Are you saying its going to change at this point because of the huge amount of co2 (and other gases) that we've already emitted, or its changing regardless of what humans do and we are a non factor? I guess there's a difference between saying AGW is just false (second option) and saying we're fucked anyway why bother (first option).
Oh I believe in AGW for sure. So the second, though I don't really believe the long term models that show us being completely fucked. Its just you have to realize the USs share of emissions is falling and will continue to fall so as time goes on even huge moves by us alone wont have much effect. So I think when we talk about reducing CO2 in the US we should be conscious of the costs of that reduction and really look at whether a probably small reduction in CO2 emissions, which might not even cause a measurable slowing in the warming trend, are worth the costs to industry, especially when our industry isn't exactly doing well to begin with.
Well, ok. I think any change would need to be implemented worldwide, not necessarily all at once. We can't sit here and say "well China isn't doing it, so why should we?" Someone has to be first. I agree the US share of co2 emissions is dropping, but that doesn't mean that our emissions are no issue.
I would imagine so, Iceland seems like a perfect place for Geothermal with all of those volcanoes.
As others have said, some are being built (Fast breeders and also, modern "light waters"--which arenotmetal/sodium reactors BUT do rely on passive, rather than active, shut downs--so power goes out, they shut down, rather than just getting hotter--no need for back ups). A couple of "fast" reactors have already been used in the U.S. and worked well, but were too expensive; the research into "Gen 4's" though is being done by all countries and looks pretty awesome, but it's difficult to build prototypes due to the protestors. France for example, had two prototype fast breeders online for a while--one 140MW and one 1200. But one of them was attacked by an RPG; and the government eventually capitulated and shut them down due to political reasons. But, long and short is that this type of technology has been used and built. The main hurdle is the massive initial investment cost. And that's because Nuclears biggest flaw is that it's RoI horizon is very, very long. You're going to be waiting years before you start seeing returns.
That whole imgur is a great read and shots, that's such a massive plant.
Yeah because radioactive Uranium isnt mined, enriched by heavy usage of water and other chemicals, and transported to the nulear plants. It simply drops from heaven where we happen to need it.
Out of site out of mind. The same reason these guys think its a good idea to drive US production overseas with high taxes on emissions that only might harm someone indirectly a century from now, and don't understand that in many cases it won't be efficient american factories replacing the coal based production but even more inefficient south east asian factories.
It'll be a shitload of electricity generated in one highly compact area. The U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change published this info-graphic but eventually took it down out of pressure from green groups and lobbies.
Obviously Uranium or thorium has to be mined as well. Nuclear power stations of 1000 megawatt electrical generation capacity require around 200 tons of uranium per year.
