Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Now

The problem of climate change can be solved only through the development and/or better application of technology. In the long term, we can look to alternative technologies. In near future we will rely on nuclear power - the cleanest form of big energy generation - or increasingly fill the skies with dust, smoke, shoot & CO2.

Major sources of pollution and energy consumption are shifting. The future challenges will be less in the U.S., Europe or Japan and much more in developing countries.

Global demand for energy will rise by 50% by 2025 and half of that will be in developing countries. The U.S. needs to share technologies and work in partnership with developing countries to help them use clean nuclear energy instead of coal, oil or other forms of CO2 and pollution producing fuels. And we Americans should copy the French who produce 78% of their electrical energy from nuclear power. In the U.S. it is only around 20%. World Statistics.

Nuclear power has allowed us to avoid many tons of CO2 and SO2. We could do better.

There are real challenges to nuclear power, as there is with every form of power generation. Waste disposal is the biggest challenge. The industry has been stigmatized since the Three Mile Island accident. A movie called "China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda came out about the same time with a dishonest portrayal of a nuclear accident. Many people confused the fictional account with the real thing. It is important to remember that the REAL accident - the worst in American history - killed NOBODY and thirty years later it is clear it didn’t have any significant long term effects on anything except the prospects of the nuclear industry itself.

Even Gaia is going nuclear.Let’s get back on track to a cleaner environment.

Posted by Jack at March 16, 2006 11:53 PM
Comments
Comment #134045

JACK another good source of info is by bill walker, title back to the future.at www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker14.html

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #134056

Jack, nuclear just trades one environmental danger for another. There is no net gain in going nuclear. Only a remedying of one environmental crisis with the growing of another.

I agree technology is the answer. But, nuclear is not it. Not until safe, economical methods of disposal of waste are found. And that does not yet exist.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #134057

I would prefer hydrogen power to nuclear power. Why take a risk unless its necessary? Why spread nuclear power all over the world, where accidents will be bound to happen?

Posted by: Max at March 17, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #134068

Unfortunately, I think hydrogen power is more of a pipe dream than anything else, at least given current R&D. I’d love to see a massively-funded alternative fuel “space race,” but until then, and this is something I’ve thought a lot about in the last 5 or so years…

…nuclear’s time may have come. Obviously, there are huge downsides, most significant of which is nuclear waste. I grew up under the spectre of Three Mile Island, and I’ve always been opposed to nuclear power, but I sincerely feel that our collective backs are against the wall, and this is an option to be explored; thoughtfully and with grave reservations, but explored nevertheless.

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 17, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #134070

Arr-

I grew up a few miles from Love Canal. We also road our 3 wheelers near a place that had a ‘puddle’ of green goop surrounded by police tape. (That’s how they protected us in those days I guess.)
There has got to be a way to produce energy without leaving behind toxic waste or polluting the atmosphere.
Why haven’t they used these technologies? Because many people would be out of work and many stockholders would lose money.

Posted by: dawn at March 17, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #134071

Turning goat p*ss into gasoline is something everybody wants, but the fact is that alternatives just won’t give us what we need anytime soon.

A guy near my house burns corncobs in his furnace. It supplies all the heat he needs and he touts that as the solution to our energy needs. Now imagine everyone burning corncobs. Even leaving out the shoot and inconvenience, think of the expense of moving those corncobs to peoples houses. And pretty soon you would run out of corncobs. They are free and available now because nobody wants them. That situation would not persist. The same goes for biodiesel and other solutions that work well ONLY on a small scale

Most alternative power piggybacks on conventional sources. Small operators can be successful but it is not scaleable.

Arr

You grew up with the spectre of Thee Mile Island and that is exactly what it was - a spectre, a ghost, a chimera, a situation full of sound and fury signifying nothing. How many people died as a result of Three Mile Island? None. How many people got serious ill (besides the hypochondriacs)? None. More people died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all American nuclear accidents combined.

No form of energy generation is without risks and costs. Actually you can say that about being alive. But the alternatives might be worse. The defacto alternative to nuclear energy is coal. Talk all you want about other options, but coal is what took up the slack in the U.S. and coal is what they are using in China and coal is fouling the air in India and coal will continue to do those things unless replaced by nuclear. Without nuclear energy it can only get worse.

I don’t want to demonize coal more than it already is, but coal energy kills people every year, without exception. Although mining accidents are less common than ever in the U.S., they do happen. Each of those deaths is attributable to coal energy. What about nuclear energy? See reference to Teddy’s car.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #134088

What about Chernobyl?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 17, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #134089

Way to hang in there Jack, I’m with you. Nuclear isn’t the only answer but it is darn sure one of them. I’m weiry of our national energy policy being frozen by the fear mongering of the radical environmentalists. Our ‘short’ term energy needs will be met by four resources-oil, gas, coal, and nuclear, period! We do not produce enough bio-mass in this country to meet the ‘broad’ demand. I have no doubt or fear that we have the technology to solve our energy problems if we’ll just get off our butts, do it, and quit listening to the thumb suckers on the lunatic fringe. Dear President Bush, please declare war on the EPA!!!

Posted by: KCMan at March 17, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #134090

Nuclear Power clean?!? Not on this planet. It produces long-lasting extermely toxic waste that must be stored in supersafe underground dumps that no one wants in their backyard. Nuclear is not the answer!

Posted by: nick at March 17, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #134095

Womanmarine
Jack said American accidents…Chernobyl happened
In Russia…last time I looked, Russia was not part of America

Posted by: David at March 17, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #134096

David:

I’m aware of that. Doesn’t mean what happened at Chernobyl should be ignored.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 17, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #134098

I agree that nuclear engery is clean, but we are forgetting about accedents, which do happen, but what is wrong with wind and solar, 100% renewable and clean, or the sun, again full of engery, clean, and if we run out, I think we will have bigger problems. There would not need to be any fighting over nuclear power anymore.

Posted by: Jason at March 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #134099

Several problems with this analysis, aside from the unsolved waste storage one.

First, most green house gases in the U.S. come from vehicles rather than from power plants, so nuclear does little to address that problem unless we use hydro to power cars.

Second, nuclear plants take quite a long time to ramp up.

Third, France has its own set of headaches. It doesn’t make sense to put all our eggs into one energy basket in the same way. As in investments, diversification is the way to go with energy.

Fourth, we live an age of terrorism.

Fifth, nuclear is a fairly costly energy once all the capital expenses are included in the calculations. This is a little understood reason more plants haven’t been built.

Sixth, other technologies such as wind turbines and solar collectors (aka heat antennas) will likely become even more cost effective over the short run, though they’ll be only part of the solution.

Conclusion: there’ll be more nuclear plants in the U.S. but don’t expect them to be a silver bullet or, by themselves, do much to reduce greenhouse gases. (Though energy independence is its own goal.)

Posted by: Reed Sanders at March 17, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #134105

Womanmarine

That Chernobyl happened in the Soviet Union is the significant fact. Communism was generally an environmental disaster. If you go to any sort of energy plant in communist countries, you find an ecological disaster. That stuff does not happen in America. I know I am going to get the howls or protest, but it doesn’t.

