Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:They can lower it all they want. It will not ma (Score 1) 431

by WindBourne (#49383057) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient
First, emissions per capita is a waste of a measurement. The vast majority of Emissions are NOT tied to ppl. They are tied to GDP. Basically, oil based vehicles combined with coal based electricity is where our emissions come from. What is the majority of vehicles used for? Moving ppl/cargo for business, not personal use. Likewise, where does the majority of electricity go? To Business.

Secondly, America's emissions are ALREADY BELOW WHAT WE HAD IN 1995. IOW, we have have been leading it. However, America is not even CLOSE to the high emissions. CHina is.
When you look at this map and see the MASSIVE AMOUNTS of CO2 from China, you should get a sense of how bad things are, and how foolish ppl like you are.

Third, you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I never said or even thought. I fully support a CO2 tax. In fact, I believe that ALL NATIONS need to be smart about this and put on a tax. Interestingly, America is the one major nation that can force ALL OTHER NATIONS ALONG VIA A SMART TAX:
1) all data should be based on REAL numbers, not the made up shit that your silly groups do based on ASSUMPTIONS and NUMBERS FROM GOV. So, we should take OCO2 data and show the CO2 that flows INTO and OUT of a region (basically nations/states). This would show us how much real CO2 is occurring.
2) we need a SMART normalization. Normalizing based on per capita is stupid and foolish. Instead, it should be emissions per $GDP (real $, not PPP). This is because emissions are tied to GDP, not ppl.
3) finally, we tax all goods at a high level. However, the good can be registered and told where the parts (including the final assembly) are from. The WORST part is the % of tax that is applied.

So, lets say that a good is manufactured in say Sweden. It has one of the LOWEST emissions / $GDP. As such, it would have NO TAX. OTOH, if a part comes from China, it would have a 100% of that tax on the good. However, lets say that the worst part comes from say Massachusetts (an American state). Since their emissions per GDP is below average (closer to sweden than to the rest of America, which is average), it would leave a tax of maybe 33-40% of the full rate.
What that does is reward those that bring down their emissions, while punishing those that continue to raise theirs. This is the ONLY way that we can solve this.

Until ppl like you realize that FACTS can not be denied and that science is real, emissions will continue. And I will blame ppl like you, instead of the far right wingers, since you acknowledge the science of AGW, but then turn around and totally ignore the facts associated with it.

Comment: Skip the station; Focus on the moon and mars (Score 1) 83

by WindBourne (#49379301) Attached to: NASA Denies New Space Station Partnership With Russia
Seriously, the ISS group needs to skip a new station and allow private space to take that on.

Instead, the ISS group should focus on getting a base on the Moon and then on Mars. Private Space will be going to the moon around 2020-2022. Europe, Japan, Canada, Russia, etc should join the private space and push to create the side infrastructure that can be used on the moon. In particular, robotics, nuclear power, etc.

Comment: To not use Nuclear is foolish (Score 1) 210

by WindBourne (#49379221) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash
We have old gen II reactors that are being extended, but really should not be. However, there is NO replacement for them.
In addition, there is loads of spent fuel not only at these sites, but others that have been retired.

With transatomic and other companies molten salt approach, we can not only create a reactor that is INCAPABLE OF FAILURE (unless a number of physical LAWS are not true), but, these can burn up the majority of the 'spent fuel'. What will remain will be only 5-10% of the original volume, and will be safe in under 200 years.
Even once we build these (and we will), at some future point, AE combined with FUSION power, will likely become very viable. BUT, it is still better to run these fission reactors to process the 'waste' and turn it safer.

Comment: Re:He's just trolling (Score 1) 210

by WindBourne (#49379163) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

The trouble with nuclear, at least in America, is that it's damn near impossible to keep it safe.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth WRT new reactors. In POF, TransAtomic's molten salt reactor is impossible to melt down. Just like pebble reactors, heat makes the fuel become self-regulating.

In fact, the SMARTEST thing that America can do, is push for multiple companies to develop these and replace the OLD reactors with these new ones. They can use the spent fuel that is simply sitting on-site and burn it for the next 100 years. Likewise, we can use new thorium reactors to replace coal plants, rather than switching to nat gas.

