More GDP does not mean more emissions.
I eat to live, not live to eat. The wellness of the population does not mean making more money. I have enough to live, well enough for me. Making millions of bucks is useless, I will not take it in my coffin when I go away. So no need to make a bunch, f*ck up the world, and leave the problems to our children. There lies the difference.
That is getting very serious...
JM
Jerry- Here it is
I quote _ " Sounds nifty, no? Hannum et al. expound on the virtues of the system at greater length in the rest of their article, which I recommend for a fuller sense of the argument.
Yet there are counterarguments to all this, as Wald reports. He cites physicist Frank von Hippel as saying that "a new generation of reactors would cost tens of billions of dollars and that it would be a long time before it was clear that reprocessed fuel was needed." (Von Hippel has an article in the upcoming February Scientific American about the need to better safeguard civilian reactors from would-be nuclear terrorists.) And then there's this:
Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Federation of American Scientists, said that building scores of new reactors, with a reprocessing plant adjacent, was unlikely, and that while opening Yucca would be hard, switching to this kind of reprocessing was "trading one difficult political problem for an impossible problem." "
Unfortunately I have not yet worked out what the 'impossible problem' that is mentioned at the end.
Then it goes on to say that there has been no commercial interest in the idea.
anyway this one looks like its being built - Just for fun reading
just a few of the links on various thorium reactors
TTFN
Jonathan
snipped-for-privacy@SPAMuko2.co.uk wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:37:24 -0500, Jim Sculley > wrote: >
Well, you claim was that emissions per GDP has dropped solely because businesses are being more efficient. That simply isn't true, or Wheelabrator wouldn't be buried in new work.
My point was that immigrants coming to America aren't likely to be leaving areas where life is good. Even though a country may produce less CO2 per capita, I would bet that the majority of immigrants coming to America do so from areas where CO2 is high (for their particular country). I don't think that per capita CO2 is a very good data point.
That's exactly the word I was going to use. Well, we agree on something, anyway. ;)
Every generation has about an equal number of scientists on both sides of every issue. If they all agreed, they wouldn't have any work to do.
I would point those folks here:
Not zombies. Zoomies. Slang for radioactive particles which 'zoom' about.
Interesting point about the blue glow: it is caused particles travelling faster than the speed of light. The speed of light in water that is. Also, if you put lead crystal in said water, near the glow, and leave it overnight, it comes out a funky purple color. not that I know anyone who would have done such a thing at a reactor in Sweden or anything..... ;)
I'll stop now, since this terribly OT thread has gone on long enough.
Jim S.
So, your position is that if all GDP creation in the US stopped this very instant, CO2 emissions would not be affected? Furthermore, your position is that one could perhaps double GDP and not increase CO2?
The two are deeply intertwinded and always will be.
If you chose a person at random and gave that person all your money, there is a high probablitity that they would be better off.
Parents have been leaving problems to their children for centuries. The interesting thing is that each generation gets better at solving bigger problems.
Jim S.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.