Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "TED" channel.

  1. Hans Rosling isn't presenting an ideal. He is presenting the numbers. You know, numbers, those nasty things that are evidence? I support secular society as well, but you need to re-analyze in light of these numbers.
    22
  2. Edward Smith He's telling the truth. That's something you don't seem to like.
    12
  3. Edward Smith No, he is recounting the numbers the UN has gathered. Predictions from these are the best estimates we have of the future. I go by the research of Science, so I don't deny climate change. Why would you assume that? Your picture looks insane. Why would you wish to look insane?
    11
  4. Dying of your skin color is not as prevalent as it once was. When it did happen it was a slow process of many generations. Now we have sun screen, vitamin D, and folic acid supplements. There's no evidence for your racist nonsense. The mutational change in the MC1R gene takes 20,000 years. Stop being stupid.
    8
  5. +Edward Smith is a fucking delusional crank.
    7
  6. Edward Smith No, birth numbers already fell wildly in most third world countries, your beliefs about that are outdated. And it isn't related to religion. It looks like you didn't even watch the video or you would know this. He says what he does because the numbers tell us there is nothing we can do because of simple features of demographics, and that the world population will begin falling and stabilize in a constant gentle fall after the 10 billion mark. What did you want to do instead, kill a bunch of people, because that is the only actual available alternative? Or are you down on him because he doesn't want mass forced sterilizations? You can't GET that because NO one will GO for it! You are some kind of political or religious crank who can't handle the facts. Nobody is going to do what you want, so you'd better make the best of it.
    7
  7. Edward Smith ONLY by immigration. That's what your missing. Indigenous births are below replacement.
    7
  8. You're blabbering bullshit.
    6
  9. Mutations happen constantly and in each generation, 100-200 in each generation for humans. Some of those will be to the Melanin gene MC1R. All it takes is a few and their offspring dominate and survive better, and then in 20,000 years, or 4000 generations, skin color changes.
    6
  10. Some migrated more recently. The change takes 20,000 years. Before people could migrate very far this was far more clear. And not all equatorial people's have the same weather, some equatorial areas rain constantly and have cloud cover. As we said, the mutational change in the MC1R gene takes around 20,000 years. Albinism is a defect of the MC1R where NO melanin is produced, not the very dark p-melanin, nor the light eu-melanin.
    6
  11. No, eskimos can afford to be dark and protect their folate because they eat a diet from the sea, rich in vitamin D. Scandivanian farmers inland from the ocean cannot. They became light. Nina Jablonksi explains this in her research. This TED talk was too brief. Do a search for her other videos.
    6
  12. He's right, but he's wrong. They don't produce much waste, but every reactor ever made has bankrupted its owners and operators and put them into bankruptcy so they had to cleave off part of their corporation to let it die to get out from under the crushing debt. We have NO reason to believe the molten salt reactors will be different, this kind of tech has an abysmal record of bankrupting its owners and operators. Solar and wind are MUCH cheaper per Watt.
    5
  13. +John I don't believe her statistics, they have been demolished by actual crime statistics and surveys of older people and their lifetime memories. The number of women who are date-raped using drugs is tiny, the much more frequent situation is young women who want to belong but who have been given ambivalent support for their sexual desires, having a sexual experience that didn't match their fondest dreams and feeling "used" because they were programmed by the society to feel so, and then concluding that they were "assaulted", when they said nothing against the act at the time. Her stats are feminazi nonsense.
    5
  14. zolikoff That isn't true. Fuel is a prime source for dirty bombs. And it's just not that hard to handle. I've done it. I'm a physicist. A dirty bomb in downtown Paris can make an uninhabitable space a half mile or more in diameter.. And these are suicidal terrorists, they don't care if they die of rad poisoning. And you don't need to take over a plant. Think transport. Even if the death toll was small, the terror value is immense. And apart from danger from that, nuclear energy is now more costly to produce than any of the renewables. That's why the French people want to switch.
    5
  15. John Ayer Her theory is NOT inconsistent at all. Go ask a biologist. Whatever kind of bigot you are, I have no interest in your family.
    5
  16. Edward Smith Tired of your whining. Go away.
    5
  17. Edward Smith You're an idiot, and you're a crank. And now you're blocked!
    5
  18. And France is now trying to phase out nuclear, and is building solar and wind to do it. They know they are costly losers, even when there aren't accidents.
    4
  19. Okoye Ahmose It DOES happen today, it's ALWAYS happening, but 1) it happens and has always happened VERY VERY SLOWLY, taking tens of thousands of years, and 2) we didn't used to move around much, people who move around a lot over many generations defeat the local trend and average out any directions of change so that nothing happens, and 3) sunblock and folic acid and shelter and clothing change sun exposures. Also, the blue eye and blond hair genes originated by mutation around the Black Sea 25,000 years ago. They became advantageous BECAUSE of the lower sunlight at those latitudes, they enabled more vitamin D to be produced. The sun didn't "change" skin, the skin is always mutating in all directions, but this mutation became extremely advantageous for reproduction because it prevented Rickets, so people with it were more able to reproduce successfully than people with darker skin in higher latitudes, and slowly came to dominate the population.
    4
  20. Okoye Ahmose You're under the delusion that you understand the science, when you do NOT!!
    4
  21. No, they're backing wind and solar because they know the math on fossil it is getting expensive, and it is unsustainable, and they are looking for a future for their corporation. The big money isn't backing nuclear precisely because every reactor built so far has bankrupted its owners and operators till they had to cleave off part of their corporation to let die to get out from under that debt by bankruptcy. And no, you LIED about solar panels and the environment. I'm a physicist. Don't EVEN try to lie to physicists!!
    4
  22. John Ayer You're a racist idiot with NO understanding of Evolution by Natural Selection. EVERY biologist understands and supports Jablonski's analysis. I'm done with you. You're some kind of bigot, and you're now BLOCKED!!
    4
  23. MasterMazeProductions Agreed, but there is no royal road to all that knowledge. We have to teach children that stuff.
    4
  24. Somebody teach this fool how to pronounce the English word BombardEER!!
    4
  25. Runners have a shorter life expectancy, as do professional athletes. Below that, there is not a significant distinction between the longevity of the sedentary and that of the energetic, as long as they both remain active and involved at their own levels. Doctors had to give up telling people they'd live longer when it wasn't found to be true, so now they dodge the question by claiming it increases the "quality" of life, even though many regard exercise as a profound decrease in quality of life.
    4
  26. Xavanux Did you know solar put on ONLY our current US roof space could meet all our needs easily? Did you know that the limits of wind are easily 20 TIMES the worlds current usage? You need to do some research.
    3
  27. They should have gotten some floatation and some insulation for their suits. It can be improvised. Just buying wetsuits and trying to swim is absurd. If so many people don't like the situation in their home country, why don't they organize and fight? Do they imagine they are so privileged and valuable that they shouldn't have to take any responsibility for what happens in their own society? Refugee stories are moving, but these people strike me as cowards.
    3
  28. zolikoff The French have seen what happened elsewhere else too, and with the immigrant flux they know their reactors stand as their Achilles heel to any determined terrorist. They also know the benefits of renewables, they look at Germany and Denmark and are very jealous. The government brute forced its viability by paying the bill, and now they are looking at what else they COULD have spent all that money on.
    3
  29. Pre-Frontal Lobotomy for all screaming muslims.
    3
  30. John Ayer The process of natural selection that selects for a new skin shade takes thousands of generations. People used to segregate themselves, kill foreigners, and mistreat and label others of differing skin color. That is going away. You have a racist slant on Jablonski's work.
    3
  31. Edward Smith That's what the trend numbers would have us predict. Every society that has reduced its offspring to two has reduced it further as its economy and productivity improved.
    3
  32. David McFarland Nuclear is relatively safe, but when things go wrong you get stuff like a 20 mile exclusion zone around Fukushima where there are lots of nice houses and nobody dares live there, and are, in fact, now forbidden to try. Renewables NEVER have an "exclusion zone" and they are provably cheaper than nuclear per kW-hr. Solar is now down to 5.6 cents per kW-hr and Wind is less than 3.2 cents per kW-hr. The amortized historical bill for nuclear, all costs included, is still over 11 cents per kW-hr, and shows every sign of increasing, whereas renewable costs are still dropping.
