Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by danmaz74 on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @06:02PM
(#9728977)
This use case looks perfect for solar. Just have two smallish reservoirs, big enough to keep more or less a full-day worth of water for the canal, one at the river level and one at the high level. Then you don't even have to worry about not having solar power during the night.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by aftbit on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:34PM
(#9728848)
Do any of those work on the gigawatt scale? The largest 15 plants in the world are hydro or nuclear.[1] The largest solar plant is only 550MW.[2] Wind might be able to handle that load, but the environmental cost of wind energy is still poorly studied.
Also, unlike coal, nuclear, hydro (to some extent), and natural gas, wind and solar are intermittant - on cloudy or calm days, they do not produce peak power. If we want to replace a stable constant base load plant, we need something that can offer the same guarantees.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:37PM
(#9728861)
> Wind might be able to handle that load, but the environmental cost of wind energy is still poorly studied.
Wind generation has minimal environmental costs (it requires no fuel, kills less birds than buildings and cats each year, and also requires no water as opposed to coal and nuclear plants):
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by bryanbuckley on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:50PM
(#9728920)
I think the environmental cost people wonder about for wind is regarding Newton's third law. If we harness the wind, what is the effect on the rest of the system?
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by MaysonL on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @08:25PM
(#9729459)
Do the math: how deep is the atmosphere, and how much of it does wind power generation affect? Most likely substantially less than skyscrapers alone, let alone the rest of cities.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by bryanbuckley on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @09:24PM
(#9729641)
yes, someone should in fact do the math!
e.g. I vaguely remember some factoid about how some significant amount of top-soil in the Amazon rain forest is attributed to top-soil/sand from Africa? Also, I just googled "deforestation affect wind" and got some interesting results.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by giarc on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @02:16PM
(#9734085)
I think you misunderstood my comment. The original comment was asking about the concern of wind turbines stopping the wind and what affect that would have on the environment. I was pointing out the fact that tree's currently do the same thing, only we have trillions of tree's compared to thousands of turbines.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by sorenbs on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:48PM
(#9728915)
In Denmark we sell our wind power to Norway when there is too much and buy it back when there is no wind. How can that be you might ask! The Norwegians are a clever bunch you see - they pump water when electricity is cheap and let it run backwards when the price is high. With dams holding back two years of water flow surely you are in a position to do the same.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by anigbrowl on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @06:08PM
(#9729012)
No, I mean nuclear and I would appreciate it if you would simply express disagreement rather assuming that I would hold the same opinion as you if only I knew better.
I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @06:16PM
(#9729047)
> No, I mean nuclear and I would appreciate it if you would simply express disagreement rather assuming that I would hold the same opinion as you if only I knew better.
That is a fair point. I disagree with you that nuclear is an option.
> I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
How do you propose the following problems with nuclear be solved:
* Long term waste disposal
* Liability/insurance
* Funding for construction costs
* Completing construction of generation units in a reasonable timeframe (<10 years)
Without answers to the above, whether nuclear delivers with regards to capacity is a moot point.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by anigbrowl on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @05:33AM
(#9730773)
I favor using eminent domain to solve the storage problem. With Harry Reid's upcoming retirement Yucca Mountain may be practical after all. This will piss some people off but everything is sacred to someone.
The federal government has to be the insurer of last resort for the time being. I think this is a very manageable risk.
Likewise to a lesser extent for construction costs. After the current construction in GA is done I think we'll have a much better idea of where we stand; remember that's the first expansion of our nuclear fleet in ~30 years and data from that project has the merit of being pretty current in terms of logistics, technique, and environmental/regulatory constraints, making it a better model than past white elephant projects.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @11:19AM
(#9732372)
I'm trying exceptionally hard to put myself in pro-nuclear shoes, but I can't see the point of eminent domain, government insurance, and substantial construction times/delays when solar is already cheaper than nuclear.
I vote with my wallet; I put 6+ figures into SolarCity SolarBonds, I ride my legislators hard (showing up in person at their office to advocate for solar and wind tax credits), etc. If you believe in nuclear, I encourage you to do the same sort of activities.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:10PM
(#9728721)
Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to commission (Watts Bar in TN took nearly 36 years to complete), $1 billion USD to start (frequently approaching $2-4 billion), and have no permanent waste storage. Newer reactor designs that can burn up waste products instead of a once-through system haven't been tested in over 60 years (since first tested at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in the late 50s; Thorium in a breeder blanket configuration).
There simply is no time to further entertain the notion that nuclear is a solution. It currently makes up only ~4% of US generating capacity, and it continues to be phased out, as its not cost competitive with wind (unsubsidized) and natural gas.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by shiny on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:34PM
(#9728845)
Oak Ridge is working in tandem with a Canadian company to build a Molten Salt Reactor [1], and China is trying to build them as well. Seems pretty dumb to completely give up on a nearly-unlimited, potentially very clean/safe form of energy production.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:38PM
(#9728866)
Are there any financial penalties if they don't meet their turnup date?