Comment: Re:led costs $22????? (Score 1) 168

by WindBourne (#49377343) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
why? What does it matter how big my house is? The house that I grew up in for about a decade was 7000 sq feet, that we built back in early 70s. In addition, it was built such that the specs still remain above what is called for today.
And at my current house, we have 43 solar panels so that we generate not just our electricity, but for others.
So, what the fuck do you care since I am obviously more of an environmentalist than you are?

Comment: Re:They can lower it all they want. It will not ma (Score 1) 431

by WindBourne (#49377277) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient
LOL.
First off, the US's output has been dropping for 7 years. Likewise, the west's total output has gone down over the last 10 years, not up. So, the BS about the west not making differences is just that: BS.

Secondly, China's claim is also BS.
Here is the CO2 levels
It took the west from 1959 until 1995 to grow it by 40 PPMs. IOW, it took 36 years to raise it 40, or basically, about 1 PPM / year.
Now, what has happened in the last 20 years? Well, it jumped up by 40 again, which means that we are adding 2 ppm EACH YEAR. However, for the last 5 years, it has increased nearly 3 ppm / year.
The problem is, that the west has cut WAY BACK. ALL OF IT is 1995's level which means that we account for less than 1 ppm (that 1 ppm in 1995, actually included all of the world, but we will simply assume that it was the west).
So, where is the other 2 PPMs coming from? It is coming from the none-western world, of which more than 2/3 of that emissions is China's.

Now, you can continue to make wild claims. You can accept the lies of China's. However, you can NOT change the facts that CO2's massive rise belongs to China, and it is the fact that ppl like yourself do not understand the science or the facts that are happening. Basically, you are no different than the far right wingers that claim that AGW is not occurring. In your case, you refuse to accept the science that shows that the west is not only NOT to blame, but that China's continued growth means that YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CO2's impact on the globe.

Comment: They can lower it all they want. It will not matte (Score 1) 431

by WindBourne (#49368163) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient
The reason is that the liberals in the west are allowing all other nations, ESP. CHINA, to continue growing their emissions. Even if America went to ZERO EMISSIONS TODAY, it would not change anything.

The ONLY way to solve this is to have ALL NATIONS STOP growing their emissions, and esp. stop building new coal plants.

Comment: Re:led costs $22????? (Score 1) 168

by WindBourne (#49365037) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
exactly right. I have not changed a burned out bulb in over a year. As I wrote elsewhere, we have less than 12 bulbs that are NOT LEDs and these are not changed due to economics (not on long enough / week to justify it). I will replace them down the road when they burn out.

But for a business, the costs of replacing bulbs can be ENORMOUS. In fact, higher than the costs of the bulbs. But by going to DECENT LEDs, you will get at least a decade. Even the cheap ones (pretty much everything that does not have a Cree or Philip LED) will normally last 2-3 years.

I will say that I bought 1 from Lights of America and another from GE about 5 years ago. Both burned out in less than 1 year. I was NOT impressed. In addition, both burned me on the warrenties. Not impressed.

Comment: Re:led costs $22????? (Score 1) 168

by WindBourne (#49364993) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
No, these are NOT subsidized. In fact, while the GOP (along with the dems) subsidize LOADS of things, they would not subsidize LED bulbs, esp. ones produced in America. The GOP and the tea baggers would rather send manufacturing out of the nation, unless it is 100% on their terms (no taxes, no regulations, no corporate responsibilities).

Comment: Re:led costs $22????? (Score 1) 168

by WindBourne (#49364973) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
First off, we switched our 3300 sq ft house to these over a year ago (I have less than 12 bulbs in the house that are not LEDs, but can not justify these economically since they do not burn a great deal). Have not lost a 1. They are holding up GREAT. In addition, we have seen our electric costs PLUMMET (which xcell hates since we have solar city ).

In addition, I know for a fact that these rarely come back to Home Depot. I have asked at several THD and what I found out was that the ones that fail are in much older homes (from 50s and before), or very cheap ones from before the 90s.

Comment: led costs $22????? (Score 2) 168

by WindBourne (#49363587) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon
The best 3 bulbs out there are Cree and then Philips. Cree has the BEST LED by far, along with the best electronics including the driver. That is why they warranty their bulbs for 10 years. OTOH, Philips does 2,3 and a few for 5. Then you have the cheap chinese junk for 1-3 years, which will not last 12 months and the warranties are worthless.

However, the Crees 65 w A19 bulb goes for $6.97 at Home Depot. These will last decades, unless you burn then 24x7.

And this new graphene LED bulbs will compete HOW?

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis

Working...