SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The volume of carbon dioxide belched into the atmosphere from human activity this year is on track to decline slightly from last year's emissions, according to a new analysis published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday. The anticipated decrease in CO2 emissions comes even as the world economy is growing, suggesting a turning point in clean energy development—and a long-hoped-for "decoupling" of economic growth and increased carbon emissions.
[...] Decreased coal use in China—whose carbon dioxide emissions account for nearly one-third of global emissions—was largely responsible for the decline in global emissions, the researchers concluded. After a decade of rapid growth, China's emissions rate slowed to 1.2 percent in 2014 and is expected to drop by approximately 3.9 percent in 2015, according to the report. More than half of new energy needs in China were met in 2014 from non-fossil fuel sources, such as hydro, nuclear, wind and solar power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:02PM
you are all morons!
if you weight all the radioactifity on the planet then burning coal yields no net gain.
however splitting uranium, on a global scale INCRESES overall radioactifity of the planet.
the radioactifity in coal was present already. coal plants dont generate radioactifity .. nukes however do .. and alot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @04:08PM
simple: shrink the planet to a billiard ball. measure radioactifity of billiard.
next start burning coal on the billiard ball ... measure radioactifity
compare ... its the same.
now fission uranium on tthe billiard ball and watch how it cools and starts to grow two heads and three eyes ^_^ and how it becomes MoORE radioactif
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 08 2015, @05:52PM
The amount of radioactivity isn't anywhere near as important as where it is. The radioactivity in the coal (much like the carbon in the coal) was buried deep underground where it wasn't doing anyone any harm. Dig it up, burn it and suddenly you have pollutants in your lungs and little fishies nibbling at your ankles.
As for "increasing the radioactivity of the world" well splitting the odd atom here and there is only going to increase the radioactivity of the world in general by homeopathic percentages. Your "billiard ball" experiment would yield identical results to within far more decimal places than we can measure. It's like complaining about a spoonfull of piss in the Atlantic ocean - on the scales we're talking about, it's nothing. It's certainly nothing when you compare it to the alternative problems of climate change and global flooding.
Besides, haven't you heard? Fusion is only 5-20 years away!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2015, @06:56PM
If our reactors "burned" more than 1% of the nuclear fuel, this would not be the case.
Increased radioactivity means that your reactor design is leaving energy on the table.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Tuesday December 08 2015, @09:54PM
1. learn how to spell radioactivity, or at least use your web browser's spell check
2. do you have a *clue* how much radiation is created every day?
http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm [isu.edu]
It's like a Fukushima-equivalent being dumped onto the planet from cosmic sources every few months, but "natural", right?
3. maybe concentrate on trying to get rid of the world's nuclear weapons instead of clean power sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb [wikipedia.org]