The communists also misused all sorts of things. Their irrigation schemes effectively drained the Aral Sea and made it into a salty desert. Their nickel industries in the Kola Peninsula kill plants in Norway and Canada and they have “retired” several nuclear powered submarines to the bottom of the sea. Their coal plants killed thousands of miners and ruined the health of millions of people. If you took that as a standard, you could not have coal plants. I am sure the communists could screw up solar or wind power.

Chernobyl is not a benchmark for the U.S. or even for any modern plant.

Reed

I don’t think nuclear will or should be the only solution. We need a diversity of energy sources. Where I want to see nuclear is mostly in the place of coal and to some extent oil in the production of electricity.

People can continue to work on solar, biomass, wind etc. When those technologies are sufficient to take the place of nuclear power, I am delighted. Of course, I don’t believe I will still be alive to enjoy such a world, but maybe my grandchildren will see it.

The energy problem, BTW, is moving from the U.S. The big new pollutors will be places like China, India, Brazil and other developing countries. If they go the coal and oil route, we are really in trouble.

Nuclear power is the only near and medium term solution.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #134107

The problem with the nuclear debate is that opponents are 20 years behind the times. The reactors used in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are ancient technology. The “pebble-bed” nuclear reactor is based upon a new and dramatically safer method of operation:

“When a pebble-bed reactor gets hotter, the more rapid motion of the atoms in the fuel decreases the probability of neutron capture by 235U atoms by an effect known as Doppler broadening…This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause 235U fission, reducing the power output by the reactor. This natural negative feedback places an inherent upper limit on the temperature of the fuel, without any operator intervention.

The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can.

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed “idle” temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed.

These safety features are not just theoretical. This exact test was performed with the German AVR reactor. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage. There was none.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

As for the waste issue, Scientific American wrote an article on “fast reactor” technology. Current (i.e., old) reactor designs waste 95% of uranium fuel, which becomes nuclear waste as well as weapons materials. “Fast reactors,” if practicable, promise to burn 99% of uranium, leaving only 1% as waste or weapons material:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

Posted by: Darren at March 17, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #134109

and dont forget there is no conclusive evidence burning coal has a negative impact on the environment. “The problem of climate change” is that people think there IS climate change. Nobody knows for sure, but most respected scientists agree human beings would not be the main cause for a climate change. Remember, when it comes to things such as C02, smoke, and dust, the earth is the biggest “polluter”.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 17, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #134113
and dont forget there is no conclusive evidence burning coal has a negative impact on the environment.

Can you cite some scientific evidence for this, please? It sounds vaguely similar to the tobacco industry’s claim that there is no conclusive evidence that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer.

Posted by: bobo at March 17, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #134120

What does anybody think about this:

Anything into oil

Posted by: womanmarine at March 17, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #134121

I think the real problem is few people own up to their convictions. Take Chicago for example … many people there complain about the reliance on fossil fuel but when the idea of wind generators was put forth they were vehemently against the “eye sore”. I actually think they look kinda cool, but you get my point. Sometimes, when I lived there, I thought the wind in Chicago could fuel the entire country.

Many people don’t want refineries anywhere around them, not even on the far side of their county. Many people don’t want nuclear reactors anywhere around them. Many people don’t want electrical power stations anywhere around them … but yet many people run their houses at 72 degrees in the summer and winter. That’s a huge issue in my mind.

Jack, your thoughts on coal gasification if you have a sec?

Posted by: Ken C. at March 17, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #134123

Norway is on it’s way to using Hydrogen fuel exclusively.

http://www.iphe.net/norway.htm

Also, Wikipedia has a great section on “hydrogen fuel”. Call me crazy, or prejudiced, but I don’t like the idea of every country in the world using nuclear energy and I still say why take a risk unless you have to?

Posted by: Max at March 17, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #134129

Max

Norway has lots of mountains and lots of water flowing off of them, which means lot’s of hydroelectric power. They use this abundant resource to make hydrogen.

While I also like hydrogen, it is not so much a source of energy as a carrier of energy. What I mean is that you need to use a lot of energy to make it. This can be good if you have easy access to something like hydroelectric power or if you make hydrogen during non-peak times using things like solar or wind. It is a great idea, but not currently sufficient in any place except Norway or maybe Iceland (with hydroelectric and geothermal).

I could envision wind farms in N. Dakota making hydrogen to ship around the country, but that may be a pipe dream.

Some environmental activists, BTW, oppose the building of dams, which makes all this possible for the Nowegians

Ken C

I understand that coal gas techology is simple and not expensive. But you still have the pollution problems and you still start with coal. On economic grounds I would support it, but I would oppose on ecological ones.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #134135

The nuclear industry, today, has the technology to create what are called breeder reactors. They essentially reuse their waste as fuel virtually eliminating the waste issue.

Posted by: Rick at March 17, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #134136

the events at chernobyl, the biggest design flaw there was no damm containment building around the rbmk reactor to contain the fallout! the russians made a critical error by not building one, that was only one of there pig headed dumb ideas. also the rbmk reactor is obsulete the RBMK reactor uses light water for cooling and graphite for moderation ’ such a configuration is also unstable! and a positive feedback problem can arise such as chernobyl. also the chain of command broke down as a result the operators were careless also they were unaware of the reactors design flaws. also they switched off many of the safty systems, and the rest was history!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #134140

What about some crazy walking in the plant with a bomb? Or the increased ease of making dirty bombs? Or some tryant just bombing the plants?

Again, why risk anything at all, unless nuclear truly is the only alternative energy source we can use?

Posted by: Max at March 17, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #134141

Any Hydrocarbon fuel, whether its natural or artificial, will put CO2 or worse into the atmosphere as a waste.

If we do build new reactors, we do need more efficient systems.

We must recognize that Nuclear Power Plants are not clean. They just produce a different kind of dirty. Instead of contributing Chemical waste which alters atmospheric chemistry, it creates nuclear waste which produces damaging radiation. If nuclear material contaminates and area, it will be pretty nasty.

I’m not worried about Chernobyl recurring in the U.S. We built our reactors in containment vessels, and we do not use Chernobyl’s technology in any plant. Three Mile Island is what I worry about. half the Nuclear fuel melted into the bottom of the containment vessel. If we move forward with it, we must carry the risk that something like this could happen. An explosion at a coal power plant may clear the neighborhood for hours. An accident at a nuclear plant could clear the area for tens of thousands of years.

As for Dams, you have two things to consider: what’s in front, and what’s behind. Access up and down river is compromised. Think about industries that depend on salmon when you weigh the cost of that Downriver, you of course see less water flowing down to the sea. Up river, naturally, you see areas flooded. In both cases, native species can lose out, and their loss can send ripple effects out to other species. The builders of Aswan High Dam on the Nile have choked off the flow of fertile soil that made the Nile lush, for example. In short, the construction of a dam is not an inconsequential thing, as innocuous as it sounds. All power generation has its weaknesses ands strengths. We should acknowledge the potential problems As in the case of Pebble Bed Reactors. The key is to try and design things that fail in the least catastrophic way possible.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #134145

I think the problem with nuclear power is that it just uses up another non-renewable resource. We can’t produce uranium anymore than fossil fuels. Once it runs out, if we are dependent on it, we’ll be in lots of trouble.

