Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[Chu Gai]

Agreed. They are already preparing New York for this and countries like Australia are way ahead of the curve too.

The Pentagon considers the impacts of climate change an immenant threat.

Lovely Ted Cruz is doing everything he can to stop Nasa from continuing to study it.

I wonder if that's one of the reasons China is building up those islands in anticipation that if they don't and sea levels rise, there would no longer be a territorial claim?

 

[Steve81]

You're not going to get major players like India and China to go along.

I don't know if that's entirely true. Pre-Fukushima, both nations were making significant investments in nuclear power. In China's case, their air pollution troubles are well publicized, so switching from coal fired plants to nuclear makes sense. One imagines India probably has similar concerns, though they've also got a large supply of thorium that they'd like to tap for nuclear energy as well.

Nuclear is not carbon free and takes a significant amount of time to pay for itself. agreed though we need multiple sources of energy including wind and solar.

Nuclear fission is carbon free of course, though the uranium mining & plant construction involve some emissions. Still, overall you're talking about a small fraction of the footprint of coal, a fuel supply large enough to last generations with reprocessing, and a relatively small physical footprint and more reliable capacity factor next to solar and wind.

 

[Chu Gai]

Years away for those two countries. India is still working on getting millions of toilets installed and then for people to use them instead of the streets.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Nuclear fission is carbon free of course, though the uranium mining & plant construction involve some emissions. Still, overall you're talking about a small fraction of the footprint of coal, a fuel supply large enough to last generations with reprocessing, and a relatively small physical footprint and more reliable capacity factor next to solar and wind.

I agree in principle; I'd rather have 2GW of nuclear in the landscape than 2GW of solar or wind. Unfortunately, as you know, nuclear has three big problems that make people nervous: 1. waste disposal 2. radiation containment 3. you can make weapons with it. And there are lots of lesser issues on the list.

Perhaps Lockheed-Martin's claim of practical fusion power will play out. I'd bet against it, but it would be nice to be really, really wrong.

 

[Rickster71]

Yes because there is more profit in climate science than big oil. Give me a break. I have a brother (Dr. Dominick DellaSala) who is top of his field in Ecology and an expert on the impacts of climate change.

He lives pretty frugally as most scientists in his field. Most of these guys are in it for a good cause not profiteering.

The Koch brothers on the other hand have every vested interest in misleading the public and creating doubt about the scientific certainty Of Manmade Climate Change.

I know that you're missing the point, when you politicize the subject.
My opinions aren't political, I'm simply following the money.
The billions of dollars are going somewhere. Sorry you took it personally, the article wasn't about your brother and I don't know him.

The 1% are making money from oil and are making it from the Climate Change Industry.... just as they did from the War Industry.

Our government offers Billions of dollars in grant money for climate research.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests.
Scientists have to feed their kids and pay for college and braces, just like the rest of us.
By pouring so much money into a question, we have inadvertently created a self fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation.

 

[Chu Gai]

Reminds me of the movie, The Distinguished Gentleman, with Eddie Murphy. When he asked what his position should be on sugar I think, he was told it didn't matter. Either way there was money to support the position.

Let's assume for the moment that Lockheed can make fusion practical. What would be the unintended consequences?

 

[lsiberian]

If we are all honest with ourselves we know we are destroying the world. Ocean trash, Climate Change, Overgrazing, Forest clearing, setting off nukes, pumping sulfur dioxide into the air, mining and numerous other practices literally destroy the world. The fact is we gotta find renewable resources and energy alternatives quickly if we want to save our pretty places. Windmills and solar panels aren't exactly pretty either, but if we put solar panels on every roof and a windmill in every yard I'm sure it would help with the power situation. Plus it would give us great backup power when the zombies come.

 

[lsiberian]

Reminds me of the movie, The Distinguished Gentleman, with Eddie Murphy. When he asked what his position should be on sugar I think, he was told it didn't matter. Either way there was money to support the position.

Let's assume for the moment that Lockheed can make fusion practical. What would be the unintended consequences?

We start chain reaction that blows up the world. Nuclear isn't the answer IMO. Of course it does make for great weapons.

 

[Irvrobinson]

The 1% are making money from oil and are making it from the Climate Change Industry.... just as they did from the War Industry.

Rick, that's just silly. Worse than silly.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Let's assume for the moment that Lockheed can make fusion practical. What would be the unintended consequences?