    3
  33. Christopher Willis As a "future nuclear engineer" I think you have inevitable blinders on. I'm a physicist, when I got out of school the nuclear industry approached me about running one of their reactors. I declined. All my fellow physics graduates declined. We saw the writing on the wall even then, and that was the '80's. The IPCC is desperate to save the world. That's nice, but these guys are NOT engineers, they don't seem to realize that it would take 10 times the current cement production of the USA to build the 10,000 reactors they would like, and that we would never beat climate change that way, it would take too long. Reactors take too long to build and commission and the process cannot be short-cutted without dangers. And we don't have a tenth the educated talent to run them. It would take over a generation to produce that many nuclear competent scientists, and the high salaries of said experts will bankrupt the process of trying to produce cheap competitive power. Wind and solar are cheaper than any nuclear so far conceived, and are ready to be expanded on a war-time-like footing right now, and today! While nuclear is fascinating, I think you may be committing your career to a dead horse.
    3
  34. Logan Mainord Actually that's not true, you can put wind turbines almost anywhere and be useful. And solar needs less than the sum total of US roof area to generate more than our current usage. Unless you're going to farm your roof or rent it out, area shouldn't be a problem.
    3
  35. This is just a young woman's youth/health/fitness/generational bigotry. She underestimates the loss of expertise in meetings if older experts have to huff and puff to follow the youthful herd and can't contribute for lack of the breath to do so. Older humans don't stand or walk well, which is why humans sit down a lot, to listen to the elders who can't stand and walk well anymore. She won't know this, of course, till she's older and her joints go, so right now she remains willful and childish.
    3
  36. Using and MAKING are quite different.
    3
  37. JombieMann It doesn't much matter, that amount from solar and wind is all that we will have. The quickest cheapest way to add to it at that point is STILL solar and wind. So they had better get to agitating for it. You "not thinking" that solar and wind will ever make up a large proportion of generating capacity is just you "not thinking". The numbers work, I'm a physicist, I have napkined this problem many times. And no, it's NOT too expensive and unpredictable. It's CHEAPER than nuclear and anything else PER WATT, and that's what we need to measure. And solar and wind are distributed, the wind and sun don't fail everywhere at once, if the equipment failed it can be replaced in a day, and unlike nuclear we don't need whole backup plants for when they go down unexpectedly for weeks or months, which THEY DO!! Wind and solar are ALREADY making up 50% of the power in Germany. And they are continuing to build! You are being overly PESSIMISTIC, and for no good reason. You have some sort of layman's "impression" that solar and wind are "weak" or "unreliable", when NONE of the data shows that. Just because they don't involve centralized powerful machines throbbing and endangering their workers and all nearby, you assume that something that runs quietly could never do the job because, in effect: "It doesn't make enough noise", or some such bullshit. Typical science illiterate. Go buy a $100 panel that makes like 100 Watts. Put it on your roof or carport, or your RV. See how much you can run off it, then buy a few more, and a few more, and soon you have a roof full of them and they are making 3000 Watts for you, and you put a few batteries in your garage and that runs most of your stuff? Now, what were you saying? This sort of math sneaks up on you, but it is inexorable. You and 100 of your neighbors invest in a half MegaWatt wind turbine, just a small one. You can each get 5000 Watts when the wind blows. You hook that to your batteries in your garage with a $200 inverter. It meets all your needs and pays for itself in eight MONTHS!! Inexorable. It's hard to admit and realize that we have been cheated for power by big players for a hundred years, but that IS what happened. Nobody knew how to do it but them, so we assumed it was hard. It isn't. This always happens with new technology, those in the know rip everybody else off for a while, till the competition develops. Solar and wind IS the competition, and now they are eating the big players' lunch! And now with the new technology and education about electricity, we can do it ourselves and get rid of the big players. The NIMBYs and BANANAs (not in my back yard & build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) will simply find the power turned off till they comply with the rest of us. When they find they can't get it any other way they will freak out and beg to join up.
    2
  38. JombieMann We haven't made thorium work, who knows how long that might take. The expense of ALL nuclear in ALL forms has always amounted to huge figures by huge cost overruns. Renewables are ready TODAY, and cost less than ANY other option per Watt. Fossil only gets more and more expensive, while renewables continue to get cheaper and cheaper per time and per scale. PV is down to 5.6 cents/Watt delivered, and wind is lower than coal! These costs are PER WATT, so complaints of scale are incorrect. We do NOT need either monstrous plants to meet our needs, nor do we need something that will put us in debt to the banksters for decades to come. The "baseline" concern is a myth, every grid that renewables have been applied to have become MORE stable, NOT less. Do the same complete research as I have and you will conclude the same.
    2
  39. JombieMann Everything you just said is a distortion of the truth being promoted by fossil fuel interests. I'm a physicist and I have bothered to do the calculation. If we cover every roof in the US with photovoltaic panels, we can meet 90% of our current energy usage in homes and businesses. Manufacturing takes a bit more, but not that much. Wind turbines in the midwest now sell power at under 3.5 cents/kW-hr. That IS cheaper than power from coal. We could ALSO meet all our needs with only wind power, it is that abundant. Both of these pay for themselves in under a year and provide energy for 40 years. The very small amount of power we need at night can be more than adequately supplied by a rack of storage batteries in each garage, or stored on board your electric car batteries. Your notion of "hundreds of square miles" is totally erroneous. Nuclear would not work because we would need to build over 10,000 nuclear plants to meet our needs, and we don't even have enough cement for the concrete to do so. It would require 5-10 times our current production of cement. Energy companies now installing wind and solar have found that instead of making the grid less stable it makes it MORE stable, because there are no massive breakdowns in such highly distributed equipment. In other words, the so-called "base load problem" is a fossil fuel company myth. The costs of power from renewables FIGURES IN the costs of building, in fact that is MOST of the cost, since they consume no fuel at costs. There are solar farms now producing power at 5.6 cents/kW-hr, which is below that of methane-fired plants. Only laymen and amateurs at this make the mistake of thinking they need "great big plants" to supply our needs. The thorium reactor in the '50's was a money-pit and the govt ditched it as too expensive. NOBODY has ever made a nuclear plant that produced truly cheap power, the unforeseen cost overruns eat them alive, which is why none of the big money now is even thinking of nuclear, they are all buying solar and wind as fast as they can.
    2
  40. nulI No, you have wind, which is almost a perfect complement, since it blows more at night and lower sun conditions. Nuclear is relatively safe, that's not my objection. It's that it is always much more expensive per Watt generated, than are renewables, which are NOW cheaper and becoming ever yet cheaper by the year and the expansion of their production. Nuclear will not ever keep up with that. Never. All the studies on final costs of nuclear reactors to date show they were horribly expensive by the Watt, when all costs and downage were factored in. Solar and wind do not GO down spectacularly, a few panels might test bad and have to be replaced or their wiring fixed, one in a hundred turbines might need service, but none of these amount to a significant percentage of power production. They are predictable, and so need less backing up than major sized plants of any ilk.
    2
  41. JombieMann Degree in physics, working for the power industry for decades, you know, nothing special.
    2
  42. But solar and wind with storage is MUCH better than either.
    2
  43. normaali ihminen Analysis of total bird kills indicate that 95% of bird kills are due to WINDOWS!! So do you now want to eliminate WINDOWS?? AND the space required for solar is LESS than the total roof surface in the USA. Put some cover over parking lots and we don't even need THAT much. These are old, amateurish and totally disreputable objections.
    2
  44. zolikoff You're right, but the reactor isn't the problem, it's the fuel coming to and from it, and the reprocessing.
    2
  45. Selling a book are you? Hmmmmm.
    2
  46. It's a lot simpler than that. Male and female sperm are 50-50% in sperm total. Male sperm have longer heads than female sperm and can be separated and sorted.. In vitro fertilization with only one kind is easy. Then they are implanted through the fallopian tube. Anyway, there is no way except genetic to tell male zygotes from female zygotes, and that's expensive.
    2
  47. We don't NEED nuclear power. That's the one thing the nuke folks NEVER will tell you. Solar and Wind are CHEAPER RIGHT NOW, you would be wasting your money to buy nuclear plants, when you could build MORE solar, wind, and storage than we need for less money!!
    2
  48. About 20,000 years or 4000 generations.
    2
  49. One more big science buttfuck who ignores the fusion plant 93 milliion miles from here. Solar is boring to these clowns, it's already understood engineering.
