(That could be better or worse, of course...)
No need to. In terms of safety the biggest catastrophe with the largest kill count and biggest population displacement was wonderful green hydroelectric dams.
That is why there are so many people afraid of hydroelectric dams! Oh wait... Aren't they?
No one is hiding nuclear from renewables using coal. Renewables is not the answer due to their inherent lack of baseload, so you compare nuclear to any other baseload system. Coal just happens to be the most popular and also a natural fallback for when
You are wrong (from Wikipedia):
" Among the renewable energy sources, hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas, biomass, solar thermal with storage and ocean thermal energy conversion can provide baseload power."
Renewable energy sources can provide baseload and, right now, coal just happens to be the most popular because things are rigged to make others pay the real price of using it. Again, don't hide the nuclear problems comparing it to coal.
A coal plant, working absolutely perfectly according to its design parameters, will cause much more environmental and health damage than even a "catastrophic" nuclear failure. So no, it's not a technical issue. It's an emotional issue.
Why is that, in every discussion about renewable sources (hydro, wind, solar), the pro nuclear crowd has to bring the coal, only to try to make nuclear look better?
Those pushing for renewable sources also don't like coal, so don't hide the nuclear problems with the coal problems.
Our brains were made for the 4 F's: fighting, fleeing, foraging and reproducing.
Reproducing doesn't start with F. Whatever could the fourth F be?
How many times do you generally read a novel you purchase? The minor risk that I won't be able to re-read a book some years from now because Amazon has folded or otherwise stopped honoring my purchase is an easy price to pay for the convenience. I enjoy the look of a well stocked home library as much as the next guy, but why really hoard stacks of books you will never open again?
There are other uses for the books. I regularly lend, to friends, some dead tree books that I bought more than ten years ago. Many were bought from Amazon...
Usually, sheer inertia will drive the majority your way, specially if anyone can correct a few pet configuration options. If you say "my way or the highway", guess what, many will hit the highway in search of a better environment.
A CNC machine? That's olden-days talk for a 3D printer, right?
The mentioned CNC machine uses subtractive logic while the 3D printer uses additive logic.
What do you mean "The Matrix (1)"? Did they make other ones?
Nvidia still dosent get it.. Reminds me of now famous Torvalds quote from video where he send hes regards to Nvidia..
What doesn't it get that the quote from Linus reminds you of? That Linux developers are unprofessional? I think it gets that very well.
Nvidia still doesn't get that removing a feature, from the linux driver, to level it with the one for an inferior product is a big "f_ck you" to their linux costumers.
If that is being professional I think that calling " Linux developers are unprofessional" is praising them.
And there's never been a major accident with hydro power. (shamelessly reposted from another comment)
And how many years after were the affected lands suitable to human living?
We have to take all threats seriously [...]
Of course you have to but no, an app is not a threat.
Of course not. I think that what got him in trouble was "... unwisely posted a video of it on YouTube".
The video alone, without the app, could be seen as a threat.
Of course, after some some clarification, things should not have escalated as they did.
GNU the operating system, not GNU the public license...
Just an extra detail: the G in GPL means "GENERAL" as in GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
I read the link and thought it pretty amusing, both the content and to equate it to what I am asking.
1) I am not saying it is the end of the world, I am just asking what it will cost. It's going to cost billions/trillions- I think I have a right to know.
I think it would not cost you very much. For come corporations it would be very costly, so they fight against the science with their "science" (see the long fight waged by the tobacco industry). For other companies it would bee a boom, unfortunately they are small right now and without the lobbying power.
2) They basically admit that there is no assurance kyoto will work.
Yes. It should be a start into a more sustainable world. If the first step is the only step, it will not be sufficient to finish the travel.
1.) What is the societal cost of cutting energy usage. How much does this cost in comparison to warming. 2.) Explain how using less carbonaceous fuel here will prevent it from being burned there.
Please invent some psychobabble to explain common sense.
You are in stages 5b and 5c on global warming denial: the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
What's the point of the universe if there is nothing to appreciate it?
Now, that's anthropocentric. The Universe managed quite well for aeons before we dropped in and it'll continue to do so long after we're extinct. We're not the raison d'etre (despite many of us being convinced we are).
Sorry, those are the words of dying breed. A new, ferocious breed/civilization/race will replace you and those like you and your words will be forgotten or used as a cautionary tale...
I'm not even saying that it is good or bad, that is how the Universe manages itself.