We should instead be focusing on energy sources that are renewable , instead of becoming dependent on just another type of finite resource (uranium instead of oil).

In addition to that, it’s not clean. It produces lots of waste that needs to be stored. Right now there might not be much of a problem, but if the whole US was mostly on nuclear power it would be.

Posted by: john at March 17, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #134160

TO Pro Nukers, if you want to spread nuclear energy around the world as a hedge against fossil fuel environmental consequences, there are a few hidden costs that must be made visible before a rational decision can be made.

1) Seismic activity. The New Madrid fault is going to tear cities and towns apart from Arkansas to Illinois and Virginia at some point. Many nations in the world who would desire nuclear power are prone to seismic and other natural disasters like Tsunamis. Locating nuclear power plants in supposed safe zones will be iffy at best, and politics and money will influence location in many cases rather than sound science and geography.

2) If the world goes nuclear, the world’s transportation systems will also be carrying waste products across roads, on trains, on sea going ships, into and out of ports of call. At a time when so many suicidal terrorists are seeking to steal nuclear materials, the cost of securing such shipments, if born, will be high indeed. Accidents at sea, rail, and on roads with so much nuclear fuel being shipped in China, Europe, Middle East, India, Canada, S. America, the US, and Australia, are going to happen and nuclear fuel will be lost or released. That is inevitable, though to what extent depends a great deal on how much is spent to prevent such accidents. And we all know what market forces will eventually do to lower those costs to unsafe levels.

The big problem here is not a lack of fossil fuels, but the cost of making their use clean and safe for the environment. I posit the the exact same problem will be faced with nuclear. It will not be cheap, unless it is made unsafe. In the end safe nuclear energy around the world could be even more expensive than the technology to make safe fossil fuel methods. And certain hazards will always be present like the very small, but real risk of metorite strike.

The greater the volume of nuclear power plants, the greater the risks will be due to transportation and storage of spent fuel, natural disasters, and market forces lowballing the cost of maintenance and safety. If nuclear power development is inevitable, do human political systems have the disicipline to minimize their proliferation? Of course not, given a 10 or 20 year stretch of 6 new nuclear power plants running, and suddenly everyone will deem them safe and they could spring up everywhere, little ones, big ones, in landslide zones, tsunami zones, seismic zones, etc.

The real costs of nuclear power plants occur 15 to 20 years after going online, when the accumulation of waste byproducts cannot be hid anymore, when the maintenance and retrofits are needed to keep the aging structures sound and safe. The more and the longer nuclear power plants are in operation, the higher their costs of keeping them safe become.

All things to consider and weigh very carefully before marching headlong into nuclearizing the ‘civilized’ world. Ancient Rome was once great with many of the technologies we have reinvented for ourselves today. Technology did not save them from bad decisions and self-destructive choices. And mankind and societies have not evolved to a higher plane than the Romans, that I can guarantee you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #134167

I suggest everyone read the information on that link, its eye opening.

willow: 1 unit of energy in, 16 units of energy out (compared to coal 1 in .3 out). willow is burned, however since willow uses the co2 released during the buring process for photosynthesis there is no net co2 gain— a sustainable equilibrium.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 17, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #134168

Please take a look at this link if you care about America’s future. It is something that is truly scary, but is worth considering:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Reading this is kind of shocking, but if it’s true it’s better to know it than to pretend nothing is wrong. According to this web site oil is running out, and when it does, western civilization will collapse.

At first I thought this was the rant of some kind of conspiracy-theorist type, or an extreme radical environmentalist. However the more I read the more it seemed to be well-researched, logical, and backed up by evidence. If we just put a major effort (like the manhattan project) to create and use renewable energy this problem might have been prevented, however greed and apathy prevented such an effort. It’s now probably too late.

Posted by: john at March 17, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #134169

http://www.esf.edu/willow

Posted by: tree hugger at March 17, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #134178

there is enough recoverable uranium to provide our nuclear needs for a 1000 years, if we go with breeders we have enough for tens of thousands of years. also that is not even taken in the account of seawater extraction of uranium.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #134182

Tree Hugger

Biomass is currently a limited solution. Willow grows fast, but it doesn’t burn well or for very long. It also come in very small switches. You would have cut the bushes, chip the pieces, dry them, transport them and then burn lots and lots of them becaue they are very bulky. Willow is wood. That’s it. You are talking about a wood based economy. We had that once. Coppice cutting is an old and proven method. You can make it work locally. You can do it on your own land and supply all your heating needs, but this is not a solution for the large scale. That is why coal and oil got started in the first place. Even in 1800, wood was not sufficient for the needs of a growing economy.

But assume away those problems. Trees (even willows which are more like bushes) require space to grow. If you are planting quick rotation crop trees for biomass production, you are necessarily harming the local environment, wildlife etc. You will plant a very quick rotation monoculture and the machines that harvest the biomass (and you need big machines) will tear up the soil every few years.

The problem with all these sort of solutions is not that they don’t work, but that they are not scalable to a larger economy. It is like the guys burning corncobs, old tires or bio diesel. Their processes, if scaled up quickly run into logistics and supply problems.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #134185

Jack,

Good idea about pushing nuclear technology into developing countries. Iran is itchin’ to get started right now on a domestic nuclear energy program. I wonder how so many people can be opposed to Iran’s forward thinking leadership on this issue?

Posted by: DRA at March 17, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #134188

“Dear President Bush, please declare war on the EPA!!!”

Already done and over. The EPA is now an arm of the Neocon spin-machine. It will have to be rebuilt into a real scientifically valid agency again when Democrats find a way back into presidential office.

Btw righties, they’ll be drilling in ANWR soon. Aren’t you so pleased and proud?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 17, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #134190

Nuclear is unfortunately a real option at this point, we have exacerbated the situation by refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and forcing industry to adopt more stringent regulations. The one option that ISN’T being discussed is coal gasification. We have enough coal in just the continental US to provide electricty to the nation for the next 300 years, we must find a cleaner way to harness that energy.

Posted by: Luke at March 17, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #134192

please check out ( ADVANCED REACTORS ) at www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #134196

If the whole world used it (as per the suggestion here), uranium might just do more harm than good.

For one thing, the security risks would increase exponentially. If the entire world used it like we use oil, there’s a good chance terrorists would get hold of some nuclear material or waste. With terrorism, you only need to get hold of it one time to still cause massive damage and disruption.

Same thing with storage. Where would we store all this waste (which would be at least thousands of times more than we have now)? Used uranium stays radioactive for many thousands of years. It would cause environmental harm wherever it is stored, and even if it’s all stored in a safe place, a natural disaster like an earthquake could bring it up.
Accidents would be a problem. In the US no nuclear accident has killed someone, but if we gained all of our energy from it, it would just be a matter of time. Also, other countries might not have the same safeguards and security. Nuclear meltdowns like chernobyl affect many countries and not just the local area where the plant it.

