

IPCC's chairman under pressure to step down after embarrassing retraction












Comments     Threshold


RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 11:26:01 AM , Rating: 4
HellOOOO McFly! You've forgotten the distinction between reducing CO2, and reducing CO2 emissions. Two different animals.

"Unfortunately, it's China and India that are expected to prosper the most from their advances in green technology, not the U.S"

China and India are both building coal and nuclear power plants like mad, while the US wastes hundreds of billions on the wind/solar boondoggle.

Standard of living is a function of energy the society produces. The industrial revolution brought about the first massive increase, when we replaced muscle power with steam power. The coal&oil age brought another increase. We were allset for the third major transition with nuclear power...then the enviros shut down the technology for 30 years.

Luckily, the Chinese are smarter than we are. They're building an average of 2 new nuke plants a year for the next 40 years.

RE: Why stop?
By jiminmpls on 1/26/2010 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
China is buidling wind power even faster than nuclear. By 2020, China's nuclear capacity will be 60GW, but their wind power capacity will be 100 GW.

Even with the nuclear expansion, China will only be producing 14% of their electricity with nuclear, vs 20% in the USA.

RE: Why stop?
By porkpie on 1/26/2010 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 3
That report is based of one Chinese official's offhand comments. I'll believe it when I see it. The cold hard facts are that right now, China produces nearly 3X as much power via nuclear as wind, and they have the world's most aggressive schedule for building new nuke plants. The project for 2030 is for 250GW of installed nuclear capacity.

RE: Why stop?
By steven975 on 1/26/2010 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 4
Are those stated output figures Maximum or Typical?

Wind/Solar advocates usually only quote Maximum, as those are the numbers that sell public policy. Typical is on the order of 20% of maxiumum. It is also known as the "availability factor". Solar (PV) is usually 18-19%. Solar (thermal) is just over 20%. Wind is usually around 20% but it varies greatly by location. Putting a large windmill capable of generating 200KW will generate 0W if there is no wind!

Assuming what you stated is Maximum, Typical output from nuclear will be almost 3x that of wind.

RE: Why stop?
By General Disturbance on 1/26/2010 3:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
But you must also realize that Solar power is morally and intellectually degenerate, just like all the rest of green fascism.
The technological advances from using trees for energy, to coal, oil, gas, nuclear etc, proves that as man advances, he requires LESS biospheric energy to survive. An ounce of plutonium gives the energy of millions of trees - and those trees get to keep living. At the same time, the biosphere does not use coal, oil, gas, or nuclear fuels in ANY life processes. Man produces and subsides on energy totally independent of the biosphere - aside from eating food, of course, which I would grant is acceptable to most moral human beings.
Solar power, being much less than environmentally friendly, is actually one of the MOST biospherically destructive "technologies". The entire biosphere depends on solar energy. And the naive environmentalist thinks that it's a good idea to take that energy AWAY from the biosphere, not caring that you weight the atmospheric system further to ice-age conditions, which is really bad for life and the biosphere as a whole. And in using solar energy you choose an energy source as dense, essentially, as tree energy, instead of growing trees where those solar panels are, and allow life to flourish there, and use plutonium which is millions of times more energy dense and efficient.

Solar power is WRONG. It is wrong intellectually, it is wrong morally. The informed environmentalist realizes advanced energy technology is all about ENERGY FLUX DENSITY. Solar and wind are millions of times less dense, and hence less efficient, than nuclear and gas, etc.

RE: Why stop?



And yes, hardcore enviros do believe this tripe.

RE: Why stop?
RE: Why stop?

This is a joke, right?

RE: Why stop?
Actually it isn't.


RE: Why stop?


RE: Why stop?

RE: Why stop?

RE: Why stop?


RE: Why stop?


RE: Why stop?

RE: Why stop?
Holy Crap!!!!!!

His post rating is a .03

RE: Why stop?



RE: Why stop?

