Sincerely, the kids from the future.
Would you prefer to inherit an industrial civilization or a pristine planet? Because you can't have both.
Except that as a practical matter coal will never run out.
As a practical matter coal's already running out. US is past peak coal energy extraction. And since we're also hitting peak oil, judging by oil prices, demand for coal will only increase for making both electricity and synthethic fuels, causing it to run out even faster.
Until that happens you company is doomed to failure.
It's not your company, but it's certainly doomed to failure if any part of your strategy takes in any way into account how much of a "pussy" a random Anonymous Coward thinks you are.
And then we are at exactly the problem people were already complaining about in the 1960: the militarization of the energy utilities, or the military-industrial complex.
Any energy source or storage method powerful enough to power an industrial society is powerful enough to wreak havoc, thus this problem is unsolvable. Energy isn't capable of distinguishing between benevolent and malevolent purposes, after all.
The reactor operators can't just leave this mindbogglingly-radioactive boiling-hot slurry in those tanks, they have to clean it up.
Why, exactly speaking, can't they leave the slurry in a tank? How do you think various substances are usually stored?
In any case, if they do want to move it to another container, the obvious solution is to simply pump it out.
Well, start with the conservation status of the birds. Both species are rated as "Least Concern" -- which means no identifiable conservation issues.
In the 1950s there were only 412 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the US, due to hunting and DDT. By 1995 they were taken off the endangered lists, and five years ago they were taken off the "threatened" list. By now there are nearly ten thousand breeding pairs in the lower 48. Half of US states have at least 100 breeding pairs.
From an environmental viewpoint it's quite reasonable to stop treating an occasional accidental bald eagle death as some kind of serious event. For healthy population, an individual removed is room for another individual, just as with reasonable levels of deer hunting. Emitting more carbon in order to stop a handful of eagle accidents makes no sense at all.
Exactly, it's more the hundreds of billions of dollars of liability insurance that puts people of experimenting with nuclear.
Indeed, it's better to experiment with a form of power generation that's allowed to externalize its costs, which would be all the rest of them. Build a nuclear plant, and you actually have to pay for all potential problems; build a windmill, and someone else gets to pay for backup power. And choke on smog, for that matter, since "backup power" means coal, at least until it runs out, at which point it means rolling blackouts.
Oh well, the anti-nuclear lobby won, but at least none of us will be needing heating soon anymore. We'll be sitting in the dark, but won't freeze. So there's that.
If most people come to the conclusion that Bitcoin is too volatile for them to complete monetary transactions with, they effectively become beanie babies. The value becomes zilch and everyone who holds Bitcoin when that happens walks away with nothing. Sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme to me.
So anything that involves risk is a Ponzi scheme now?
If you set up inside a city fiber ring and made BTC exchanges and *also* mined BTC blockschain solutions you could game out the transactions and network traffic so that **your BTC** solution was always the first available to the network because it is the closest geographically and by network topology!
So how do you get **your BTC** solution? Because you still have to actually calculate it, which takes hours to weeks, at which point the main chain has had many other blocks added (one every 10 minutes, on average).
If there's a tie, you have the next solution ready to break the tie and get the BTC reward!!!!
Except you can't "store" solved blocks, since they refer to the previous block, and changing that reference changes the solution in ways that force you to re-solve from the beginning.
There is no way to have a mutual, simultaneous exchange of goods/services/payment that doesn't allow fraud on at least one side.
Sure there is: both sides arrange a meeting to do the exchange, and carry an armed handgrenade with them. If their grip slackens, for example because a sniper shot them, the grenade goes off, kills both parties and destroys the goods/money.
It's just too much trouble to bother for most transactions.
I'm as green as anyone, but lordy that was some one-sided summary Hugh.
Can I at least ask for some other numbers, such as the number of bird kills resulting from pollutants dumped out by the big coal fired plants in Ohio?
Your question makes your assertion incorrect: a typical "green" person doesn't think in terms of "best alternative", but simply opposes whatever is being done since it will inevitably have some consequences. Can't build coal plants, they pollute; can't build nuclear, it leaves radiactive waste; can't build dams, they drown habitats; can't built wind farms, they kill (blind) birds. Dunno what the excuse for solar will be, but I'd wager the sheer amount of land covered. Heck, Greenpeace has already declared they're going to be opposing fusion, should it ever become viable, since it's still nuclear.
The green movement is all about reacting, and usually pretty irrationally at that. It's the worst enemy of actually protecting environment. Imagine, for example, if the anti-nuclear sentiment had never existed: we'd have Gen-IV reactors rather than fossil fuels powering the grid, and the resulting cheap reliable electricity would be simultaneously driving both an economic boom and adoption of electric cars, and the resulting investment in battery tech would in turn make renewables viable in areas too risky for nuclear. But it did, so we have the double-whammy of expensive energy and climate change hammering our economy at the same time instead, with the predictable result of failing to do much of anything about either. Thanks, Greenpeace.
While it is true that corporations act in their own interests, they simply cannot act without someone actually acting.
True, but the same is also true for you. You can't act without your neurons firing, your muscle cells contracting, your glands secreting hormones etc. all on your behalf. Every single one of your cells is a functional unit and has its own independent life; that can have rather nasty consequences in some circumstances (cancer etc.). "Sumdumass" is basically a colony organism, in other words, an organisation.
This is why referring to a corporation as an entity is proper in some respects but when it violates a law, it is actually those inside it that violate the law.
True, because unlike your individual neural cells you do have the capacity to comprehend the concept of law. However, the culture of an organization absolutely affects the likelihood of this. Just compare, say, Red Cross and Mafia.
No corporation can exist if it's policy is to violate the law or to cause a person's death (unless you are some kind of mercenary or something).
Or the Mafia, or the CIA/MI6/whatever. It's just that those organizations which don't behave tend to be hunted down by those who do (or are bigger and stronger, in the case of government and its servant organizations).
If a corporation does something and people die, it is people inside the corporation that did something and people died.
True, but then again, that action can be further traced to individual neurons firing inside their brains.
Well for a real frozen time effect you need the LHC - time passes over 14,000 times slower for the protons in it than it does for us. Although it is a little bit less interesting on film given that the protons don;t really do much!
Which reminds us: where are all the "LHC creates a quantum magic black hole and a hundred Arnold Schwarzeneggers from alternative realities must band together to terminate it" -themed disaster movies? Mayan apocalypse/calendar rollover has been used up, but the LHC is busily recreating Big Bang. You'd even have a ready-made excuse for any plot holes: "The LHC is distorting the time-space continuum! It's causing ripple effects!".
Just think about it: Conan the Barbarian, T-800 and the ex-governor of California all teaming together to fight an evil black hole!
Models work from assumptions. The assumptions you put into them don't have to be plausible; a model simply spits out the consequences of the initial conditions you choose. Thus you could start a simulation of the Earth which started with the tropical seas being frozen and the polar seas being at 38 C. Those initial conditions are impossible, but the computer program will faithfully spit out *some* kind of result.