Of course, these problems could theoretically be solves (at large expense), but it would be better just to use safe, renewable energy instead.

Posted by: john at March 17, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #134198

I recomend checking out this link: www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net . It’s scary, but it’s well backed up.

We don’t just use oil for electricity and fuel. We depend on it for plastic and advanced components, such as those used in computers and solar panels. If we run out of oil we probably won’t have computers or many of the high-tech devices we take for granted. This is why we must break our addiction to oil now. It won’t be cheap or easy, but it’s worth it. Unfortunately no one has the political will to do it, and the oil and energy companies fight any government effort to do this.

Posted by: john at March 17, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #134202

“Can you cite some scientific evidence for this, please? It sounds vaguely similar to the tobacco industry’s claim that there is no conclusive evidence that smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer.”

Well, to start, though CO2 has had a steady, almost constant rise, temperature has changed the same as it has for thousands of years. In fact, global temperature went down during a period of time (40s to 60s i think). People are also citing the oceans rising as a cause of glaciers melting, though many glaciers are growing, and the oceans literally have not risen. at all. not even a bit. not an inch. not a millimeter. none. nada.

OH NO CLIMATE CHANGE AHHHHH

its been happening for millions of years. the dinosaurs’ cars didnt cause them to be extinct, nature did.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 17, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #134203

waste management in the nuclear fuel cycle at www.uic.com.au/nip09.htm please check it out.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #134205

please read all of it. also it tells about recycling of the waste also.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #134206

Well, the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor, not climate change, so I don’t see how that’s relevant.

Many glaciers are melting much faster than predicted. The ones in Greenland are an example. Temperatures have risen very highly during a short amount of time (not the same as it’s always been). Also, neocons often say nature itself releases more CO2 than us, such as from volcanoes. However this is not true at all, and billions of humans driving autos and using electricity releases tens of thousands of times more CO2 than all volcanic activity and natural processes.

The vast majority of unbiased, professional climatologists have come to the conclusion that we are causing climate change. “Scientists” the right quotes against it are usually either not climate scientists (in many cases not even scientists, such as lawyers or popular authors), or are being paid by right-wing think tanks.

Unfortunately the right has turned global warming denial into a sort of religion. This is a topic affecting the entire planet, but they attack any legitimate research and turn real science into a partisan issue.

Posted by: john at March 17, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #134207

Luke

You talk about Kyoto and then about making coal into gas. If we had strong controls, we can’t use that coal. Kyoto type controls mean not doing things like that.

John

In the very short term, only conservation will reduce demand. Nuclear is the answer in the short and medium term. In the long run, we may be able to go with alternatives.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #134209

Not one millimeter eh?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/rtsu-gwd112105.php

Science says otherwise

Find me one glacier, ONE that is growing in size. There are many that are melting.

I support nuclear power. While it is true that the generated waste will be, well, more if more plants are made, the relative amount of waste is far less than the waste generated by coal making the same amount of energy. In general, nuclear energy is far safer and cheaper. Wind power is currently not as cheap as it could be, but it may not be too long before people have turbines on their houses. We want solar power at our house, ourselves.

I don’t think we should worry too much about terrorists getting ahold of nuclear waste. I seriously doubt they have anyway to actually handle it, much less use it. Even if they did, I doubt any country would sell it to them - afterall, with terrorists, they could be a target too. 9/11 being the exception, there have been very few successful attacks, and fewer that have killed a large number of people. Setting off a nuclear bomb would REALLY bring countries down on their collective butts, as opposed to smaller, isolated attacks. Had Al-Quida pulled off, say, 5 sucessful attacks, simultaniously, and killed, say, 10,000 people, we would have glassed Iraq, but they don’t want to do that - they want fear, not outrage (again, 9/11 being an exception - it got outrage, but fear as well.)

my 2 cents

Posted by: Kimberly at March 17, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #134212

Kimberly

Actually, many glaciers are growing.

This is not a proof or not of much of anything. Glacier grow when more snow falls on them than melts. Ice and water are a phase transition, i.e. less than 32 is ice. If the temperature rises from 0 to 30, it doesn’t make much difference.

It is also true that it doesn’t snow much when it is really cold. That means that glaciers could grow with warmer climate (more snow) and shrink with colder ones.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #134215

Jack,

At 8:28am I wrote a post substantially agreeing with you. At 9:09, you wrote a pretty smarmy reply. If that’s how you treat someone who agrees with you, what gives? You rant about coal and Ted Kennedy after I write that nuclear’s time might have come?

To hell with you.

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 17, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #134218

also the newer gen 3 todays tech. have a much longer operation life of 60-80 years (proven) tomorrow’s gen 4 reactors have even more operation life. the new ap 600’s available today and the bigger ap 1000 have a core damage frequency nearly 1000 times less than is required by the N.R.C.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #134219

commonsense

your claim is patently false. no scientist worthy of the title has any doubt about the impact of human activity on the environment, and the existence and danger of global warming. i’m not sure whether i find your ignorant comments to the contrary laughable or depressing.

“the oceans literally have not risen. at all. not even a bit. not an inch. not a millimeter. none. nada.”

tide gauge data indicate that the global rate of sea level rise during the 20th century was 1 to 2 mm/yr. - good call though. did you do the measuring yourself?

i could spend a very long time citing credible sources which you would simply dismiss outright, and without even perfunctory consideration; however, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, since i choose to believe the vast majority of (*real*) scientists who agree that global warming is very real and very dangerous. perhaps you might be so kind as to give us a link to your “sources” (or did you just make this crap up?).

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 17, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #134224

Kimberly,

Moving off-topic, but I can’t restrain myself about this:

Had Al-Quida pulled off, say, 5 sucessful attacks, simultaniously, and killed, say, 10,000 people, we would have glassed Iraq, but they don’t want to do that - they want fear, not outrage (again, 9/11 being an exception - it got outrage, but fear as well.)

Oh my god!
How many *still* think Iraq was behind 9/11!
Wake up, it’s 2006, not february 2003.

Please tell me you should have wrote “Bushies would have glassed blindly and wrongly Iraq”?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 17, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #134227

Jack,
Interesting, thought provoking topic & article. Thanks!

Diogenes & John,
Until Commonsense can back up the claims, there doesn’t seem to be any point in debate. Perhaps Commonsense heard it on Rush Limbaugh? Rush “has a feeling” the wacko environmentalists are wrong. It’s rare to hear anyone suggest human induced Climate Change is not an accepted fact. Bush is a “dissenter” from these facts. We’re so undortunate to have a Big Oil administration in office at this time.

Kimberly,
While it’s true most glaciers are shrinking, some are growing. For example, in Norway, ‘warming’ temperatures are resulting in more snow, which adds to Norwegian glaciers.

