://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/
I don't understand why you keep posting more links without any context or quotations. What are you referring to in the 57 page report you posted earlier that made you think that coal was cheaper than nuclear? It didn't say that.
The only way to accurately compare cost is to levelize it over time. Remove the coal subsidies. Add in the high cost of coal as a fuel source, r ...[text shortened]... s (not over budget as you claim) If the fuel is cheaper, the initial capital investment is worth it.
@Metal-Brain
Funny, that coincides with the rise of human industrialization. And it is not the sea rise 100 years ago that is the problem, it is the ACCELERATING of the rise in the last 100 years that is the problem, but no problem for you, I can only assume you sit high and mighty in Michigan or wherever, away from coastal regions so you personally have no stake in the sea rise.
When the shyte hits the fan somewhere in the next few decades, you will just rest your biased butt on your homestead and laugh at all those people in coastal communities around the planet.
@sonhouse saidYou are on the wrong thread.
@Metal-Brain
Funny, that coincides with the rise of human industrialization. And it is not the sea rise 100 years ago that is the problem, it is the ACCELERATING of the rise in the last 100 years that is the problem, but no problem for you, I can only assume you sit high and mighty in Michigan or wherever, away from coastal regions so you personally have no stake in the sea ...[text shortened]... iased butt on your homestead and laugh at all those people in coastal communities around the planet.
You can explain why CO2 levels were high enough over 100 years ago on the seal level rise thread. Be sure to explain the acceleration after 1880 but do it on the sea level rise thread. You are cluttering this one with unnecessary rants.
@metal-brain saidAt this point, based on the report you posted earlier, and the extremely detailed Lazard analysis, we know that nuclear energy is cheaper over time than coal. My guess as to the reason that coal has dominated the landscape of energy is because it's been propped up with subsidies, promoted by crooked politicians, and demanded by state lobbyists, while nuclear has been unfairly demonized for being "unsafe".
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/
Does the content of that link contradict the Lazard analysis and what you posted earlier showing nuclear is cheaper over time? Where and how?
@wildgrass saidSome nations use mostly nuclear power because they have a lack of fossil fuels like Japan. For a nation rich in fossil fuels like the US to go nuclear would be foolish. It would not be cost effective when you consider the storage of nuclear waste.
At this point, based on the report you posted earlier, and the extremely detailed Lazard analysis, we know that nuclear energy is cheaper over time than coal. My guess as to the reason that coal has dominated the landscape of energy is because it's been propped up with subsidies, promoted by crooked politicians, and demanded by state lobbyists, while nuclear has been unfair ...[text shortened]... the Lazard analysis and what you posted earlier showing nuclear is cheaper over time? Where and how?
Uranium should be conserved for future space travel. Our species is generally too primitive to waste uranium on energy production from heating water to run a turbine steam engine. Historians will look back and think we were morons.
@Metal-Brain
Now there are sequestering technologies making long term storage of spent nuclear fuel more of a viable option.
I wonder if thorium reactors will ever come on line, there are pro's and con's about that technology but one biggie is the inability to use the fuel in weapons.
@sonhouse saidSource?
@Metal-Brain
Now there are sequestering technologies making long term storage of spent nuclear fuel more of a viable option.
I wonder if thorium reactors will ever come on line, there are pro's and con's about that technology but one biggie is the inability to use the fuel in weapons.
@Metal-Brain
Sequestering nuclear waste?
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/palke2/
thorium reactors
http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/press-release/china-invests-big-in-clean-and-cheap-energy-from-thorium
Do you have a problem looking these things up for yourself, always wanting us to do your research for you....... That took AT LEAST 2 minutes.