Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:CO2 level is 0.04% (Score 2) 197

Exactly, it's about 50% more than it was when humans evolved and adapted to the climate.

Global median earth temperature can quite easily be calculated by CO2 in the athmosphere:

0,03% CO (300 ppm): 13.40 C
0,04% CO (400 ppm): 14.64 C
0,05% CO (500 ppm): 15.61 C

The effect is tremendous, without CO2, as in level 0,000%, global median temperature on earth would be 11.3 C.

So maybe you can see now that 0,03% make quite a difference, and so does every 0,01% more.

The effects of 2 degree might still seem neglectible to you, but it means catastrophic outcomes for global food supply, local weather catastrophes, and pretty surely global climate wars with billions dying in this century as the result.

Venus for comparison has 96.5% CO2, it's temperature is 464 C, without CO2 it would be 46.5 C.

Comment same calculation as usal (Score 1) 52

1. X million pure planning & construction costs
2. X million for additional planning & additional construction costs
3. X for errors in planning & additional construction costs
4. X for fraud
5. 10 * X for professional fraud
6. X for certifications & safety
7. 10 * X for corrections in planning & construction to fit certification needs
8. 100 * X for more professional fraud
9. 75 * X for adapting to new laws due to changes in 20 years later than expected completion
= 200 * X of the pure costs .. nothing new on the western front

Comment Re: these (several) cons are HUGE (Score 2) 127

1.

Advancing nuclear, will also make it available to way more countries.
By that giving this tech to those.
Teaching those.
Building infrastructure and education to handle radioactive stuff.
From there it's only a small step sell stuff others can use for nuclear bombs.
By advocating nuclear, you also advocate giving atomic bombs to the whole world.

2.

risk of meltdown exists
newer nuclear is 100 x more secure
building 100 x more nuclear power plants / 100 x more secure equals the risk as of Tschernobyl and Fukushima alike
natural desasters are on the rise, and thus the risk will get higher, on 100 fold places

3.

nuclears need to be cooled
the planet gets hotter
nuclear power plants already had to be shut down as rivers got too hot in recent summers across europe

Comment Who's Footing the Nuclear Waste Bill? (Score -1, Troll) 220

An important question remains unanswered: Are New York taxpayers also paying the nuclear waste disposal costs upfront? A gigawatt facility will generate substantial radioactive waste over its operational lifetime, requiring secure storage for decades and costing billions. It would be transparent if the state disclosed the complete lifecycle financing - including decommissioning and waste management - rather than potentially shifting these costs to future generations. Given the track record of nuclear projects exceeding budgets, New Yorkers deserve clarity on the full financial commitment they're making.

Slashdot Top Deals

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil

Working...