Global Warming is not something which occurs uniformly. It does not occur at an incremental, gradual, constant rate. That is why it is really more accurate to refer to it as Climate Change. It’s not like a dial, it’s more like a switch, and a flickering one at that. Also, core drillings from Greenland and elsewhere suggest Climate Change can happen fast. For example, warming temperatures could shut off the thermohaline circulation which drives the Gulf Stream; as a result, temperatures in the northeastern US & northern Europe could plunge, and the process would only take a few years.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #134231

Back to topic, I’m currently writing this post on a laptop DC powered thanks to french nuclear plants park. So far (crossing fingers), none of them exploded.

But… many of them will reach their lifespan limit soon and must be dismantled in the next 20 years. They’ll replace them by a few but more efficient new generation reactors. The cost of this update is and was never taken into total cost of nuclear energy by any french energy plan/french nuclear lobby. Never. And it’s huge. “They” are talking of twice to quad the construction cost to dismantle a plant!

Anyway, nuclear fission energy can only be a short term (half a century) solution and is probably our best option currently. The world global energy needs are explosing.
But there’s others options. Better efficiency use of the actual energy produced today should be push as far as possible for each energy source and usage. House insulation, engine injection process, etc.
Starting to be less energy consumer is obviously, one other axis, one that everyone of us, the people, could move forward all by ourselves, at will.

But huge effort in R&D should focus on the futures renewable enrgy sources. We can’t anymore consume limited resources at always accelerated rate.
Maybe instead of installing a permanent base on the moon, some funds could be put where it’s really vital for USA, like in a project to resolve its little energy addiction?


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 17, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #134234

CommonSense,

You still haven’t backed your claim about “no climate change”.
It’s easy, you can try to follow Kimberly example and provide us a counter link to his one showing some scientific facts that the sea level didn’t rise one millimeter for centuries.

Otherwise, your claims are just *your* opinions.
Blindy ones, IMHO.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 17, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #134235
temperatures in the northeastern US & northern Europe could plunge, and the process would only take a few years.

One very sarcastic and selfish benefit: longer snowboarding seasons!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 17, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #134242

climate change, yes.

global warming does not necessarily mean warmer temperatures all around. it means more inclement, far less predictable weather. some places will experience drought, others flooding, some inordinate heat, others intense cold. need an example? check the news. also, as is now common knowledge, the end effect could be a new, human-induced ice age.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 17, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #134243

Like most problems, There is no one simple solution to our energy needs. All the approaches that have discussed should be tried and used in the short term. Nuclear energy has problems as well as potential. Maybe after all these years it could be the time to go ahead with some nuclear sites in this Country.In the mean time if you can burn corn cobs, bio diesel and/or willow you should do it. Even with the security risks and long term disposal problem Nuclear could help to free us from oil. Solar , hydrogen and other alternative technologies should also be used and improved and exported to other Countries. And if we could voluntarily conserve, raise vehicle milege standards,and conduct research on as yet unknown energy sources that would help. All of these approaches have merit and they also have drawbacks but all together they could help to free us from our collective oil addiction.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #134246

We often grab short term gain at the risk of long term blowback,so let me add a scary thought. Move ahead twenty years, the industry gains ca$h and clout. What do we do about the eventual call for deregulation?

Posted by: Ted at March 17, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #134250

Are we responsible for global warming on Mars?
The temperature on Mars is increasing along with ours. Could the Sun be responsible for Climate change? Has anyone taken planetary position into account?

Posted by: Warren Tillman at March 17, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #134252

Wow. this is a great idea !
Especially in the U.S.
Especially in Texas, where people drive long distances.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #134254

Until there are better solutions, these alternatives should be seriously considered.

Nuclear fission is a relatively bad idea, and it’s not necessary, since we have better alternatives. Nuclear fission power proponents frequently tout nuclear fission power as a limitless supply of energy powered by a fuel that never runs out.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #134267

Warren,
A lot of factors affect a planet’s temperature, such as precession, as well as the shape of earth’s orbit (it varies slightly from circular to elliptical). Also, the sun’s output of heat goes through a cycle. I’m not an astronomer, but from what I’ve read, these factors have been taken in to account, and today the earth is in a neutral postion for those kinds of factors.

Interesting about Mars. Source? I don’t see how we could have a baseline for determining martian climate trends. Paleoclimatology for Earth only recently took off in 1998, starting with the ice cores from Greenland.

Commonsense notes that a cooling trend occurred for a few decades. That is correct. The trend is very slight. Climate Change is not a gradual, incremental process. One of the mysteries about climate was only recently solved. Because of the Industrial Revolution, C02 should have increased much more that what is being measured in the atmosphere. Although current amounts of C02 are the highest in 600,000 years, possbily even in the past 20 million years, still they should have been higher considering how much humanity has produced over the past two centuries. Turns out the ocean absorbed a considerable amount. Gaia hypothesis, anyone? Only problem is that the ocean’s absorption changes its chemical composition, which has a whole ‘nother chain of effects.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #134269

Arr

I apologize. I was not trying to give you a hard time personally. Thanks for the comment. I meant no offense. My rant about TMI was my reflexive comment when I hear about the subject. People talk about it as if it was a major disaster. It was, but only for the industry.

I just can’t resist the Teddy K joke any time I am talking about nukes. It is getting a little dated.

dan

These things will work on smaller scale and the car thing still relies on gasoline that powers the cars.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #134273

on the levels of the ocean i was making a point on how man is not responsible.
You call me ignorant and then say something this:
“And global warming does not necessarily mean warmer temperatures all around.”

Listen carefully and please take this to heart, mankinds impact on the environment is not known to cause any danger. OH NO CO2 THIS WILL KILL LIFE ON EARTH!!!

but wait a second, environmental wackos, dont plants need and use CO2? Not only that, but we also know that long ago when CO2 levels were higher (again, the dinosaurs’ cars), plants took in more CO2. Wow, what an astonishing fact. And as to the ignorant moron who said dinosaurs were killed by a meteor, check up on that. It is only one of several theorys of how dinosaurs were extinct. moron.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 17, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #134275

yes france does have a potential problem because there reactors are getting old and are gen 2 type reactors. and there lifespans are at best twenty years. that would be about 2026 and gen4s are not expected to come out till 2040-2050.they will have to pay the piper! this country cant wait till 2040-2050. if they go with nuclear power here they will have to use gen3s that are avalable right now! were only running about 20% nuclear now, france almost 80% that puts us ahead in a economical sense . also if we were on line by 2020-2025 with just current gen3s they have a projected life of 60-80 years at today’s technology. about 2100ad.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #134276

commonsense,

“You call me ignorant and then say something this:
‘And global warming does not necessarily mean warmer temperatures all around.’ “

…your *comments* are ignorant, i’ll say that…so very ignorant.

first off, try relaying some sources. it’s a lot more convincing then your own biased opining!

secondly, i’d like to say it’s been a pleasure ‘debating’ with you, but alas, it has not. i’m sorry that we will not have a chance to continue this stimulating conversation, but i feel certain that…

“And as to the ignorant moron who said dinosaurs were killed by a meteor, check up on that. It is only one of several theorys of how dinosaurs were extinct. moron.”