    2
  50. Terence Francis To who, your momma?
    2
  51. Gavin Rae You know about as much about "chemicals" as the "food babe"!!! Yes, the substances used are toxic. The amount released into the environment are trivial to non-existent. Solar PV manufacturing firms are rated as the cleanest chemical industries. The amount of rare earths required for dopant is MINUTE, as in vanishingly tiny. As little as a part per ten million is sufficient doping to produce semiconductors. The rest is SILICON, which is SAND. The conductors are aluminum and silver, these are the least problematic substances on earth. As for the politics of nuclear, now all you're doing is blabbering bullshit. The opposition to nuclear is justified by its problems. You're biased and you will say absolutely anything, even if it is a lie, to support your cause. Your grasp of physics is at a grade-school level. No one who knows how to design this stuff as I do needs to be "clairvoyant". You being capable of judging my education is completely laughable.
    2
  52. Gavin Rae You seem to think physicists are "book worms" or ivory tower isolates who don't deal with the real world. I'm a retired physicist-engineer, I've designed real things you have actually probably used. I grew up in the rural midwest, graduated high school with an enormous score on the ACT (yes, genius level) and ETS tests and numerous other honors, including Latin and Greek, and worked 3.5 years as an EMT in a small midwestern hospital where I had to learn to do practically anything and DID. I became a hog farmer in Missouri and raised corn and soy beans, and I have rebuilt a large number of farm and commercial engines and equipment, I weld and have used a complete machine shop. And THEN I went back to school to finish my degrees!! I have designed and built two working solar-heated homes in Missouri, winters of -25F to 105F. I also designed the software that troubleshoots the Montana Power Company half million volt twin three phase line across Montana to Coalstrip. I've TAUGHT electronics to technicians. So you imagine there's something I don't know how to do? You would be an idiot to chance it!! I have good REASON for my pride and self-confidence, AND my ego is FULLY justified in my self-aggrandisement!! There is nothing wrong with what the TED guy said, except he neglected to tell the whole story. Solar and Wind are now cheaper, and shall continue to be ever more so. That's cheaper PER WATT amortized over the life of the equipment!!
    2
  53. Gavin Rae You're desperate and have no content to argue with, so you're posturing. Nuclear is a lost cause, give it up, nobody is paying for it. Nobody with real money wants to lose that much money. You know you got nuthin', so now you're pretending you can dismiss others by lying and relying on insult. Your pretending that people who don't agree with you are unwise, or crude or unlikable personalities, that they aren't "popular". You imagine truth is something social butterflies decide. How lame and stupid can you be?
    2
  54. +Marietou Keita And I'll bet the pimps were very convincing with their line of work as well. If you believe what the ice cream salesman says about ice cream you'd eat only ice cream. +David McFarland Well I'm a physicist, and I know it's safe, but it's also much more expensive per Watt than renewables!
    2
  55. Grow up, Casey, leave the lie of capitalism and welcome socialism. Everything you have known is a lie, the answer is fairness, imposed by government.
    2
  56. And that doesn't happen with wind and solar.
    2
  57. Abdulai Bah Did you know the amount of radiaoactivity released burning coal is far more than an old leaking nuclear plant? Did you know the CO2 will destroy life on earth if we keep that up? Did you know that renewables , solar and wind and wave and tidal and ground source geothermal release no radiation or CO2? Did you know they were now cheaper per Watt than any of the others, fossil or nuclear? If not then LEARN!!
    2
  58. David McFarland Something being "safer" can mean that it very seldom goes bad or does harm, but that doesn't consider that one time we lose a city to radiation. I care about people and their future. The simple existence of any centralized corporately owned access to energy is anti-democratic, makes people less free and independent agents of their own destiny, and binds them to slave for the profit of a rich elite. The rich want the rest of us to have to buy power solely from them, and finally renewables are a way to eliminate their greed for money and control. All profit is inherently corrupt, because the safeguards that would be there with strict government control and ownership by the people is absent and the motivation is NOT for the good of all. Trusting them with nukes is just one step too far. Restrictions on nuclear are THERE FOR A REASON, called Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima!! Latest figures on the new PV plant in Dubai is they are coming in at 5.6 cents per kW-hr. The same can be done here. That is between 4 and 7 cents less than ANY nuclear anyone has ever seen, and nuclear gets more expensive by the say as renewable costs continue to drop like a rock. Wind is 3.2 cents per kW-hr in Texas, beating out even coal! It's well worth it to see the richies go have to suck on it!! They half destroyed the world so far, and now they want the other half. Well we're going to put them out of business!!!
    2
  59. Logan Mainord Capitalizing every stupid thing you want to say does NOT make it true!! Cropdusters?????? If you have a fucking carport you have enough roof area for 2000W of solar. Blathering crap in a loud voice means you don't really believe you're justified and feel insecure and stupidly embarrassed about your "demand" for nuclear. Your emotional doubling down will NOT get you your way.
    2
  60. David McFarland Those are incidental to any product. Nuclear cannot be said to avoid those either.
    2
  61. Christopher Willis The nuclear clowns never add the deaths in construction or highway deaths servicing the build site. Then they INCLUDE them for renewables! A bit dishonest.
    2
  62. Yes, but it's also an English word, as we pronounce it as I said above.
    2
  63. Yes, but I've heard British pilots say it as we Americans do.
    2
  64. Except that David undoubtedly used a staff sling, but even a regular sling, you don't whirl it round and round, you make only one rotation. The passages about David say he had his staff. And Goliath said, "you come at me with a stick"! He was using a staff sling. A staff sling can hurl a half pound rock at 200 mph. And you just hang the rock in back of you in the pouch, and swing the stick over your head and finally point it down range to make the top loop disconnect. The rock flies level and could easily break a man's neck or smash his face completely.
    2
  65. +noviceprepper53 All revolutionary movements have used improvised weapons to attack police and military and take their weapons from them. Then they use those to get more.It's far easier to get fully automatic weapons in the middle east even than that, however, which is where ISIS gets them. In the USA there is still NO legal move to take weapons from anyone. You're preppiness is a paranoid delusion. There are 300 million guns in private hands in the USA, more than any country on earth.
    1
  66. Shoada Patrick I'm not glad they died or anything, so don't flip out completely. I just thought that some of that incredible struggle and danger they were willing to risk might have been better spent to oppose their oppressors. Just sayin'.
    1
  67. Shoada Patrick I don't see their real "oppressors" as being global. ISIS was torturing people, all the rest of the world was doing was avoiding having them as immigrants, they weren't actively killing them or anything. They were oft times fleeing the vicious results of their OWN religion, though there were a number of christians and others among them. What Europe SHOULD have done was to vet them thoroughly and make them promise, before being allowed entry, that they wouldn't bring that kind of islam to Europe on pain of imprisonment or deportation. Then if they do we can send them back on cargo flights or boats in manacles. It was a shoddy performance the EU put on, not the action of any truly organized multi-nation organization.
    1
  68. Shoada Patrick Nope. Islam was brutal, vicious and insane before it even realized christianity existed. There people should be embarrassed for fleeing their own religion and still trying to keep it when they get here. All the west has done is try to defend itself, first with the crusades, then running them out of Spain, and now this.
    1
  69. X Bradford That's because you're ignorant.
    1
  70. X Bradford If they all organized and attacked nothing could stop them. If none of them trust each other then at least they should use some brains when they flee.
    1
  71. WiSE! Music You act like you have never heard of storage batteries and pumped hydro, which is used by power companies already. You also don't seem to know that wind blows more when the sun goes down, so solar and wind are perfect complements for each other. That means wind starts up with solar falls off. Power companies who USED to imagine that solar and wind might make the grid LESS reliable, have discovered now that it actually makes the grid MORE reliable, because they are no longer relying on huge plants that go down with NO NOTICE, whereas wind and solar are predictable and forecastable, and failure only occurs in small distributed units that can be quickly repaired or replaced.
    1
  72. normaali ihminen No, that is another erroneous MYTH. Batteries are completely recyclable with simple tools in small facilities. Lead is easy to control and recycle, and batteries of other kinds are even MORE benign. Nickel iron batteries are totally non-toxic, and they last a century with only maintenance needed being adding water to them. Lithium batteries last for 40-50 years, and are also completely recyclable, and is relatively non-toxic. Lead batteries are only toxic when improperly disposed of.
    1
  73. delawarecop We don't actually need it, all estimates look like our home and business roofs are entirely sufficient. Maybe place wind farms out of town, but usually they can be placed among homes and buildings as well, as their footprint is small. Less distance means less grid equipment.