Seems pretty dumb to bet the fate of the world's climate on a technology that has consistently failed to be successful both from a time and cost perspective.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:59PM
(#9728965)
Keep in mind, it's your opinion that nuclear is right. Can I store concrete casks of spent fuel with a half life into the tens of thousands of years in your backyard? Because everyone else has said no, including the Nevada government.
Nuclear is "the right choice" up until someone needs to pay for it, or be liable for it, or responsible for it. Then the hand waving starts about how its all a "solved problem".
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by 1053r on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @06:54PM
(#9729195)
I personally volunteer my backyard. My neighbors will probably disagree with me, but all I require is $100 per household-year of high level waste generated. Since nuclear power generates approximately 1 coke can worth of waste per year of powering a household, a 55 gallon concrete cask will hold 586 households worth of waste for a year.
My disposal plan will add approximately half a cent per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity, and I have a minimum order size of 10000 casks, or the waste of 5,860,000 households. My half billion dollars will be primarily invested in:
1) storing the casks in my backyard as a depot while I load them onto a container ship.
2) A single container ship which I'll float over deep ocean trenches, dodge hurricanes, and run fuel and supply ships out to.
3) Approximately 1/4th of a presidential campaign ($250 million) worth of advertising, marketing, and education about the safety of 3rd generation nuclear reactors.
I will then sell the "waste" back to the resulting 3rd generation reactors for $100,000 per cask (for around 5000 household-years worth of energy per cask). I figure I should net a profit on the scheme of around a billion dollars per iteration of this scheme, once I factor in my expenses.
Seriously. The "waste" problem is not a problem. It's a massive profit opportunity waiting for an entrepreneur.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by sliverstorm on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @06:42PM
(#9729157)
"Right" was referring to developing better reactors & fuel cycles. You were the one saying we don't have enough time to employ anything other than the reactor designs from thirty years ago.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @07:45PM
(#9729352)
Are you volunteering to fund better reactors and fuel cycles? Because no one has stepped forward to fund them, not even governments that supposedly are pro-fuel reuse and safer reactor design.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:20PM
(#9728767)
By "here", do you mean solar already cheaper than utility power in 36 states [1], it estimated to reach grid parity in all 50 states next year [2], and US solar generation capacity surging to almost 40GW by the end of 2016? [3]
EDIT: Want to save the world? Build out solar and wind as quickly as possible. We have a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear generation to replace quickly (in that order).
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by chris_va on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:48PM
(#9728916)
Solar and wind are decent, and I agree that we should build more, and reaching carbon neutrality is a great goal.
However, since you care about this subject, I feel compelled to point out that:
- Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else.
- Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.
- They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.
Subsidizing rooftop solar is one of the stupider things we have done as a society. Subsidizing large plants makes a lot more sense, since at least large scale solar plants are somewhat safe.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:52PM
(#9728934)
> Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, utility scale battery storage, or home storage if you prefer (Tesla PowerWall).
> Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.
Both are already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, to the point where Exelon (who operates the largest US fleet of commercial nuclear generators has to pay consumers to take their power 10-20% of the time due to wind generation).
> They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.
I concede that utility solar and wind are safer than rooftop solar. I'd argue you can make installing solar on roofs pretty damn safe if you follow OSHA guidelines.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by chris_va on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @06:56PM
(#9729207)
Energy storage (battery, flywheel, etc) would solve the transient energy problem, you are correct. Something like the Tesla PowerWall could potentially be scaled up to commercial energy production, but honestly we probably still have 30 years to go there.
As for cheaper, it's still slightly more (30%) for PV solar than for nuclear (as far as I can tell). That will continue to come down, which is great. The cheapest clean energy is actually geothermal, but there are only so many places where the plate tectonics work with our current drilling technology. Ironically, drilling advancements for fracking and deep wells will open up the field for geothermal in many more places.
As for safety, the 5x number was for plant solar, not rooftop. Production of silicon PV panels is not clean, nor is it safe shipping millions of them around the world. However, the safety is so much higher than coal that I shouldn't really be complaining.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by coryrc on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:39PM
(#9728869)
Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies, not having to pay for storage (they don't supply power in the evening nor at night), and not paying for grid (hence cheaper than retail).
From your third link: "New York State’s Public Service Commission is overhauling its rate system to keep transmission owners profitable as more consumers produce their own power". So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by toomuchtodo on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:45PM
(#9728901)
> Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies
The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest).