… this statement is about to get you banned. on the bright side, this will give you some time to actually investigate the facts and realize your many numerous mistakes!

best,

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 17, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #134278

oh and by the way diogenes, you clearly have never studied global warming if you think no scientists disagree with the theory, there are many. and whoever said the burden of proof rests on my shoulders, they should realize theyre the ones who need prood if they want change. Why no change yet, after all this time? No proof. just projections (which often vary by 400%).

Peter Huber, Hard Green”: Saving the environment from the environmentalists, a Conservative Manifesto. (1999)

From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees C per decade with serious damage from cold (2002 “Antarctic Climate Cooling and terrestrial ecosystem respone)

Side looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6000 years. (“Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica” Science:476-80) 2002

During the last 4 interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer than it is today. (Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica Nature 399:429-36

and it was 1940- 1970 that the earth cooled but CO2 went up, according to NASA

My personal favorite:

“The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” by Cambridge University Press, 2001

or how bout this, (sorry jack)

“Energy sources that can produce 100% to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist.” Science 298 981-87 (2002)


and remember, its a theory.

i have more if you wish, but im tired. i was just sick of people saying ignorant things and accusing me of making up my “opinion”. its not an opinion, its the enlightened truth.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 17, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #134280

sorry diogenes for the “moron” statement, i get edgy when people call me ignorant while i literally have scientific journals next to me. Im sure you get frusterated as well as I do, and I hope you can forgive me now that a listed a few sources.


No hard feelings eh?

Posted by: CommonSense at March 17, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #134281

yah, i get frustrated too. i understand, but the editor won’t… no hard feelings on my part, but you should seriously apologize to john, asap. (he’s the one who made the comment).

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 17, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #134283

Commonsense

I understand that nuclear power will not solve all the troubles in the world, but without it there is no chance.

It is not only the CO2 that nuclear power avoids, but also the ordinary pollution that burning anything at all produces.

Re climate change.

I agree that there is a lot of uncertainty. Nature is never in balance. Historians recognize that climate changes have hurt or helped societies. The climate was warmer during the height of the Roman Empire and during the flowering of European civilization in the 12th Century. Cooler periods caused declines. Of course, 10,000 years ago ice covered much of North America and Europe. Which is the “real” climate?

There also is the fact that increased CO2 makes plants grow faster and stronger. Greenhouse owners actually pump the stuff in. So more CO2 may mean faster plant growth and longer growing seasons, which will take more of the CO2 out of the air etc. It is not simple.

But all that said, I see no reason not to take reasonable steps to walk lighter on the earth. I would not sign on to the crippling Kyoto regime, but we can take steps to reengineer processes to make less pollution. Most of the time when we reduce CO2, we are also reducing other forms of pollution too. It doesn’t hurt.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #134291

sorry john wont happen again


It is estimated that if the US had signed kyoto the earths temperature would be reduced by four hundredths of a degree celcius by the year 2100. (Nature 22 395-741) 2003

20 billion-150 billion a year if we had signed it, for 4 hundredths of a degree. that was a bi-partisan rejection by the way. under clintons administration. i guess Gore didnt decide his political strategy yet…


we dodged a bullet there.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 17, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #134293

a good article to read is by robert roy britt called the suns output increasing in possible trend fueling global warming. he shows data that the suns radiation has increased by .05% per decade since the late 1970s now keep in mind the suns output has only been monitored since satellite technology allowed observations. but i recommend the article anyways

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #134296

CommonSense,

You cite evidence from the antarctic ice core to suggest there have been warmer periods than the one today. That’s true. You omit to mention those periods represented peaks. We’re are currently experiencing a trend where C02 levels are increasing rapidly, and likely to go far beyond the levels of 323,000 years ago. Based upon the evidence from the ice core, this suggests our temperatures will far exceed the previous highs of the past 400,000 years. Here is an extract from the findings. Boldprint is mine:

“There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition.”

Here is a pretty good graph courtesy of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on C02 is pretty good.

CommonSense, I would urge you not to rely on dated material when discussing Climate Change. A book written in 1999, regardless of political bias, will be seriously outdated by the knowledge garnered since then. We’re learning a tremendous amount in a very short period of time. Unfortunately, what we’re learning keeps indicating the situation is worse than we thought, not better.

Natural processes have caused temperatures and levels of atmospheric C02 to vary in the past. What makes the current situation so extraordinary is that humanity has pumped a huge amount of C02 into the atmosphere within a very short period of time.

We’ve kept our foot down on a pedal, not even recognizing it was an accelerator. Now we’re realizing it might be a good idea to at least take our foot off the gas.


Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #134306

Rodney,
According to an article by Britt, “Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.” Britt is noting a solar cycle needs to be included in climate models, and that it could account for some fo the warming. Britt also says:

“Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.”

Britt uses the word “warming” as a link to this article. Like I said, the we’ve kept the pedal to the metal, we’re already comitted, when it comes to Climate Change we’ve already achieved escape velocity, and now it’s a matter of how far we’ll push it.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #134316

You went from stating a fact to a prediction. Thats not fair and im my opinion not a good idea. I can see you’ve researched the subject, but like i said, global warming predictions have been, are, and will be wrong. (example: the James E. Hansen prediction, which was widely accepted and still often thought of as evidence. it was over 300% wrong.)Predictions are not evidence.

What i don’t understand in your post is how you say CO2 levels have never been higher but the temperature has. Doesn’t that completely disprove the theory of global warming as we know it anyway?

(and, respectfully, your data says 1987)


And the ultimate question- What does a seemingly large amount of CO2 do to the environment?

Posted by: CommonSense at March 18, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #134318

thanks phx8 for the update. did you also read. the national academy of sciences report. about the next cycle of magnetic reversing, in 2008 they say it will be 30% to 50% stronger than the last one! yikes! i am trying to be a optimist.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 18, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #134327

I agree that nuclear energy is clean, but we are forgetting about accidents, which do happen, but what is wrong with wind and solar, 100% renewable and clean, or the sun, again full of energy, clean, and if we run out, I think we will have bigger problems. There would not need to be any fighting over nuclear power anymore.

Posted by: Jason at March 17, 2006 11:21 AM

When your driving down the road what would you rather see? A nice view of the country side with an occasional Nuclear power plant? Or mile upon mile of wind and solar generators?
While both wind and solar generators are the cleanest and most renewable source of power, it take one hell of a lot more of them to fill the needs of a city than one nuclear plant.
Maybe some time in the future they can figure out how to make them more efficient. But for now I’d just as soon they not be used.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 18, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #134330

for the short term and mid term i have to agree with jack. my god the reduction of CO2 would be enormise, you cant burn burn burn. nature does enough of that, we seen the great lakes repair. use the corncobs for tobacco or funny tobacco or put them somewhere else!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 18, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #134332

Something certainly has to be done on this issue, and if some of the new technologies with nuclear energy can be effective, we are going to have to make at least some investment. Of course, if we dont solve the problem of nuclear waste, we’re switching one expensive problem (coal - even if global warming doesnt exist, it is a MAJOR contaminant, it harms wildlife and people etc) for another (nuclear waste, expensive to store, expsensive to transport). Now, the rising cost of uranium in recent years is another consideration, and while i do not know much about uranium reserves, it is a very expensive commodity.