    1
  74. ystava Don't actually NEED rare earth's. Silicon PVs can be doped with common elements of the right valence, like boron and phosphorus, and achieve 94% the same output. And anyway, we have enough of the rare earths, we just haven't been mining them, we were buying them from the Chinese because they were selling them cheap. But we do have enough of our own if we pay to mine it. And the amount needed is VERY small, as doping is typically a part in ten million, and the silicon layers are quite thin.
    1
  75. Xavanux Irrelevant. Fukushima highlights human improvidence and hubris and this is a trait that continues into the foreseeable future. We don't need nuclear and it costs more per Watt than solar and wind.
    1
  76. delawarecop No, that isn't true.
    1
  77. delawarecop Totally irrelevant. I'm a physicist. I was offered a position RUNNING a reactor when I got out of school and I declined.
    1
  78. SPYROLOGY There is a 20 km exclusion zone around Fukushima Daishi reactor center, and 170,000 people were evacuated and have not been able to return.
    1
  79. normaali ihminen "Excuse me but DO you actually know how much we need raw power to run a country?" -- YES, I'm a physicist. Couple solar and wind farms ain't enough. -- Couple? How about millions? ALL our sources of power will have to be replaced within 20 years. That money SHOULD be spent on wind and solar to get the most power. If we want to use wind or solar as our only energy source we have to spend nearly twice as much money and space compared to nuclear power." -- No, you're trying to lie about that, that is precisely what's NOT TRUE, as I have cited, the cost of solar and wind PER WATT is less than the cost of nuclear PER WATT. And the space required for solar is already in use, it is OUR ROOFS! And the amount of roof we have available for solar is sufficient to meet ALL our needs SOLELY with solar!! In addition, the footprint of wind turbines is FAR LESS than the reactor sites and the mines and processing plants required to produce the SAME WATTAGE!
    1
  80. normaali ihminen Yeah, Suuuuure you did. You're a bullshit artist.
    1
  81. Aaron Lee Nonsense. That's an erroneously interpreted factoid. People fall off roofs anyway.
    1
  82. delawarecop I think we'll figure out how not to in that amount of time.
    1
  83. delawarecop Fukushima Daishi and neighborhoods around it is uninhabited for an exclusion zone of 20 km around it. You are not even ALLOWED to go there.
    1
  84. normaali ihminen Yes, medicine is TOTALLY ALL ABOUT avoiding risk. They will refuse to do surgery if they think you might not do well, they will refuse you drugs if they think you don't need them, they will not test drugs on people till they have good results with animals and the risks are deemed low. medicine is all about avoiding taking chances with your health. Do no harm is the maxim. Nuclear accidents can't happen if you don't use nukes. There aren't any solar or wind disasters.
    1
  85. normaali ihminen No, we have made strides in medicine BECAUSE WE HAVE AVOIDED risk. That is the way responsible medicine is done. It is the Science of avoiding risk. Solar storms are on the sun, and they don't often result in disasters, none we can prevent. Wind storms don't result in a huge swath of a country becoming uninhabitable for a century or more from the use of wind turbines. You're just blathering nonsense and posturing.
    1
  86. zolikoff True, that's why that's among the best reasons to go away from nuclear.
    1
  87. Mikkel Højbak No, radiation poisoning symptoms take many minutes of hours to manifest. And dirty bomb material isn't that hard to handle safely anyway. I'm a physicist, I've done it many times. No, dirty bomb material like Plutonium is easy to handle, but when fragmented by high explosive makes many square blocks uninhabitable.
    1
  88. ***** And that is why 9/11 and the British Tube bomb didn't really happen, eh? Don't be stupid.
    1
  89. zolikoff Not yet. But you know they want to. Don't be stupid.
    1
  90. zolikoff Now you're posturing and beinjg defensive and beating around the same old bush. How do I know why it hasn't happened yet? You don't know either! Nuclear is not yet hugely prevalent, but if it became so due to people starting to rely on nuclear for most of the energy then it would become MUCH MORE likely. Give it up, you're done here.
    1
  91. zolikoff More availability is good? You're being stupid now, you're just being argumentative, you're blocked.
    1
  92. Mikkel Højbak He wasn't arguing, he had no content, he was merely being argumentative. Quit ignoring truth and siding with nonsense.
    1
  93. +François Beuforte Sure, but your reactors are old and of a generation that could give problems, that is why your government is phasing them out in favor of renewables because reneewables are much cheaper. +Logan Mainord But still, reactors are much more expensive than the equivalent in renewables now. Now reason to risk it, and lots of US reactors are older generations, that can cause problems. -- +David McFarland It's "safe", but not safe safe. It is a ripoff. Renewables are much cheaper per Watt and more benign. -- Fukishima. Have you visited their sea shore recently? Chernobyl still a bit "warm"? Have they finished cleaning up three mile island yet, or is it just sitting there, still hot for us after all these years?
    1
  94. Just Aperson I'm a physicist, you're an idiot, see the difference? If those places are so safe now, YOU go live there!! Three mile is STILL sitting there, NOT more than slightly battened down and still uninhabitable. They removed the reactor core with robots, but it's still too hot to occupy. How many places in the world do you want to be too hot to occupy? Chernobyl is STILL hot for miles. Fukishima likewise. Sorry, but real danger is NOT "fear mongering".
    1
  95. Three Mile is contained. A couple miles away is safe, always has been. But you still can't go into reactor 2. Chernobyl is still "hot". People who go there have to limit their duration and carry a Geiger counter. The wildlife there suffer cancers and mutations at a very high rate. Fukishima is hot for MILES!! The houses and schools are ghost towns. Go get educated.
    1
  96. Yes a sanctuary of damaged animals trying to survive their cancers and mutations.
    1
  97. She's a liar. None of the things she cited are actual indicators of lies. People in law enforcement say that it is virtually impossible to detect most lies by observation, too many factors go into it, and university studies of lying bear this out. We would all LIKE to think we can detect a liar, but the truth is that there are no reliable tell-tales for deception. Sure, there are obvious deceptive tell-tale tactics that are used by the naive, but most liars merely act as an actor living into the role, and acting is unreadable. She is selling a book, nothing more. She's lying. She's selling the brand of her company's wares, lie detection, and she knows it's baloney. She's the kind that will later be found to be dangerously self-deluded and she may leave a string of victims in her wake.
    1
  98. Tim Fisher Which means she was up there for nothing, and pretending everything she said was true or useful. She has a business doing this stuff, this is just a commercial for her business. But like a lot of business, it's bogus-ness.
    1
  99. Tim Fisher Except it's bogus and that's just what she sells in her business. Actual studies show it is not possible to detect lies by that means except in trivial examples.
    1
  100. Donald J. Trump, the best that the stupidest 40% of the population has to offer.
    1
  101. Kuzko Wind doesn't go away everywhere. It moves around. Neither does sun. If you have enough of both distributed over the whole landscape and time zones interconnected to a backbone grid that crosses time zones with storage in every region then you get enough to make it overnight till the sun shines. If you have enough extra of both by day you store it for night time. "Ruining the environment with hydro all over the place?" Are you delusional? Hydro doesn't ruin anything, it stores and releases the water from rains as both power and hydration for crops to defeat BOTH low energy times AND drought!! It is the ultimate in a permaculture benefit. One of the things Europe does MUCH better than the US is manage their water from rains and direct it to where it can be used. This is because they have slowly worked it up over thousands of years, whereas we have been here for only a couple centuries as earth movers. All our rain floods low-lying areas and runs off to the ocean without doing us any good. When our homes all have electric cars, we all have enough power to last several DAYS stored in our cars!
    1
  102. Kuzko Hey, you might want to get a couple degrees in physics, like I did AND did major work for power companies. Then you'd know that's not a problem for the right equipment, and if we have sufficient solar and wind, we can do it. Yes, you do have to move some earth judiciously to use pumped hydro, but that's not a problem when you take the time to relocate people and wildlife properly. The simple fact is we don't NEED "the biggest dams in the world" to do widely distributed small pumped hydro all over the landscape. The reason we DID build huge dams that flooded valleys was that we were injudicious and limited by land claims that SHOULD have been systematically overridden by democratic government in a more organized system of energy. Where people imagine they can just "burn something" and "flip a light switch" and who ignore what needs to be done, you wind up with a few monster dams with long lines of steel towers to where it's needed, instead of smaller ones everywhere meeting community needs.
