• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A letter and appeal on Climate Change

Not sure of that lomiller - Ben is certainly pro nuke as am I very strongly.

Barry Brook is a strong advocate and has the chops to back up his opinion.
sixes you'll find Brooks writing even better than Gavin's et all at RC

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

and specifically on the economics of alternatives versus nuclear.

BTW Sweden has led the world in green initiatives for two years running and are committed along with Norway to carbon neutral by mid-century.
They recently reversed course on nuclear and are moving forward with it.

There is simply no alternative to coal for industrial nations. :(
 
Last edited:
Just to add to the links lomiller posted, The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart is a good read. A lot of information. A very good narrative. It describes the progression of climate science with much of the important milestones.
 
I think conventional fission nuclear power is a stop-gap until we can build either thorium energy amplifiers or fusion power plants. With thorium we have about 1000 years of power reserves, With fusion we need not even consider when it will run out.
 
I'm gonna go ahead and admit that nuclear power scares me. It's not exactly clean, although it doesn't litter the atmosphere, and there is the risk - however small - of accidents of the Tjernobyl kind. I don't like nuclear energy because of these reasons.

However, I realize that there is little alternative to it at the moment. I would certainly take nuclear over carbon. Then again, I am sort of worried that we're going to fix global warming and create an even bigger problem.

I'd also like to add that I know very little about the actual risks of nuclear energy. I just know what I've gathered from the news and various anti-nuclear campaigns that were very vocal in Sweden about 20 years ago.
 
lomiller said:
Since you haven’t really asked any questions I can’t really answer any of them but maybe this will get you started
Click to expand...
Thanks!

As my concerns are more focused on the A in AGW, I have a hunch that my questions belong in another thread... one that I may well start... one day...

As with many issues, I'm content to rely on the research of (real!) scientists when it comes to the G and the W

Well... not merely rely... I like to read what they have to say, too - which is why I appreciate you guys salvaging what was a train wreck of a thread

Thanks :)
 
bit_pattern said:
bite sized chunk that firmly puts the A back into Global Warming
Click to expand...
Thanks :)

I wrote my earlier post rather clumsily - trying to avoid a derail in what has become a fascinating thread

Apologies for being (sorta intentionally) vague about me pondering the A...

<derail>
It's not the what of the A... I don't dispute that "Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity"...

For me, it's more the how

My 'issue' is more how we, as modern humans, respond to the knowledge that what we do is a 'catalyst' for GW

Best discussed in another thread, methinks​
</derail>
 
My 'issue' is more how we, as modern humans, respond to the knowledge that what we do is a 'catalyst' for GW
Click to expand...

That is the entire heart of the issue as it stands....how DO we respond most effectively and that is no easy set of answers.

First of course stop fueling the problem with more fossil C02 is rather obvious but there are limits to the low hanging fruit on that. ( mitigation )

The faster we do that the less we have to deal with the consequences ( coping / adapting )

It's a horrendously complex issue even if the goals can be stated simply...move to a carbon neutral civilization that is sustainable over the long term and does not mine resources, including the atmosphere and ocean and biosphere in such a way as to do lasting harm.

On that hinges many fortunes.

Some VCs think this will be the mother of all booms - dwarfing the tech boom as society moves off fossil fuels and moves a large slice of the $7 trillion a year energy business into avenues other than OPEC and Big Coal.
 
uke
I'm gonna go ahead and admit that nuclear power scares me. It's not exactly clean, although it doesn't litter the atmosphere, and there is the risk - however small - of accidents of the Tjernobyl kind. I don't like nuclear energy because of these reasons.
Click to expand...
You need to clear up some misconceptions.
It IS extremely clean compared to any other comparable density power source. All technology carries some risk, nuclear as a energy source is very low risk and is required to get rid of the de-commissioned nuclear weapons. It also successfully and safely powers almost 20% of the planets electricity now.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

- May 813 Dec 2007 ... Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear ...
Click to expand...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Chernobyl was built without a containment dome - no reactor in the west was ever done that way and no reactor in the present or future will be either.

and the opinion of those living close to nuclear facilities should carry some weight for you