The big deal here is that we have to change the way we live as a society, and that is something no one wants to do. I admit, I am quite comfortable with suburban life, but it cannot last in its present form without some hereto unseen miracle.

The best shot we have is a decentralized network of solar and wind power, with either nuclear or coal or possibly some kind of battery system (only realistic in the event of a room temperature superconductor, something which would spur many more developments in and of itself) in order to provide for fluctuating power needs.

Whatever we do it will cost a great deal of money, money we dont have, and it will take effort and sacrifice on the part of the American people. Until we have a leader who can actually stand for personal sacrifice and national unity, ther will be no great transition, it will be life as usual, right till the bitter end.

Posted by: iandanger at March 18, 2006 2:37 AM
Comment #134350

Philippe Houdoin

I was tired and in a hurry when I posted. I know Iraq the country had nothing to do with 9/11, I was just making an example - I should have said ‘whatever country they came from’

You needn’t be rude.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 18, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #134368

Kimberly,

Sorry if I sounded rude.

From my european point of view, I found such lapsus quite interesting and a little scary. I was not reacting on personnal level but on the american collective unconsciousness that help such lapsus to still appear here and there. The power of propaganda is really frightning…

I should have state that along my post. Again, sorry if you took it for yourself.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 18, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #134391

philippe, charlemagne?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 18, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #134446

A few tidbits:

The predictions of the world’s supply of oil being exhausted in the near future have been made almost constantly since the early 1900s, and we keep finding new reserves. Just recently, new surveys show the known reserves in Afghanistan to be much larger than previous technology had thought, the Mexican govenment just announced major new fields off their Gulf coast, and Canada is beginning large-scale development of their oil sands fields. We’re not going to run out of oil any time soon.

The use of wind and/or solar power would provide only a small fraction of the current U. S. energy needs under the most wide-spread implementation scenarios. It is only suitable as an augmentation strategy, not as a replacement for current fossil fuels. Plus, many environmentalists are now opposed wide-spread development of these energy sources (threats to birds, especially raptors, for wind power, and the effects of localized habitat and climate change for solar farms).

And many of the same folks who are pushing the “global warming” theories now were just as adamant about the looming “mini Ice Age” in the 1970s. I suspect that the accuracy of these predictions are about the same. Only the willingnes of the mainstream media to accept unproven theories as fact has changed.

A good starting point for the counter-arguments to the “global warming” theories is the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

Posted by: Michael Chance at March 18, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #134447

Interesting fact: Chernobyl, by the time all is said and done, will have accounted for ~18,000 premature deaths - or, fewer premature deaths than are caused by the coal industry in the US EVERY YEAR (estimated by Abt Associates at 22,000). So, the worst nuclear disaster of all time wasn’t even as bad as one year of the coal industry (fascinatingly, coal power plants emit more nuclear material than properly functioning nuclear power plants do). I consider myself as green as anyone, and think nuclear is the best bet for clean fuel (at least until we run out of uranium).

Posted by: Jim at March 18, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #134472

Michael,
I’ll keep this short, since my response to CommonSense yesterday disappeared into the ether- I received a message saying the editor was reviewing, & not to double post- and then the post disappeared.

“Suffice it to say for now, there is no compelling reason to believe there will necessarily be any global warming as a result of the activities of man, especially those activities that result in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.”

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 7/25/01

Who is the Center?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

So, Michael, I can undertand the motivation of these people. Exxon and the Western Fuels Association and the principles of this Center all stand to make money by either denying Climate Change, or pretending it’s a good thing. These organizations profit in the short term at the expense of everyone’s long term interests.

Are you riding the Exxon gravy train? What is your motivation for citing Exxon’s lackeys?

“And many of the same folks who are pushing the “global warming” theories now were just as adamant about the looming “mini Ice Age” in the 1970s.”

Really? Can you name one? Because I don’t believe you. I believe you say something vague, like “many people,” because there really aren’t any people, not even one. Name one person who said the was a “looming Ice Age” then and says there is “global warming” now. Go for it.

“I suspect that the accuracy of these predictions are about the same.” Why do you “suspect”? Do you know, or don’t you? Because I “suspect” you do not know.

Feel free to critique the message. Knock it for a home run. Should be easy if you comments have any basis in fact.

CommonSense, you still there?

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #134507

Yes. And i have an important point you should think about, sleep on, and rephrase your insinuation. You think that the corporation evil people are covering up global warming and climate change so they make money. but you never even thought about that? What dead guy makes money? If this is a catastrophic event that will end civilization as we know it (which is how the environmental wackos are trying to view it as) WHO MAKES MONEY?. THEY WILL BE DEAD. Nobody wins from falsifying information on global warming, except maybe green charities, such as the nature conservancy.


you reiterated my point…

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #134582

Commonsense,
Have you read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond?

Why did the people on Easter Island cut down every tree? The largest palm tree in the world was on Easter Island at the time. Yet they cut down every one of those palsm, and the tree became extinct. They needed the palm trees to make their canoes, for food, for fuel, they surely knew it, and yet they cut down every single one.

The Norse colony on Greenland lasted for hundreds of years, but eventually disappeared. Did you know the Greenland Norse refused to eat fish? They also refused to hunt whales or build kayaks like the Inuit. Their survival eventually depended on it, yet it was more important for the fundamentally conservative Norse to retain their identity than change.

Why would Exxon deny what most other people & corporations already accept? Why would Bush be a “dissenter” when it comes to Climate Change, and create an administration in which scientific information is denied when the info conflicts with beliefs?

When Mt Saint Helens threatened to erupt in 1980, an old dude named Harry Truman refused to evacuate his mountain cabin. He died in the eruption.

Why do people refuse to adapt? Usually it’s because the current situation was reached by pursuing a successful strategy. Sometimes previous efforts to change met with disaster. As a result, past successes and previous failures make people, or even profitable corporations, afraid to change. They’d rather die.

Posted by: phx8 at March 19, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #134584

Commonsense, you said earlier you have scientific journals beside you. I’m sorry to say I don’t believe you. This is because out of all the peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warming, not one refutes it. I don’t know if you honestly believe it or are lying, but opinions don’t equal science. Bush’s personal declarations, Rush Limbaugh’s rant, and PR material put out by energy companies do not count as scientific material.

I’ve learned the hard way that it’s usually fruitless to argue with right-wing extremists. Like I said, even though it’s an issue affecting the entire planet, they’ve turned global warming denial into a kind of religion. Kind of like talking about evolution to a creatonist. No matter what the evidence, they’ll find a way to deny it or say it’s really a good thing.

I don’t know the psychology of the corporations denying it, however people really are greedy like that, their greed blinds them from seeking the truth. Corporations are supposed to make money for their shareholders, not protect the environment or public. So if the CEO of Exxon suddenly declared that we needed to stop using so much oil, he’d probably be fired at least not doing his job.


Posted by: john at March 19, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #134611

phx8:
An exaple of my side would be eugenics. I will not go into it because i grow weary of this subject already, but study. Realize that it was the socially accepted theory. The scientific community said that it was SCIENCE. My, how times have (not) changed.