    1
  103. Kuzko You get the same fall with a succession of narrow damned streams as you do with monster reservoirs. All you need to do is route them. That costs more, and takes more water management, but it works a lot better. France hasn't done what Germany has done with micro-hydro because it had the reactors so the French went to sleep for 30 years. Once built the costs can be amortized over a VERY long time. Nor do we need superconductivity. Power can be stored in pumped micro-hydro all along the grid to reduce the total grid flow. A long-line grid only needs higher frequency AC transmission to eliminate most Joule losses. Right now the grid is an almost randomly created spiderweb of fixes, instead of a planned tree-like backbone that a computer would design by iteration. We're going to be here another billion years or so, we have time to do that, it's time we started to do it correctly.
    1
  104. Kuzko Where does rain fall? Mostly everywhere. If it is trapped and channeled you have reservoirs and rivers or streams. Rivers flow to the sea because they were the lowest areas of land fed by higher watersheds. They were created by accident of gravity. If you trap those watersheds, the major rivers that do us no good dry up and many smaller rivers and streams are created uphill from them. Those can be used for distributed defeat of drought and for pumped hydropower storage. It is like improving blood circulation by instigating lots of tributary flows instead of one large useless artery that passes through a tissue without delivering blood to it, You take care of drought and of energy shortage at the same time. Why would anyone try that in the Sahara? Simple, they DO get rain, just not often, and it is wasted trying to fill up drying subsurface aquifers and evaporates immediately. If they caught it in watershed fields with swales and reservoirs, they could create more oases, which is how the ancients created oases!! Instead of blabbering phony partisan insult without any content you should get educated in water management.
    1
  105. Kuzko Yes, the Sahara has deep and depleting aquifers, but retaining water near the surface is what makes a oasis. I designed the diagnostic software for the fault detectors on the Montana Power Company half million volt twin three-phase line across Montana to Coalstrip. So you and I are both coders for power company applications. Now you need to learn the physics of power and water management.
    1
  106. Kuzko Now you're hiding behind your supposed "points" which I refuted. Now you want to run away and hide, okay, go away and hide. Nobody HAS any thorium reactors, and ALL reactors EVER constructed have bankrupted their owner operators with enormous cost overruns and gotcha surprise failures, as well as clean up and waste handing costs they didn't seem to foresee. Solar and wind are ALREADY cheaper than ALL other sources per MWatt and they are both ALREADY READY TO GO!!
    1
  107. Kuzko Outscaled in cost, and outscaled in output power for one unit, sure, but not outscaled in economy over distributed solar and wind. That Europe buys French electricity while they use the slack to build renewables simply means they are in effect laughing at you behind your back. You have it, you can't just throw it away, so of course they will take advantage of it till the Energiewende program is complete and they don't need you anymore. Also solar PV CAN be made USING solar energy, and that IS being done both in China AND India. Hate to tell you, but nuclear power is NOT magic and is NOT cost effective compared to wind and solar.
    1
  108. Kuzko Claiming a wind turbine or PV panels consumes more energy than they generate in their lifetime is an out and out lie. Wind turbine construction energy is paid back in 4 months, and solar in 10 months. They both last 30-40 YEARS! You're repeating lie after lie after lie of the fossil people. I'm beginning to wonder who pays you to post these lies.
    1
  109. trebacca9 Actually we now have artificially aged PV panels that are still producing 94% of original output at the thermal equivalent of 50 years service.
    1
  110. MonMalthias Do comic books confuse you more, or reality?
    1
  111. Xavanux No, I'm a physicist. I have worked with lots of radioisotopes. I know nuclear waste can be contained safely. It is during transport and processing that it could be subject to terrorism. But that's not my chief objection anyway. I object to having to pay the rich for power and pay more for it than if we put solar and wind in our own backyard and stored it in batteries in the garage or basement. Also wind and solar are CHEAPER than nuclear, or anything else.
    1
  112. Arthur Dent Breathing plutonium is a much bigger problem. One speck and you'll get cancer.
    1
  113. Arthur Dent No.
    1
  114. We exist. That is obvious. The evidence is that we can SEE it. That someone had to make us is not something that is seen or witnessed, so there is NO evidence for that AT ALL.. We exist by being aware because being aware is the only way existence is possible. What would it even mean to pretend something could exist without an awareness witnessing it? In what sense would its existence BE REAL?  It wouldn't. And non-existence can't exist because it is non-existence, what we call impossible. Therefore only existence is possible, and only by means of and within an awareness. Atoms, yes, big-bang, okay maybe, chemistry, sure, physics and energy, by all means, Darwin, of course. But it all happens BY MEANS of awareness and exists AS A PART of the existence of that awareness, because nothing else is possible. Non-existence, because it IS non-existence, is impossible. We exist because we can't do anything else or we wouldn't be WE. If that's too anthropic for you, too bad. It happens to be true because nothing else can be.
    1
  115. "Do we see reality as it is?"  There IS NO "as it is"!!! Go read some quantum mechanics. What we see, even the seeming existence of the brain, is a mental representation of processes in the mind. We ARE thoughts in the mind, it's not even OUR mind. Our thoughts, which include percepts, are NOT "our thoughts", rather "our thoughts" THINK US!!
    1
  116. ***** I'm not talking about bad press due to safety. I'm talking about cost. Still, if we went all nuclear with existing technology we could statistically expect several major cities to become uninhabitable due to accidents in the next several centuries, even if it didn't kill anybody. That's a problem. Accidents are called accidents because you hadn't figured on them and didn't realize you had to prevent those particular occurrences. Wind and solar couldn't render that much area unusable, or any area for any longer than it takes to clear a fallen tower or a hot fluid spill. The hidden costs for nuclear are NEVER added into the calculation for the cost of nuclear power per kW-hr. When they are, the price jumps nearly three times and far exceeds that of solar and wind. THAT'S the problem. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf
    1
  117. ***** Yes, but embodied energy means we waste most of what we use that for, so lets mandate standardized re-usable containers, and mandate the re-sale of all items, and not permit their disposal and require the person who doesn't want them to offer them to others in a common space, like a recycle yard. This HAS to be govt mandated, we're headed for 3 more degrees C this century, and twice that the next. Whether people know it yet or not, this IS indeed an emergency situation. This is NOT a matter of personal choice as to lifestyle, This is what we MUST do. Aeronautical experts have already said that the high prices of air travel being more than most now are willing to spend is not the fault of the airlines, but the problem of the cost of fuel and equipment. They also say that this will be the last generation for a while for the average person to be able to fly on jets. Better go with Elon Musk's ideas for transport. I don't care whether people "would like" a vacation in the south of France or Tuscany. They will find that it is soon out of range for most of them. Prices will see to that as we are forced to put more tariffs on carbon fuels. We don't have to go vegetarian, we can eat fish and poultry, those are not much less efficient at converting grain than we are. But your meat consumption WILL fall, prices will see to that. Cars will also have to go, they consume way too much, as MacKay showed you. Instead of 10,000 kWs a two or three wheeled ultralight <100kg battery vehicle with a thin aerodynamic weather shell can do 30-40 mph on less than 600 or 800 Watts, have a range of 50 miles, and it can be charged from home with a few solar panels in a few hours. If mass produced as a hobby kit, each family can own several. Gives a new meaning to "I can't drive 65!!", don't it? That sort of thing can be done right away and in only a few years we have the monkey off our backs. Then, if we get PRISM or another scheme working, or fusion, then we can do more, but humans really need to grow up about this stuff, and this is a way to achieve that. They have to learn how to build vehicles and generate power, they will feel and be more independent, and they free themselves of some huge monkeys on their backs that have been strangling this economy, If the govt put us on a war-time footing for the production of solar panels and wind turbines, we might not have to suffer hardly at all, but we would still have to learn to live a slightly different and more conscious way.
    1
  118. ***** There is that, but two things: We need to decide with something potentially dangerous, and that's a democracy sort of thing, even renewables have that, it just doesn't have to be as careful because those aren't dangerous, AND, it isn't THOSE costs I was worried about, more like nuclear transport, security, mining, waste management and cleanup of decommissioned reactors, as well as the day to day costs of the expertise required to run them safely, and then there are govt subsidies and liability insurance costs born by government.. Add those all together and you wind up with a much higher cost than the cost on your energy bill, and much higher than renewables. The Chinese changed several of their reactor plans and are now increasing renwables much faster than coal and nuclear put together. Part of this is due to being unable to breathe in Beijing and several other industrial cities. The rest of it is falling costs for wind and solar. Russia is peculiar, there are lots of entrenched oil interests in the former Politburo families that are now the Russian Mafia, and that, just like the actions of our rich to protect their investments, is probably behind their failure, but Russia is nearly a 3rd world economy lately anyway. It continues to amaze analysts how the Russians keep their space agency going, and it is believed that without American help they couldn't. The Saudis are now building Mazdar, the solar city, and they are experimenting with several giant solar thermal plants that are floating islands. They haven't gone solar  big time yet, I think they are worried about frightening the west into believing they are running dry, and probably won't till they actually start to run dry on oil, which analysts say is any time now, some Saudis have privately said that their oil reserves are mostly salt water, saline intrusion.