The original promise of nuclear power was that it would be too cheap to meter. If practical fusion does that, and I doubt it, but some unintended consequences would be:

1. Cheaper everything, especially aluminum and other electricity-intensive manufacturing
2. More traffic
3. More urban sprawl
4. Decline of the oil & gas industry
5. Decline of centralized power utilities
6. Gradual elimination of the US (and Canadian) power grid
7. Decommissioning of most fission power plants
8. Lockheed-Martin stock goes up a lot. Well, perhaps this one isn't unintended.

 

[Jeff R.]

I know that you're missing the point, when you politicize the subject.
My opinions aren't political, I'm simply following the money.
The billions of dollars are going somewhere. Sorry you took it personally, the article wasn't about your brother and I don't know him.

The 1% are making money from oil and are making it from the Climate Change Industry.... just as they did from the War Industry.

Our government offers Billions of dollars in grant money for climate research.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests.
Scientists have to feed their kids and pay for college and braces, just like the rest of us.
By pouring so much money into a question, we have inadvertently created a self fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation.

Well said!!! The money talks and the only way to secure the next grant is to validate the preconceived conclusions.

 

[Irvrobinson]

if we put solar panels on every roof and a windmill in every yard I'm sure it would help with the power situation. Plus it would give us great backup power when the zombies come.

And it would look incredibly ugly and kill lots of birds. No birds = lots of rodents.

 

[lsiberian]

And it would look incredibly ugly and kill lots of birds. No birds = lots of rodents.

Pretty sure we could make pretty windmills that are bird proof.

 

[Jeff R.]

Pretty sure we could make pretty windmills that are bird proof.

I would hope if we can build nuke reactors and what not...we can solve this problem....I am sure the birds will learn to stay away over time also. I know where I live, if I lost a sea gull or 2 it would not hurt my feelings.

We can never make somebody think a windmill is pretty, that is like which cars is nicer, to each is own....

If they are complaining about the unsightly appearance of a windmill that then it is safe to assume they are in the camp of never satisfied with anything in the world and we can just ignore them.

 

[lsiberian]

I would hope if we can build nuke reactors and what not...we can solve this problem....I am sure the birds will learn to stay away over time also. I know where I live, if I lost a sea gull or 2 it would not hurt my feelings.

We can never make somebody think a windmill is pretty, that is like which cars is nicer, to each is own....

If they are complaining about the unsightly appearance of a windmill that then it is safe to assume they are in the camp of never satisfied with anything in the world and we can just ignore them.

You got that right. They don't even build houses properly anymore and cities have completely stupid regulations. Don't even get me started on HOAs

 

[Chu Gai]

The original promise of nuclear power was that it would be too cheap to meter. If practical fusion does that, and I doubt it, but some unintended consequences would be:

1. Cheaper everything, especially aluminum and other electricity-intensive manufacturing
2. More traffic
3. More urban sprawl
4. Decline of the oil & gas industry
5. Decline of centralized power utilities
6. Gradual elimination of the US (and Canadian) power grid
7. Decommissioning of most fission power plants
8. Lockheed-Martin stock goes up a lot. Well, perhaps this one isn't unintended.

Elimination of millions of jobs. Hello electric cars, goodbye dealerships for one. Economic ruin on a global scale. Countries that rely on fossil fuels as primary sources of revenue collapse. Poverty, unrest, wars, starvation. Call by the UN to provide it to the world like open source. Russia, OPEC, are finished. Norway would rapidly go through its rainy day fund. And that's just scratching the surface.

 

[Steve81]

We start chain reaction that blows up the world. Nuclear isn't the answer IMO. Of course it does make for great weapons.

Let me put it this way: the USS Enterprise ain't running on solar and wind

 

[Irvrobinson]

I would hope if we can build nuke reactors and what not...we can solve this problem....I am sure the birds will learn to stay away over time also.

Sorry, but that isn't how it works. Large-scale wind power takes lots of huge turbines, miles of them, and they kill many thousands of birds per year, including eagles. Not to mention looking like crap. You're not going to solve anything with a 10 foot blade on your house.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Elimination of millions of jobs. Hello electric cars, goodbye dealerships for one. Economic ruin on a global scale. Countries that rely on fossil fuels as primary sources of revenue collapse. Poverty, unrest, wars, starvation. Call by the UN to provide it to the world like open source. Russia, OPEC, are finished. Norway would rapidly go through its rainy day fund. And that's just scratching the surface.

Maybe, but thinking about causing hurt to Putin, OPEC, and some dictators I can think of isn't worrying me much.

 

[lsiberian]

Let me put it this way: the USS Enterprise ain't running on solar and wind

It runs on Antimatter, but that's classified level weaponry.