> So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by aftbit on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:43PM
(#9728890)
That means the plant consumes 20 billion liters (30 million kilograms) of oxygen in a day.[1] That's insane. Just shows you how huge Earth must be for that to happen and me to still be able to breathe. :)
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by noonespecial on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:21PM
(#9728778)
...the Navajo Generating Station keeps grinding away, consuming 22,000 tons of coal and emitting 44,000 tons of carbon each day.
Help me out. Where does the extra carbon come from? (or did they mean CO2... in that case wow, burning the coal doubles its weight with collected oxygen!)
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by sp332 on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @05:59PM
(#9728967)
They probably meant CO2. Carbon has an atomic mass of 12 and each oxygen weighs 16. So if it's only emitting double the mass of CO2, then the rest is other kinds of gasses, or solid waste.
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @07:04PM
(#9729232)
> Alone, it accounts for 29 percent of Arizona’s emissions from energy generation. The Navajo station’s infernos gobble 15 tons of coal each minute, 24 hours each day, every day.
> At sunrise, a reddish-brown snake slithers across the sky as the burned coal sends out plumes of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, lead and other metals. That malignant plume — containing 16 million tons of carbon dioxide every year — contributes to causing the very overheated weather, drought and dwindling flows of water the plant’s power is intended to relieve.
First, of all, words like "infernos", "gobble", "slithers", and "malignant" are clearly designed to provoke emotion, not just inform.
Then, the plant causes 29 percent of Arizona's pollution? How much of Arizona's power does it generate? Does it pollute more than the average for the amount of power it produces?
Then there's lumping in carbon dioxide with mercury and lead. Even if you consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant (as the EPA does), it's in a bit different class than mercury.
Then there's the connection of CO2 to the drought. That's suspected, perhaps even strongly suspected, but it's not proven. Anthropogenic climate change can cause a bunch of effects, from heat to cold to drought to flooding, but it's problematic to prove that any one effect is caused by CO2, when so many possible different effects could be caused by it.
That's just in two paragraphs of the article. That's enough for me to call both hyperbole and alarmism.
Look, the reality may be alarming. But creating an alarmist tone serves no useful purpose. For some people, it trips their propaganda detectors. For others, it creates alarm burnout. "Yeah, the world is ending from yet one more cause. Yawn. What happened on Game Of Thrones?"
Re:Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought
by MaysonL on Tuesday June 16, 2015 @08:39PM
(#9729513)
Please tell the same to the fossil fuel advocates who constantly shout that shifting our dependence on feeding their wallets will wreck the economy (when many argue that it will actually cost very little, and for many will be net positive).
The mind boggles. I've got to the point where I think subsidies for nuclear power are entirely justifiable.
From another energy article today I found this, may be just what the doctor ordered:
http://qz.com/426718/japan-is-building-huge-solar-power-plan...
While nuclear would be a big step, it seems like solar could be introduced immediately piece by piece to reduce the coal burden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_mat
You mean wind, solar, geothermal, (existing) hydro, and utility scale battery storage.
Also, unlike coal, nuclear, hydro (to some extent), and natural gas, wind and solar are intermittant - on cloudy or calm days, they do not produce peak power. If we want to replace a stable constant base load plant, we need something that can offer the same guarantees.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu_Wind_Farm
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center
Wind generation has minimal environmental costs (it requires no fuel, kills less birds than buildings and cats each year, and also requires no water as opposed to coal and nuclear plants):
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewa...
http://energy.gov/eere/wind/environmental-impacts-and-siting...
> If we want to replace a stable constant base load plant, we need something that can offer the same guarantees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/eos-utility-scale-battery-st... (utility scale battery storage already cost competitive with natural gas in 2013)
e.g. I vaguely remember some factoid about how some significant amount of top-soil in the Amazon rain forest is attributed to top-soil/sand from Africa? Also, I just googled "deforestation affect wind" and got some interesting results.
otherwise, we need a bit more study..
I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
That is a fair point. I disagree with you that nuclear is an option.
> I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
How do you propose the following problems with nuclear be solved:
* Long term waste disposal
* Liability/insurance
* Funding for construction costs
* Completing construction of generation units in a reasonable timeframe (<10 years)
Without answers to the above, whether nuclear delivers with regards to capacity is a moot point.
The federal government has to be the insurer of last resort for the time being. I think this is a very manageable risk.
Likewise to a lesser extent for construction costs. After the current construction in GA is done I think we'll have a much better idea of where we stand; remember that's the first expansion of our nuclear fleet in ~30 years and data from that project has the merit of being pretty current in terms of logistics, technique, and environmental/regulatory constraints, making it a better model than past white elephant projects.