    1
  119. ***** But freer energy markets will look for the cheapest energy. It does then no good to have the freedom to choose expensive energy. China is in a bad way for the future, they can't increase coal much, they already are suffering horribly from lung problems in their cities, they are at the point the UK was in the late industrial revolution and had to put an end to more and more coal. The only choices they have are nuclear and renewables, and nuclear will prove more costly. It won't matter how much they have if it costs too much compared to renewables.
    1
  120. ***** BECAUSE THERE AIN'T ANY SUCH THING AS THE FREE MARKET!!! Petroleum and coal and nuclear get MORE subsides than renewables. IF the market was untainted by the influence of wealth in the political process, then you might be right, but without that we have to interfere using the political process to undo the non-level playing field!!
    1
  121. ***** It's not a matter of being some kind of renewables authoritarian, but about saving the planet and humankind. If I'm authoritarian about that, so what? Carbon has to be stopped, and I'll accept anything that works, but things that are more expensive will be slower to expand because we can't afford them as well. As for fossil getting less subsidy than renewables, maybe that is true, but that is only because now that they have the subsidy they produce more of it because they bought their equipment base with the subsidies and they've stolen the market. If renewables had received as much total subsidy historically to bring them to a parity of subsidy over time, then I'm sure there would be even more solar, and less subsidy per kWhr for renewables as well. Since the subsidy pays for the equipment investment, if renewables had the same degree of investment, such as the huge grid and highway system enjoyed by coal and oil, then I'm sure it would have spread all over. This stuff is hard to gauge, but it seems true. And people seldom think of it that way. The whole society is structured around fossil and we're so used to it we think it's normal, so ask yourself what would a society built around renewables look like? High speed trains, or capsules, electric velomobile and other ultralight electric bicycle and tricycle lanes as superhighways? Much less grid and more localized power generation from wind and solar? More widely spaced homes and people growing most of their own food by backyard permaculture and vertical gardening in agrarian cul-de-sacs serviced bicycle lanes and by delivery drones and helicopter EMS? Transport of goods by tubes to each neighborhood? No more strip mines for coal or mountaintop removal, recycling all materials? Neighborhood aluminum re-casting using solar furnaces? Local reuse of benign reformable plastics like HDPE? Huge solar and windpowered clothes dryers serving the whole block? All shopping done by computer? Neighborhood solar and wind projects? Things could be quite different.
    1
  122. ***** Amory Lovins is FAR more optimistic than I am about it, he thinks the free market can do all this, and I doubt that very much. I think finally he will run into the last major bank of entrenched investors and they won't budge because it means they won't be rich anymore. And it won't matter if the sheeple vote guys out of office, because the climate will finally frighten everyone into doing the right thing, just maybe too late to even HAVE a next century. Long about the latter part of this century when the great American breadbasket becomes a dust bowl for the third year straight people will start clamoring for their elected guys to "DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!", and then the experts will tell them what they should have done, and they may try to do it all waaay too late. You see, the problem is, that even if we stopped emitting carbon right now, totally, the warming would continue for a century or more, and that might be enough to destroy most of the food crops of the world. You can't just move all food production north, and the equatorial nations will be one big refugee camp, starving and loading guns. Amory deals with the corporate youngsters and those whose bread comes from keeping up with the times, but he has yet to make inroads among the filthy rich, the ones who already "got theirs" and want to keep collecting on old investments and enjoying expensive cars and mansions and vacations till they croak. So for now it actually SEEMS like his way can be successful, so let's just wait and see, shall we? I won't be around, so all I can do is warn you and leave.
    1
  123. ***** The rich can do that with aircraft fuel, they can afford it. You keep forgetting the cost. If people can't afford it they can't buy it. Also, have you ever calculated the kW-hrs required to desalinate enough water to use for agriculture? That's virtually impossible, it comes to the total power of the US grid just to raise 20,000 acres of corn. Desalination probably won't be used for anything but drinking water. Even local communities are balking at paying the bill for partial desal of enough to even prop up their failing wells and lakes in the west. Instead they had better discover how to hoard water in closed permaculture farming systems. And move some of it underground. What you're not getting is that nobody will have to "enforce energy poverty", the climate and cost of energy will do that all by itself, just not soon enough to give us time to convert the culture.And trying to keep the gag going till it fails will leave us far worse off than converting now.
    1
  124. ***** No, it doesn't quite work that way, the state changes forbid it. Also, cooling by the refrigeration required is very energy intensive. And that requires lots of waste heat that cannot be concentrated enough to continue the process without even more energy. It gets crazy trying to cogenerate that way. The best form is vacuum distillation, and even it requires lots of power per Liter. After that comes RO, and that takes slightly more. I don't know why you keep pretending Lovins wants this "energy poverty" like you imagine I do. He's a big champion of keeping the same moronic standard of living and brute forcing it with lots of wind and solar, and he likes some nuclear too. He's convinced capitalism can do it all, and I'm not. He's a very bright guy, but not of the same tack as me. I don't even think my approach is "energy poverty", just a more ordered society where we do the same things, but very efficiently using renewables. And the scarcity you fear is NOT artificial, it's going to be VERY real fairly shortly.
    1
  125. I can tell you don't really know a thing about solar. Any home can be made to heat and cool itself. All it takes is more south-facing glass, and 4" exterior superinsulation. Combine that with ventilation into a pipe system under the yard or an insulation skirt on the ground around its perimeter. For homes with few windows on the south, use solar walls or Trombe walls, masonry with glass over it to absorb heat. If you once upgrade the houses you will never need power plants or to replace them every thirty years. I don't know where you get the notion that wind is "inefficient". Efficiency is irrelevant, there are no fuel costs. Only the cost of installation is important, and if you amortize that over its life it pays off its cost in two years AND it's CO2 cost to make it in LESS time than that, and they last thirty+ years, more with careful rebuilding. Solar photovoltaic is "inefficient" in converting light to electrical energy, but since it is free that is also irrelevant. News for you, we won't have fusion, probably not till end of century, well too late to do anything about climate change and vanishing oil. The calculations for making a home solar are trivial physics, I'm a physicist. All you have to do is count BTUs supplied and lost through various interfaces per square area. And tall residential buildings are even easier to make solar, because they have a lot of open south wall and insulating them costs much less per contained volume. It is not only possible, it's trivial, and not only that, we will HAVE NO CHOICE!
    1
  126. captain swagworth I've read all their stuff, and it all sounds boyishly over-optimistic, just like all that kind of stuff always reads. The reason they ARE poorly funded is because it is HORRIBLY expensive, and also we don't know for sure we can even do it. The time frame is still totally wrong to solve our climate or energy problems. Even if ITER works and the DEMO, it will take 50-75 YEARS to build the number of these that we would need, and the cost could be far better spent on solar and wind, and MUCH more effectively. You're a physicist, that's nice, I'm a OLD physicist, with a lot more experience. All homes and their heating systems amortize out at about 25-30 years, meaning they require a capitol outlay or replacement every generation. If we begin retrofitting homes for passive solar instead, and installing the wind and PV now, progressively, we will be done before the time frame to even BEGIN any major fusion plants. Fusion might be nice, but it's uncertain,. too late, and probably not even needed to get us the kind of world we want in the short run. In the long run, it's a grand scheme, but for now, only a scheme. I would definitely better fund it, but only if we were spending what we should on wind and solar, in case what I said turns out to be true.
    1
  127. captain swagworth Go watch Amory Lovins a while, we're already doing it. The growth in renewables has now become geometric.
    1
  128. David Wollmann Most times it's the layman who's illogical.
    1
  129. We don't care what you "are". We care what you support, and if you support the viciousness that is Islam, then we don't like you. Terrorism and the Islam's gawd of hate, THAT'S what we don't like you about.
