Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[Steve81]

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.

It's not going to be tomorrow, but keep in mind that India has enough resources for things like a billion dollar a year space program as well.

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.

AFAIK, some Gen IV designs have the potential to mitigate a lot of the safety issues with nuclear (and reprocessing can help deal with the high level waste). A workable pebble bed reactor for example would reduce issues of weapons production as a "client" would only receive pellets of relatively low grade uranium fuel encased in pyrolitic graphite.

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.

We can only hope

 

[Steve81]

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

The Enterprise has fusion reactors too Gene's favorite, DS9 is also run by fusion reactors. In fact, IIRC, anti-matter in the Trek universe comes from facilities run by fusion reactors.

 

[lsiberian]

They've got fusion reactors too And IIRC, anti-matter in the Trek universe is created by plants run by fusion reactors.

They do have solar sails.

 

[Steve81]

They do have solar sails.

That we see in one episode as an example of primitive 16th century Bajoran technology But hey, they reached Cardassia! Columbus and Sir Francis Drake weren't doing that with wind power here on Earth for sure.

 

[lsiberian]

That we see in one episode as an example of primitive 16th century Bajoran technology But hey, they reached Cardassia!

There is actually a project to launch a solar sail vessel in 2016.

 

[Steve81]

There is actually a project to launch a solar sail vessel in 2016.

Cool stuff. Found one fun quote reading about it:

Engineers are also considering solar sails for deep-space propulsion. For example, a sail-equipped craft could conceivably travel to another star system in just a few centuries — as long as the sail is the size of Texas and a space-based laser shines a super-powerful beam on it as the vehicle recedes into the depths of space.

I'll wait for the warp drive, due in 2063

 

[lsiberian]

Cool stuff. Found one fun quote reading about it:


I'll wait for the warp drive, due in 2063

I fear this is turning into a Trekkie thread.

 

[3db]

Your so right that money talks. I'm of the opinion that we could have had production hydrogen powered vehicles on the road but the oil industry and their lobbyists prevented this from happening. Money will always dictate what's good for the people and environment shrouding the real truth about things. Imagine a renewable resource like water to provide power.

 

[Swerd]

All this talk about fusion reactors, solar cells on every rooftop, and bazillions of wind turbines reminds me of the only economics joke I know.

There were three guys in a lifeboat, a scientist, a priest, and an economist. They had cases of canned food, but no can opener.

The scientist, flipping open the magnifying glass on his Swiss Army knife, said we must try to think of a way to get the sunlight to heat the metal cans so they expand and pop open. The priest, believing that approach was misguided, wanted everyone in the lifeboat to join him in prayer for divine intervention – a miracle that would open the cans. The economist said, don't be silly. Let's assume we have a can opener, and put our minds to work figuring out how we should distribute the goods .

Fusion reactors are, so far, science fiction, there will never be enough power from solar cells and wind turbines (as we know that technology now), water cannot be a source of chemical energy because the hydrogen is already fully oxidized. Does anyone remember the Cold Fusion fraud of the late 1970s? Besides, we are still burning COAL for most of our electric power.

We can either put some money into R&D until we find something that actually might work, or we can cynically assume that all the usual suspects (Lockheed Martin, General Electric, OPEC, the Eastern Monied Interests, the Liberal Press, the Girl Scouts, etc.) are involved in a vast conspiracy to keep us from the unlimited supply of cost-free energy that we all deserve .

 

[gene]

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 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.

Nuclear is only carbon neutral when the plant is generating energy. And its a slow and expensive and resource intensive process to build such a plant. This article shows discusses some of that. Note I am NOT anti-nuclear but it's not without its issues.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-carbon-source-of-energy.html

 

[Irvrobinson]

Nuclear is only carbon neutral when the plant is generating energy. And its a slow and expensive and resource intensive process to build such a plant. This article shows discusses some of that. Note I am NOT anti-nuclear but it's not without its issues.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-carbon-source-of-energy.html

Yup, nuclear sucks. So does hydro (dams rivers, floods canyons), coal, oil, gas (carbon, you know), solar (needs batteries or carbon/nuclear power for night time), wind (destroys the landscape, inefficient, undependable, noisy, ugly, kills birds), and then there's transmission lines no one wants, not to mention substations that are noisy, ugly, and fire hazards. Unfortunately, electricity is arguably the most important commodity in the world. What's left, geothermal? Waves ruin coastlines.