And john:
it is quite an arrogant thing to say that you have read every single journal on global warming. I am disgusted with your post because you call me a liar and you call every respected scientist who refutes global warming a liar. Amen, opinions don’t make science. So don’t listen to the projections, which have failed us for over 20 years.

global warming denial into a religion? i guess you could say that. Though i am religious, i do see a parallel. Religion takes a “leap of faith”. For religion there is a lack of scientific evidence for an extraordinary belief. There is the parallel. There is a lack of scientific evidence for the extraorginary belief that human beings are the sole cause of global warming. There is a lack of scientific evidence that more glaciers are melting than glowing. There is a lack of scientific evidence that the entire globe is warming (remember, the whole globe needs to warm to call something global warming) i could go on, but i grow weary of the subject.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #134632

I’ll take your points one by one:

“it is quite an arrogant thing to say that you have read every single journal on global warming.”
I’m sorry I never said anything of the sort.

“I am disgusted with your post because you call me a liar and you call every respected scientist who refutes global warming a liar.”
I never meant it that way. You said you had a a lot of scientific journals with you:
“i get edgy when people call me ignorant while i literally have scientific journals next to me.”

This is where you lose credibility. There hasn’t been a single peer-reviewed scientific article going against the idea of global warming. So either you just made it up, or think non-scientific material (web sites, energy industry PR, etc) is scientific.

“…and you call every respected scientist who refutes global warming a liar. Amen, opinions don’t make science.”
Never said that either. However most of them who disagree (no one has “refuted” it) are either not really scientists, may have a background in science but never climatology or earth science, or are paid by right-wing groups or energy companies.
Maybe there is a small minority of objective, qualified scientists who disagree but again the vast majority don’t. Most agree, and you can’t change this fact just by ignoring it or wishing it away.

See, this is what bugs me. No matter what, you’re never going to consider that it might be true (okay, maybe if the world changed like in “The Day After Tomorrow” you would, but even then I wonder). Kind of like evolution with creationists, they’ll keep finding excuses or say the scientists have an agenda.

Posted by: john at March 19, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #134640

john, with all due respect, you are not presenting a valid argument on any front and you contradict yourself. If the world changed like “day after tomorrow”, of course i would believe it. It’s funny u thought you made a point. See, this is what bugs me. No matter what, you’re never going to consider it might be false (okay, maybe if you lived to be 1000 years old and realized industry isnt the cause of global warming or ice ages, but even then I wonder).


a theory is a rational examination of the facts. we do not have those facts. we have sketchy data that some believe could point to global warming. then, some people believe global warming could be bad.

If there is clear evidence against a theory than it needs to be restated… which happened

now they are calling it “Abrupt Climate Change” and whenever theres a hurricane or tornado environmentalists blame the good economy.


there was also a small minority in the scientific community who disagreed with the theory of eugenics

Posted by: CommonSense at March 19, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #134659

Responding to phx8:

No, I don’t work for ExxonMobil, or any other petrochemical company. Any reason why you zeroed on that particular company’s donations to this organization? ExxonMobil donates 10x that amount annually to the United Way. Are there nefarious reasons for those large contributions, as well? And do you have counter-studies refuting the scientific studies presented by this organization, or do you just dismiss them out of hand because you have a beef against ExxonMobil?

As for scientists who once promoted a “global cooling” theory and are now promoting a “global warming” theory, a very quick and cursory search (less than a half hour) came up with four names - Stephen Schneider, Hubert Lamb, Lester Brown, and Reid Bryson (I tossed Paul Erlich, because people on both sides of the debate consider him just a bit too “out there”). I’m certain that I could find more if I had the time.

As to my scepticism about the various theories of global warming - the predictions are too varied, and the models are based on both too few variables and too many shaky data points (like the infamous single set of tree rings) to be able to predict future global temperature trends, let alone definitively find a man-made causal effect. As the 1975 National Acadamy of Sciences report concluded in response to concerns about global cooling, more research is needed.

Posted by: Michael Chance at March 19, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #134703

Michael,
Why Exxon? Because Exxon funds most of the disinformation about Climate Change.

Check the Wikipedia article on the Global Climate Coalition. It disbanded when the body of evidence concerning Climate Change became overwhelming. BP, to its credit, left first. Other corporations followed, until only Exxon was left. Another Wikipedia article on Exxon observes:

“Unlike other major oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and BP, Exxon is one of the few that has actively fought the Kyoto Protocol and disputed scientific opinion on global climate change. Exxon-Mobil is highly criticized for funding climate change research, decried by environmentalists as “junk science…”

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #134755

Readers who would like a primer on the people, politics and technology of nuclear power that is also entertaining might want to check out “Rad Decision”, a new techno-thriller by a longtime nuclear engineer (me.) It is available at no cost at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com, and readers seem to like it, judging from their comments on the homepage. James Aach

Posted by: James Aach at March 20, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #134817

In response to phx8:

Is it your belief that only corporate giants like ExxonMobil fund junk science?

Or do you at least admit the possibility that anti-corporate and/or agrarian-utopian environmentalist organizations and institutions might also begin research projects with a bias toward certain outcomes, and, thus, might also be producing “junk science” favoring their preferred policies and programs?

See JunkScience.com for many examples (which, of course, phx8 will denounce as paid corporate anti-environmentalist propaganda, without providing a single piece of evidence that the site’s facts are incorrect).

Posted by: Michael Chance at March 20, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #134842

Michael,
This links to an article questioning the “Hot Air” article published on the junk site.

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

It’s very detailed, and rather technical. The comments at the end are kind of interesting. This is the only thing I can find on the article questioning cores. No one else in the scientific community seems to pay attention to it. That doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong. It does seem to indicate a lack of… respect. Lyndon LaRouche did publish some of the scholar’s material, but given the reputation of LaRouche, that probably did more harm than good.

While an agrarian-utopian organization certainly might produce “junk science,” no organization in the world has the power behind it which Exxon enjoys to publicize the “junk science,” both in terms of money and political clout. Quite a few multinational corporations used to particpate in the Global Climate Coaltion. Today only Exxon persists in opposing the wide ranging agreement of the scientific community. Exxon funds the opposition almost singlehandedly. Exxon also enjoys having the ear of the Bush administration. For example, Exxon recommended Harlan Watson to represent the US at a 2004 Global Climate Conference. Bush appointed Watson. While there, Watson did everything possible to prevent international cooperation. I don’t know of any agrarian-utopian organization capable of doing that.

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #136014

Wasn’t it Exxon that has been rewarded by Cheney/Bush for its support against Kyoto? The reward? Wasn’t it Exxon that achieved a 44% increase in net profit last quarter and a 28% increase in net this past quarter? All this while American citizens have paid higher and higher prices for oil products, and paid again in taxes for the increased prices charged to our government during its stupid war on the Iraqi people. If I’d change my evil ways and back Cheney/Bush, do you think he’d reward me like that?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #381275

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 5:28 AM
Post a comment