    1
  130. Gavin Rae I guess you don't usually meet accomplished people. I understand. No, my ego is not a "straw man", that's your incorrect usage of the term. You're the one who disparaged my intellectual capacity. School in the US isn't bad, if you have a lot of interest and your parents start you off thinking. I don't care if you're insecure and see my CV as boasting. Is my education "too old". I doubt it, since it still works just fine. I'm too old to start anything new, though I would love to if I had the time and health. Now you're blabbering more of your own insecurity, so I will leave you to your shame.
    1
  131. Gavin Rae It will probably be sooner, actually. You're done now. Have the grace to realize it. If not I'll just block you.
    1
  132. Nayden Matev You are clearly an idiot and have no credentials. You are lying to promote your further lies about solar. I am a physicist, you are only a liar on YouTube.
    1
  133. MonMalthias Germany is phasing out both nuclear and coal, they are just starting with nuclear because it is perceived as more dangerous. In that transition they will rely more on coal due to its slightly less dangerous profile, but they are phasing it out too as they bring more solar and wind online. No, lignite is NOT being retained because of jobs. Germany is retraining them for solar and wind jobs. All these fossil and nuclear interests can be expected to try to disinform the public to hang on a little longer, but the new path has been set by public knowledge.
    1
  134. Coptah You're not the future because you're not even educated. You are passed by and left on the side of the road. There is NO reason to respect the intentionally stupid like you. I'm a retired physicist, and you don't seem to be much of anything. You don't seem able to take and defend a position, all you can do is whine when your stupidity isn't given respect.
    1
  135. Axe BurningFire Meaning: You got nuthin'.
    1
  136. Gavin Rae Meaning: You got nuthin' as well.
    1
  137. Gavin Rae You're too young to know anything, so you insult instead of pursuing the topic of the video.
    1
  138. Gavin Rae I take the trouble to know the evidence in order to be right about everything I take a stand on. If you don't know why I take such and such a stand, it is because you are not as well versed as compared to myself. I don't see anything you have said that has any valid content. You are an insecure young fool, a real ballcap bozo, all you can do is try to deprecate my age, now that you know of it. Or else you pretend I didn't watch the video, which is lame. Since you don't seem to be able to make any points using evidence, you posture and lie and whine.
    1
  139. Coptah Actually I'm a retired physicist. If you're going to immaturely and insecurely pretend to rant on and on about someone's age instead of dealing with their evidence about the actual topic, at least get their age correct.
    1
  140. Coptah Go back a long way up the comments and you will see what I said. The evidence is public record. All reactors to date HAVE bankrupted their owners and operators, without exception. Solar and wind are now cheaper than natural gas and coal per Watt cost. No big money is being invested in reactors.
    1
  141. Coptah You're hiding behind your question, which is an old dishonest game. I no more have to prove what is public record and well-known about the nuclear industry here than I have to hunt up 150 years of biology evidence to prove Evolution in order to assert it. http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/utstatelegislativepresentation091907.pdf http://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-power-is-risky-and-unprofitable/a-18299318 http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2015-HTML.html Etc. Etc. Etc.
    1
  142. Coptah Nonsense, I gleaned those in 5 minutes on Google. They could do the same easily, and should have before doubting me.
    1
  143. Coptah Most people won't bother in any case, they just blabber their opinion based on "feelings" and they expect you to do the same. Telling them the truth is all that is incumbent on you, if they need corroboration then they should get it themselves. I did your work for you out of pity. I look up the truth, regardless of whether I previously believed it, and then if it is true, I change and believe it, that is how I got to be right all the time, why don't you try that? It really does work wonders!
    1
  144. Coptah Actually there is. If you stop listening to rah-rah nuclear proponent liars who don't cover the arguments or actual data, but who only cherry-pick factoids and glib tid-bits and if you stop watching websites that promote their side without any reference to people who have contradicted them, then you can find the information among the pretenders and figure it out. You had to learn who to trust regarding Evolution, you don't just believe the yell-loudest creationist lie sites, do you? Well, you have to do this with climate and nuclear and renewables and a whole host of issues, because there are a lot of liars out there with vested interests in deceiving you. You first of all ignore proponents. You know they deal in half truths and pump up support with deception. You find the information from people making things work. You go to universities and respected scientific sources. You look for peer-reviewed research papers. You ask the obvious question: Why don't we do this now, why doesn't anyone want to fund this? There are REASONS why they don't fund things, usually it is because after the big money people paid a lot of money to experts to tell them the truth, they have found that the liars were lying, and it won't really go as easily as they say it will, and it will cost them their shirt and pants!! We can do this with "free energy" bullshitters too, ask them why they don't have a well-recognized product on the market that people are pleased with? Diagnosing bullshit artists is as simple as realizing obvious realities many times. After you see someone try to tell you how molten salt reactors, or some such bull that they don't have working yet, will make all our dreams come true and save the planet, go look for counter-evidence. Liars always lie 20 times louder than reputable sources, so you will find vast numbers of rah-rah clones of their websites and lectures, put up by "true believers" who have been duped, so go look for the very few who are questioning that, and ask them why. They are usually MUCH quieter people. See if they are reputable, do they have university chairs, are they published in peer-reviewed journals? What do they say, what arguments do they address and have the rah-rah folks ever mentioned those things? If not then you have dishonest deceivers on your hands among the rah-rah-ers and you shouldn't believe them.
    1
  145. David McFarland Why would someone who hates it not be educated, they had to become educated in order to hate it? I'm a physicist, and I see it as a BIG mistake, mostly because it is so much more expensive per Watt than renewables, and it encourages people to go back to sleep about energy.
    1
  146. David McFarland People falling off roofs isn't comparable. Your grasp of the physics is defective, you're believing amateurish myths The numbers say there is no problem.. You have been taken in by the "baseload" myth without any experience with the real facts.
    1
  147. David McFarland Still, deaths from solar and wind are incidental and not directly caused by their use or construction, and you leave out all the deaths from other attendant things serving nuclear, road hazards, construction of grid, etc.
    1
  148. David McFarland SOme of what you say is true, But renewables are still WAAAY cheaper and not as dangerous to the future environment. Nuclear has dangers we don't even understand yet.
    1
  149. David McFarland Sure, they're safer. NEVER have they come in cheaper than renewables, however. No, PV panels don't use much arsenic, dopant is parts per MILLION and arsenic is a very common element in the soil, contrary to pop notions. Lots of those pro-nuclear whiz-bang claims are spurious and contrived. Anyway, operating nuclear plants aren't the problem, only those being re-fitted and refueled. Go look up arsenic, very common and has lots of uses.
    1
  150. David McFarland That's all irrelevant. The exclusion zone 20 miles around Fukushima is the tragedy here. Nobody is known to have been hurt or killed, though we won't know for generations. But the suffering from being thrown out of their homes is the tragedy here.
    1
  151. David McFarland My arguments aren't about any specific reactor or generation of reactors and you know that. You keep trying to erect that strawman, but that isn't my claim. I claim that every reactor so far has bankrupted its owner operators and cost more for power than any renewable ever has. I see the high powered technology and technical expertise to run them and the exotic materials to build them as far too costly compared to renewables, prices for which are dropping like a rock, and when prices for nuclear can only seem to rise and rise and cost overruns are swept under the rug with bankruptcies and bail outs. We don't need nuclear. The sun and wind provides several orders of magnitude more energy than our current consumption, if we use it, and it will free us from centralized greedy corporate empires based on enriching a plutocratic class at everyone's expense.
    1
  152. Well, I do, I'm a physicist, and I KNOW it's not safe!
    1
  153. Modern wind turbines feather their props to adapt to any wind speed.
    1
  154. Golden Bird Correction. Electrolysis breaks water into H2 and O2. And it is extremely wasteful of electricity. Batteries are more efficient storage.
    1
  155. Golden Bird Yeah. Hydrolysis is when water breaks ionic salts into their ions.
    1
  156. Golden Bird Same thing. The correct terminology is hydrolysis.
    1
  157.  @wrongway1100  Do you mean Custer? Moron.
    1
  158. Christopher Willis But "exteralities" is not even a word. And you're probably lying, this information is public and cannot BE refuted.
    1
  159. Christopher Willis No, wind doesn't use more cement. They are using deep shaft earth anchors with only a minimal footing these days. They found that was faster to build than all that concrete work. And in any case, renewables are cheaper per kW-hr.