I vote with my wallet; I put 6+ figures into SolarCity SolarBonds, I ride my legislators hard (showing up in person at their office to advocate for solar and wind tax credits), etc. If you believe in nuclear, I encourage you to do the same sort of activities.
There simply is no time to further entertain the notion that nuclear is a solution. It currently makes up only ~4% of US generating capacity, and it continues to be phased out, as its not cost competitive with wind (unsubsidized) and natural gas.
[1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-po...
Seems pretty dumb to bet the fate of the world's climate on a technology that has consistently failed to be successful both from a time and cost perspective.
Nuclear is "the right choice" up until someone needs to pay for it, or be liable for it, or responsible for it. Then the hand waving starts about how its all a "solved problem".
My disposal plan will add approximately half a cent per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity, and I have a minimum order size of 10000 casks, or the waste of 5,860,000 households. My half billion dollars will be primarily invested in: 1) storing the casks in my backyard as a depot while I load them onto a container ship. 2) A single container ship which I'll float over deep ocean trenches, dodge hurricanes, and run fuel and supply ships out to. 3) Approximately 1/4th of a presidential campaign ($250 million) worth of advertising, marketing, and education about the safety of 3rd generation nuclear reactors.
I will then sell the "waste" back to the resulting 3rd generation reactors for $100,000 per cask (for around 5000 household-years worth of energy per cask). I figure I should net a profit on the scheme of around a billion dollars per iteration of this scheme, once I factor in my expenses.
Seriously. The "waste" problem is not a problem. It's a massive profit opportunity waiting for an entrepreneur.
Do I possess enough capital to personally fund an entire nuclear program? No.
Does that invalidate my opinion? No.
Because that is where "here" is.
[1] http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-see...
[2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-sta...
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f...
EDIT: Want to save the world? Build out solar and wind as quickly as possible. We have a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear generation to replace quickly (in that order).
However, since you care about this subject, I feel compelled to point out that:
- Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else.
- Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.
- They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.
Subsidizing rooftop solar is one of the stupider things we have done as a society. Subsidizing large plants makes a lot more sense, since at least large scale solar plants are somewhat safe.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, utility scale battery storage, or home storage if you prefer (Tesla PowerWall).
> Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.
Both are already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, to the point where Exelon (who operates the largest US fleet of commercial nuclear generators has to pay consumers to take their power 10-20% of the time due to wind generation).
> They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.
I concede that utility solar and wind are safer than rooftop solar. I'd argue you can make installing solar on roofs pretty damn safe if you follow OSHA guidelines.
As for cheaper, it's still slightly more (30%) for PV solar than for nuclear (as far as I can tell). That will continue to come down, which is great. The cheapest clean energy is actually geothermal, but there are only so many places where the plate tectonics work with our current drilling technology. Ironically, drilling advancements for fracking and deep wells will open up the field for geothermal in many more places.
As for safety, the 5x number was for plant solar, not rooftop. Production of silicon PV panels is not clean, nor is it safe shipping millions of them around the world. However, the safety is so much higher than coal that I shouldn't really be complaining.
From your third link: "New York State’s Public Service Commission is overhauling its rate system to keep transmission owners profitable as more consumers produce their own power". So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest).
> So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.
And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?
How does that work out? Shouldn't mass be conserved?
[1]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=liters+of+oxygen+in+440...
Help me out. Where does the extra carbon come from? (or did they mean CO2... in that case wow, burning the coal doubles its weight with collected oxygen!)
> At sunrise, a reddish-brown snake slithers across the sky as the burned coal sends out plumes of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, lead and other metals. That malignant plume — containing 16 million tons of carbon dioxide every year — contributes to causing the very overheated weather, drought and dwindling flows of water the plant’s power is intended to relieve.
First, of all, words like "infernos", "gobble", "slithers", and "malignant" are clearly designed to provoke emotion, not just inform.
Then, the plant causes 29 percent of Arizona's pollution? How much of Arizona's power does it generate? Does it pollute more than the average for the amount of power it produces?
Then there's lumping in carbon dioxide with mercury and lead. Even if you consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant (as the EPA does), it's in a bit different class than mercury.
Then there's the connection of CO2 to the drought. That's suspected, perhaps even strongly suspected, but it's not proven. Anthropogenic climate change can cause a bunch of effects, from heat to cold to drought to flooding, but it's problematic to prove that any one effect is caused by CO2, when so many possible different effects could be caused by it.
That's just in two paragraphs of the article. That's enough for me to call both hyperbole and alarmism.
Look, the reality may be alarming. But creating an alarmist tone serves no useful purpose. For some people, it trips their propaganda detectors. For others, it creates alarm burnout. "Yeah, the world is ending from yet one more cause. Yawn. What happened on Game Of Thrones?"
But this article is the one we're discussing here, so this article is the one I'm criticizing here.