 Henry Ford’s Contribution to Global Warming |
California to reduce carbon emissions by banning black cars? — It’s harder to make black cars ever look clean too. My superstitious mother used to think black cars were evil, apparently the Air Resources Board agrees!
In yet another case of Regulators Gone Wild, California legislation may soon restrict the color options for your next car. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: black. What resentment could California possibly harbor against black cars, you ask? Apparently, the Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings, especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate. Similar legislation already exists for buildings and has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.
So, what’s the problem? Paint suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it’s possible to meet CARB’s proposed mandate of 20 percent solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and it’s not looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as “mud-puddle brown.” That doesn’t sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.
Found by Guilherme Cherman.
#63, Stooopid Lyin’ Mike,
* Where to store the waste.
Where is it being stored now, and why won’t that solution scale by a factor of 7?
Most nuclear waste is currently being kept on site in large pools of water. This is dangerous. Transporting the material to a central site also has its dangers.
* How to protect the waste from attack.
How is it being protected now, and why won’t that scale by a factor of 7?
Most of the material is guarded by armed private security. Even more worrisome is the quality of the pools used to hold the waste.
* Safety of the plants in developing nations who may have standards somewhat less high than say … Chernobyl.
Chernobyl uses a different design, and newer designs are much safer.
Chernobyl also uses cheaper construction techniques and safety measures. The problem for small countries building their own reactors is in building cheap, unsafe reactors. Similar or even worse than Chernobyl.
So in the end, you have not shown nuclear power to be unsafe to the point where it outweighs saving the planet.
#65–Shorsighted Mike==ok, you don’t recognize/appreciate the risk factors involved.
Just following your argument, everytime you say “scale it up 7 times” recognize that the identified risks are also scaled up.
How dramatically self evident does a risk need to be to become unacceptable to you?
How LITTLE does the risk need to be when the harm caused is completely unacceptable?
Is it lack of intellect or imagination that allows you to support Nuke Energy?—or like most well placed supporters are you just financially motivated to do so and society be damned?
#61 – MikeN,
Perhaps you missed my point. Even barring all of the problems with nuclear power, 10 years for a power plant to come online is just too late. We don’t have 10 years to first start having an effect anymore.
Besides, why do you hate solar power?
These days it’s as cheap or cheaper than nuclear power, especially when all the externalities are figured in. And, with enough solar power hitting the planet in one hour to power the planet for a year, there is clearly plenty to go around. A very small fraction of the available power would do it.
There are 365*24 = 8760 (actually a few more) hours in a year. We therefore need just 1/8760th of the potential and we’re done. And, when Portugal wanted a bit of solar power, it took them just 7 months to build the Serpa 11 megawatt facility.
#63 – MikeN,
* Where to store the waste.
Where is it being stored now, and why won’t that solution scale by a factor of 7?
All current storage facilities are considered temporary. Not one gram has been stored in any location considered to be capable of storing waste for hundreds of millions of years.
* How to protect the waste from attack.
How is it being protected now, and why won’t that scale by a factor of 7?
It’s not considered safe from attack right now. Further, why do you keep asking about a factor of seven. Everything I’ve heard says that we need 25 times the current number of nuclear plants.
As I stated earlier, many will be in developing nations. Such places will not have the capability to protect the waste or the power plants themselves.
* What to do with the depleted uranium that we currently don’t even think of as waste, despite its half life of hundreds of millions of years.
Did you miss this one? Depleted uranium has been blamed for Gulf War Syndrome from Gulf War 1. Depleted uranium is used to make armor piercing bullets today.
* Health of the miners.
There are health problems for people in lots of fields, for example coal mining. Something that needs to be dealt with, but not a serious problem when compared to the health of the planet. A 7-fold increase in mining doesn’t strike me as too much of a problem.
I’m not aware of any such problems with solar energy. So, again, why the preference on your part for nukes?
You’re right though. Health of coal miners is also an issue, as is mountain removal. So, we should also stop using coal. Coal, IMHO, is worse than nuclear power. I am not proposing building more coal plants. I am proposing a real green energy revolution.
* Safety of the plants in developing nations who may have standards somewhat less high than say … Chernobyl.
Chernobyl uses a different design, and newer designs are much safer. Also, countries that are increasing their electricity use to the point of spending tens of billions on nuclear power plants, are presumably developing in other ways, and can manage things safely.
The IAEA will be there to help as well.
What do you mean by the IAEA will help? I thought you were against a planetary government in other conversations. Are you willing to let the IAEA dictate how developing nations design, build, and monitor their power plants? What will you do when they simply start cutting back on staff because they have no money?
What evidence is there that a 7fold increase will not work with regards to plant safety?
Why do you believe that you are not responsible for showing that a 7 or 25 fold increase in nuclear power is safe? Why do you believe all burden of proof is on me to make my case?
Are you incapable of making positive arguments for your own case?
Even a seven fold increase that only multiplies the current amount of completely unhandled waste by a factor of seven and only causes another 6 Chernobyls would not be OK with me.
And, you strategically seem to have ignored my question about giving nuclear power and weapon capability to most of the developing nations of the world. Do you really want a nuclear Zimbabwe? Iran? DR Congo? Myanmar? Venezuela? etc. etc. etc.?
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Elaina
http://www.craigslistmaster.info
for the life of me why does anyone listen to Al
Gore,
he made his family money by killing people by growing tobacco,
he said he invented the internet {he did not}he
said he was the inspiration for love story{he was Not}
he wants you and I to live in a tiny house
{he does not he has a mansion}
and he is for carbon trading {surprise he owns part of the only trading house}
And he makes a movie that has been discreated by the English court of law and we should believe anything he and the despots at the UN
says