I am anti-fission. It's too much of a risk and a long term mess. I'd rather generate CO2 until fusion or something else is ready rather than screw up the landscape to save maybe 50 parts per billion.

 

[gene]

Yup, nuclear sucks. So does hydro (dams rivers, floods canyons), coal, oil, gas (carbon, you know), solar (needs batteries or carbon/nuclear power for night time), wind (destroys the landscape, inefficient, undependable, noisy, ugly, kills birds), and then there's transmission lines no one wants, not to mention substations that are noisy, ugly, and fire hazards. Unfortunately, electricity is arguably the most important commodity in the world. What's left, geothermal? Waves ruin coastlines.

I am anti-fission. It's too much of a risk and a long term mess. I'd rather generate CO2 until fusion or something else is ready rather than screw up the landscape to save maybe 50 parts per billion.

Good points and agreed. WE need to harvest Helium-3 from the moon to do fusion. China is in a race to get there first The problem is it's extremely expensive to transport that energy back to earth unless we can do it wirelessly.

 

[gene]

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.

Sorry but your opinions are political if you're equating real peer reviewed science as being a fraud or set up as a global conspiracy for profiteering by the 1%. This is the same rhetoric heard on Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio. So I guess NASA, the Pentagon and the entire world scientific community is also in on this too?

Last time I checked the bulk of our Federal budget is spent on: Defense, Medicare and Social Security, NOT Climate Science.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Interestingly the only sources that claim otherwise are always tied to one political party and big oil. It's not hard to make this discussion political when we have one political party in our country that is anti-science.

Surprise Surprise Ms. Joanna Nova, the author of the report you cited about Govt Spending on Climate Change is a Right Winger sponsored by Shell Oil. I didn't see that coming.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova

 

[Chu Gai]

Who sponsors sourcewatch?

 

[shadyJ]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And who will guard the Chu Gais?

WHO are you really working for Chu, WHO!?

 

[Steve81]

Nuclear is only carbon neutral when the plant is generating energy.

Sure, but you could make the same argument about wind and solar. It takes a considerable amount of resources (and yes, carbon) to build a wind farm or solar plant that can equal the output of a multi-reactor nuclear site.

And its a slow and expensive and resource intensive process to build such a plant. This article shows discusses some of that.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-carbon-source-of-energy.html

Unfortunately, the article doesn't discuss why nuclear is so slow and expensive to build. It's naturally a large up front expense, but when you've got people protesting and suing to delay/halt plant construction, then it's game over. That's why nuclear has "no business case" as its put there. That ultimately goes back to politics and fear. People hear nuclear and think of cases like Chernobyl and Fukushima without understanding that these were hardly examples of SOTA reactor design. Few really understand that Chernobyl has about as much in common with a Gen IV design pebble bed reactor as a Pinto does with a Chevy Volt.

Note I am NOT anti-nuclear but it's not without its issues.

It's not perfect to be sure, but have you seen what happens when a M/AM reactor goes sideways???

 

[Rickster71]

Sorry but your opinions are political if you're equating real peer reviewed science as being a fraud

Nope.
I'm still on the subject of Money and Human Nature.
Key words are "Real Peer Review" (there is none) The same grant money is paying all involved.
Who would peer review themselves out of money and a job?

There are people that live their entire working lives receiving grant money.
The Grants are only given to people or organizations that accept Global Warming as a foregone conclusion. That's how this grant process works.

They're doing exactly what the Tobacco companies did with their Docs and Scientists.

 

[Swerd]

They're doing exactly what the Tobacco companies did with their Docs and Scientists.

This is a major distortion of what actually did in smoking in the USA. Science and medicine made a strong case against it, and that eventually won the day. This was despite the best efforts of the tobacco companies and the politicians they sponsored to promote their business. The few medical doctors (and I use that term lightly) that big tobacco brought forth to support their cause, were hired as publicity shills, not as true medical or scientific consultants.

 

[Chu Gai]

A cofounder of greenpeace gives his take. I don't think he's part of the right wing political process or is a known recipient of petroleum funding.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

 

[3db]

A cofounder of greenpeace gives his take. I don't think he's part of the right wing political process or is a known recipient of petroleum funding.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

One point really hit home with me and I've eluded to this twice now. No one knows exactly what is causing global warming. Scientist may believe they do but these same scientists never acknowledged global warming and cooling cycles that have been occuring throughout time. Global warming IHO is not understood thoroughly so I fail to see why the "panic" button has been repeatedly hit on this supposedly man made event. (which it clearly isn't nor has it been clearly proven)