Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

P

Ponderer

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
9,741
ToxicBunny said:
His statement is 100% factual though, you have clearly demonstarted time and time again on this forum that you are absolutely unable to grasp basic things about science, and then you peacock around claiming you've won, when all you've done is display you ignorance.
Click to expand...
LOL
Show me where I have clearly demonstrated that I am unable to grasp basic things about science.
Put your money where your mouth is (so to speak).
If you cannot do so, is it then not you that is the pigeon in a game of chess.
You are projecting mate - big time.
 
ToxicBunny

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,504
Ponderer said:
LOL
Show me where I have clearly demonstrated that I am unable to grasp basic things about science.
Put your money where your mouth is (so to speak).
If you cannot do so, is it then not you that is the pigeon in a game of chess.
You are projecting mate - big time.
Click to expand...

Pick any post in this thread.
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Ponderer said:
"The hole in the ozone layer" is gone?
Click to expand...
The Antarctic ozone hole is finally showing signs of disappearing, nearly 30 years after the Montreal Protocol came into effect. The Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that phased out the production of many of the human-made compounds responsible for stratospheric ozone destruction, is widely considered to be the most important and successful international environmental agreement. For years, it has slowed the rate of stratospheric ozone depletion, and now there are signs that the ozone abundance over Antarctica has begun to increase. Solomon et al. present observational data and model results to illustrate the trends and diagnose their causes.
Click to expand...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aae0061


Note what they did:
They didn't tell everyone that their quality of life needs to be changed. They found the next best alternative to the source of the problem and used that.

Note what they didn't do:
Ban all aerosols, tell people to turn off their fridges and return to an inferior form of cooling.

With CO2 driven climate change, the overwhelmingly simple response would have been to rapidly build nuclear power stations to replace all fossil fuel generation. This didn't need any innovations in battery storage or solar panels or anything like that. It is literally ready to go. Literally no impact to people's quality of life. And since power generation is centralised, it is pretty quick to implement.

Had they done this when they realised that CO2 was an issue, CO2 emissions would have already been cut dramatically. Furthermore with the investment in nuclear power that would have happened, it would have gotten a lot cheaper. Which means that technologies like EVs would have been much more lucrative because of low electricity prices.

And as a bonus, Russia would be an irrelevant wasteland and would not be dictating European energy policy.
 
Moosedrool

Moosedrool

Honorary Master
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
11,442
konfab said:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aae0061


Note what they did:
They didn't tell everyone that their quality of life needs to be changed. They found the next best alternative to the source of the problem and used that.

Note what they didn't do:
Ban all aerosols, tell people to turn off their fridges and return to an inferior form of cooling.

With CO2 driven climate change, the overwhelmingly simple response would have been to rapidly build nuclear power stations to replace all fossil fuel generation. This didn't need any innovations in battery storage or solar panels or anything like that. It is literally ready to go. Literally no impact to people's quality of life. And since power generation is centralised, it is pretty quick to implement.

Had they done this when they realised that CO2 was an issue, CO2 emissions would have already been cut dramatically. Furthermore with the investment in nuclear power that would have happened, it would have gotten a lot cheaper. Which means that technologies like EVs would have been much more lucrative because of low electricity prices.

And as a bonus, Russia would be an irrelevant wasteland and would not be dictating European energy policy.
Click to expand...

Nuclear had pretty bad media coverage for decades.
 
tetrasect

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,105
main-qimg-ba05809d913ae07ca43f832fee4f65ee-lq
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
Moosedrool said:
Nuclear had pretty bad media coverage for decades.
Click to expand...
Which is objectively a larger case of misinformation than anyone questioning the climate narrative.

Unlike the climate stuff, you can statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that nuclear energy is safe.
 
C4Cat

C4Cat

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
14,307
Ponderer said:
/* sigh */
All gases have the ability to absorb, retain, and release heat.
This ability varies depending on the gas, and is known as a property of that gas.
The heat capacitance of CO2 is relatively large (relative to other gases).
The atmosphere is a mixture of different gases - each of which has its own Specific Heat Capacitance.
As such, all the gases in the atmosphere contribute to "the greenhouse effect" - some more so than others.
It follows that the quantity of a particular gas (percentage wise) is significant.
Since the percentage of CO2 is very low, it goes without saying that it's contribution to the overall greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is very small - it's so small that it can be considered as being negligible.

I hope this has helped you to understand.
Click to expand...
The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the Specific Heat Capacitance of the molecules involved. Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.
 
P

Ponderer

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
9,741
C4Cat said:
The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the Specific Heat Capacitance of the molecules involved. Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...
All gases have the ability to absorb Infrared Radiation (aka as heat).
 
W

wingnut771

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
28,144
C4Cat said:
The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the Specific Heat Capacitance of the molecules involved. Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.
Click to expand...
You're wasting your breath.
 
P

Ponderer

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
9,741
konfab said:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aae0061


Note what they did:
They didn't tell everyone that their quality of life needs to be changed. They found the next best alternative to the source of the problem and used that.

Note what they didn't do:
Ban all aerosols, tell people to turn off their fridges and return to an inferior form of cooling.

With CO2 driven climate change, the overwhelmingly simple response would have been to rapidly build nuclear power stations to replace all fossil fuel generation. This didn't need any innovations in battery storage or solar panels or anything like that. It is literally ready to go. Literally no impact to people's quality of life. And since power generation is centralised, it is pretty quick to implement.

Had they done this when they realised that CO2 was an issue, CO2 emissions would have already been cut dramatically. Furthermore with the investment in nuclear power that would have happened, it would have gotten a lot cheaper. Which means that technologies like EVs would have been much more lucrative because of low electricity prices.

And as a bonus, Russia would be an irrelevant wasteland and would not be dictating European energy policy.
Click to expand...
I'm not against Nuclear Power Generation.
I (personally) think it's a practical solution to the problem.
But there are real dangers and concerns about it.

I think the solution to the problem is to use a mix of technologies.
The most important factor by far is the cost involved with each technology.
And that's where "fossil fuels" have the advantage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top