    1
  160. Abdulai Bah Yup.
    1
  161. Logan Mainord Another liar who says he knows the future, especially with Trump!
    1
  162. Thomas Milburn How many solar accidents have there been? Hmmm?
    1
  163. David McFarland Nonsense. You'd have to include truck accidents delivering them.
    1
  164. Christopher Willis Yes, as regards absolute mortality. But as regards potential damage to the environment of the required mining and accidents and spills rendering miles of land uninhabitable, renewables beats nuclear significantly. I know the modern reactors are safe, but that's what they said about earlier reactors. If instead of lead in the water, Flint Michigan had found a low level of radiation? In areas where mine tailings and refinement waste is stored this is a possibility for the future. Not so with renewables. There are no solar or wind "accidents" or toxicity questions. And solar and wind are both considerably cheaper per Watt generated.
    1
  165. Christopher Willis Whatever some sick Chinese profiteers do is irrelevant, although such rumors appear to be unfounded. But modern solar cell makers have factories that are totally closed systems, they are regarded as the cleanest of all other industries. Most are a total cleanroom environment, and only the tiniest amounts of dopants are used, in fact dopant is conserved religiously. Other chemicals are contained and not released unless neutralized and benign. The only "widespread and damaging" for solar and wind is in the NIMBY/BANANA imagination. NIMBY= Not in my back yard BANANA= Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
    1
  166. Christopher Willis But much much less and much more benign for solar and wind. And the Chinese pollution rumors, near as I can tell, as studying China is one of my pursuits, are both dated from their plastics industries a couple decades back, and don't apply to their solar plants.
    1
  167. That's the delusion of the denier, that "gee, these little energies are incapable by themselves, but we can give them a seat at the kids' table and they can plug a few holes". Actually wind by itself could meet all our energy needs, and solar all by itself can easily do it, and tidal and wave power is tens of times greater than we need, and geothermal is monstrous as well, but let's not admit that to anybody, or we might lose our investments in fossil fuels. What an asshole.
    1
  168. It depends on the terrain more than the latitude. In the far north it can be clear weeks on end, and above the arctic circle you can have continuous sun for half a year. Whereas at some 40 lat. degree coastlines it is socked in lots of the day for months. At high latitudes you point the panel at the sun, and you only have the shallow shot through the atmosphere to worry about, but that isn't totally limiting. If you need twice as many panels, so what?
    1
  169. Is that what stoners call people who know better and want to control their lives? How quaint.
    1
  170. Thanks for that. YT's syntactic rules are a mystery. Here's one: wikipedia. org see: Luminous_efficacy and see: #Examples_2 which is the listing for "Light-emitting diode" "Theoretical limit". It speaks of 260.0 to 300.0 lumens/Watt. Thanks, good to keep us all honest.
    1
  171. They're getting more efficient as we speak and some of the low yield are coming down the fastest. Remember, Germany has worse sun than Seattle, and they're doing it. And desert plants can feed an improved grid. Solar will have a plurality in 20 years, and a monopoly in 40. - A Physicist
    1
  172. Is this Hans Rosling's daughter?
    1
  173. 3) We now know that just using glass and masonry we can build homes that heat themselves! People didn't know that then, they spent months chopping firewood!! They used to throw their feces out the window in England, but since we now know it's valuable chemically, for fertilizer and chemicals, we save it and treat it and re-use it.
    1
  174. You just want to smoke it. Many biofuel stocks are superior to hemp. Why do ignorant stoners always pipe up with this hemp crap.
    1
  175. I see PV's, I see wind farms. Where is this guy's working prototype? Fusion may be the distant future, but it isn't now or any time soon, and it's irresponsible to promote it when the things that will work go wanting for support. We have enough solar to last 4 billion years and solar thermal is already under 5 cents a kWhr. Wave energy is also enormous, so is wind. Together we could quadruple our energy use and these would easily meet it. Fusion is totally uncertain as to feasibility and cost.
    1
  176. Quite right, I was using a theoretical upper limit (43%) for white LEDs (blue on sapphire with yellow fluorescent) that you can see here: phys dott org news202453100 dott html
    1
  177. 2) We could have computers just burning wood, they use so little energy now!! And that would be doing it the hard way. Our homes are now insulated, people didn't used to know what that was, they were guessing! They burned oils for light that were 2% efficient at doing that, instead of 50% like an LED that lasts virtually forever.
    1
  178. He's whining. He doesn't realize yet that the only way to achieve change is to kill the rich. He's stuck inside the box.
    1
  179. The criticism of TW reactors is that while slightly less expensive than current LW reactors, the waste storage upon decommisioning is horrendous, and the cost of operation and construction is much greater than fossil fuels and even greater than solar and wind, which are now virtually equal to fossil costs or even competitive, see SciAm article "Will Solar Challenge Natural Gas". We don't need a nuclear fallback, we can make do just fine with solar and wind tidal/wave geothermal and conservation.
    1
  180. The bible is total and complete horsecrap.
    1
  181. 4) Most of the improvements in longevity come from simple public health measures born solely of knowledge, what to eat, bathing, quarantining disease instead of mysticism and terror. Most of what we have now that makes our lives easier is knowledge, and that isn't going to just go away, never has, not if people remained organized and worked together. This fellow's grasp of what "growth" is is a short-sighted Wall Street economist's view, however what was handed to us was done so by fossil fuel.
    1
  182. No thanks, stoner.
    1
  183. Simple, a liar is known when she tries to ply this old debunked bullshit on TED.
    1
  184. 6) We don't NEED to consume merely to please a wealthy shareholder that he is snatching yet another slice of what we actually work for and he didn't. We aren't believing his media anymore, this is why so-called "growth" has slowed, the Net offers better fare than his 500 channels, and more information about what's REALLY going on. Growing a garden is a lot more fun than Acapulco ever was. Being self-reliant is where the world is heading, while keeping and expanding our Internet so we know more!
    1
  185. 1) We don't have to match the way we have done things up to now. We have far better ways of doing most all those things, ways that use less energy, or less human energy, or less complexity, and most of it resides in electronics and our knowledge base, and the electronics takes a very tiny fraction of our energy consumption to maintain and improve.
    1
  186. No thanks, stoner.
    1
  187. No thanks, stoner.
    1
  188. You 1) don't need to use only your roof. The grid is going to be piping it in from wind farms and desert plants. 2) You don't need to drive 40 miles to work and back, and you don't need to leave the street lights and store lights on all night in major cities either, use smart detectors and LED pulse modulated lighting that's only on when someone is there. Super-insulate, and begin arranging our homes to be passively solar heated.
    1
  189. Or how about somebody ten years from now when gas is $15 a gallon and either has to work at home or within bicycle distance from work? What about someone who has to take off a couple days for his collective to get the hydroponic bean harvest and drying canning done? Or how about the person who has to help launder clothes because the suns out that day after days of clouds and their laundry equipment runs on solar? You need a more eclectic view of the workplace in the next thirty years.
    1
  190. Okay, but it has all of it there, and that entry *IS* 43% efficiency, which IS 260 < 294 < 300 lumens/Watt, as YOU required it be, a 43 percent fraction of 294/683 lumens/Watt, where 683 is 100%.
    1
  191. 5) We brute forced things with extravagant uses of energy in a way we stopped doing thirty or more years ago. We have gotten steadily more energy efficient by many percent per decade for the last several decades. And in that sort of thing lies actual "growth", and not in the GDP that makes chiefly makes the rich richer. We have discovered the rich don't deserve what they get, and like the Internet with a bad node in it, we are now slowly routing around them and their world pilfering ways.
    1
  192. Fucking word salad! Useless pursuit of masses of well-know garbage.
    1
  193. Raising bison, deer, and the countless other species on land planted with nut trees and food forests will yield meat and nuts, fruit, and veg and a balanced diet. It also eliminates extinctions. Cattle are the problem, that and the energy infrastructure required for them. None such is needed for bison, deer, ibex, etc. Use the world as you find it and you keep the world. Veganism is a dead end that deforests the world. Mass meat farming does the same, the goats have made the mideast a desert.
    1
  194. Yes, the estimate is less than half the roofs, actually, but it will take 20 years to make that many PV panels. We need wind and thermal solar plants as well, and most important is conservation, reducing transport miles, making vehicles MUCH lighter, and reducing exterior lighting, and solarizing and insulating homes, and installing ground source geothermal.
    1
  195. Hahahahah! Look up "hemp" on Wikipedia!! Hahahahahah!
    1
  196. It's NOT fear, it's the COST!! Nuclear of ANY kind costs 4-5 times MORE per kW-hr than renewables!! And as usual, it funnels money to rich people, and overcharges the poor and everyone to get rich! Couple that with Fukishima and it's a loser for everybody!
    1