Neighbors see value of nuke plants

By WILIIAM H. MILLER
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Click to expand...
Try to get an oil refinery, liquefied natural gas terminal, transmission line or even a wind farm cited and built anywhere in the United States, and good luck. The not-in-my-backyard syndrome still casts a shadow over most big energy projects. But it’s no longer much of a problem for nuclear power. Instead of opposing nuclear power, people in communities closest to nuclear plants are among its strongest supporters. In Georgia, Maryland, Texas, South Carolina and other states where electricity companies are planning nuclear plants, there is overwhelming support for new reactors among people living close to existing nuclear plants. And that support extends to the Callaway nuclear plant in Fulton, where a new reactor might yet be built once the demand for electricity picks up.
Consider the results of a national public opinion poll of people residing within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear power plant (and, importantly, people working at the plant are excluded). Polling indicates 76 percent support for new reactor construction. What’s more, the poll — conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. — found that 90 percent of nuclear plant neighbors believe a new reactor would provide an economic stimulus for their communities. A Gallup poll shows that Americans’ support for nuclear power has climbed to 62 percent, the highest level of support since Gallup first began asking in 1994. [/quote]

more

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/apr/04/neighbors-see-value-of-nuke-plants/

as an open minded science type you might want to rethink your anti-nuke stance.....evidence does not support it and no we have no choice f we want any sort of a carbon neutral first world lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
That is the entire heart of the issue as it stands....how DO we respond most effectively and that is no easy set of answers.
Click to expand...
My question(s) (a tangent from this discussion) focus on the term 'effective'... but then I'm looking at it from a more 'philosophical/societal/evolutionary' angle... and I have NO training in any of these areas

However, my own weird perspective doesn't preclude me from being curious about how others ARE answering the Q 'technically and pragmatically'

macdoc said:
It's a horrendously complex issue even if the goals can be stated simply...move to a carbon neutral civilization that is sustainable over the long term and does not mine resources, including the atmosphere and ocean and biosphere in such a way as to do lasting harm.

On that hinges many fortunes.

Some VCs think this will be the mother of all booms.
Click to expand...
What are VCs?
 
Viet Cong? Venture Capitalists?

Honestly, just guessing.


Oh, and people across the AGW belief spectrum back nuclear power. You don't have to believe in AGW to believe we need alternative energy sources.
 
macdoc said:
uke2se said:
I'm gonna go ahead and admit that nuclear power scares me. <snip/>
I'd also like to add that I know very little about the actual risks of nuclear energy....
Click to expand...
uke
You need to clear up some misconceptions.
It IS extremely clean compared to any other comparable density power source. All technology carries some risk, nuclear as a energy source is very low risk and is required to get rid of the de-commissioned nuclear weapons. It also successfully and safely powers almost 20% of the planets electricity now.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Click to expand...
I think this IS an appropriate response to uke expressing 'fears'

macdoc said:
and the opinion of those living close to nuclear facilities should carry some weight for you
Click to expand...
This is NOT; it's an argument from popularity :(
 
It might be. But those of us who have actually worked in nuclear power ought to bear some weight in this matter...

Yes, there are dangers, but I think that any large industrial effort has comparable dangers. How many people do you think die in coal mining accidents? How many people do you think get cancer from radionuclides released from coal-burning power plants? The answers might surprise you!
 
BenBurch said:
It might be. But those of us who have actually worked in nuclear power ought to bear some weight in this matter...
Click to expand...
Please note: I ain't disputing the evidence presented in the first part of macdoc's post... it's just the latter part, from "those living close to nuclear facilities"; living above a shoe shop don't make ya a cobbler ;)
 
Absolutely it should carry weight as the workers are in their community and are privy to the reality of the nuclear facility.

Do recall most facilities are a bit rural.
The safety record speaks for itself.
The local populations speak for the confidence in that record. The more informed the more confidence.
 
macdoc said:
Absolutely it should carry weight as the workers are in their community and are privy to the reality of the nuclear facility.
Click to expand...
Erm...
macdoc said:
Consider the results of a national public opinion poll of people residing within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear power plant (and, importantly, people working at the plant are excluded).
Click to expand...
Please macdoc, note I ain't here to kick up a fuss... it's just that you used a logical fallacy... and that ain't smart - no matter which team you're on
 
Workers are IN the community....which is what I stated.
The community will draw conclusions from them even if the workers are not directly in the poll ( as should be ).
There is no logical fallacy.
Other energy facilities do not get support and welcome as the article pointed out.

There are a couple of nuclear energy threads here on JREF if you search and they have abundant resources to read.
 
macdoc said:
uke
You need to clear up some misconceptions.
It IS extremely clean compared to any other comparable density power source. All technology carries some risk, nuclear as a energy source is very low risk and is required to get rid of the de-commissioned nuclear weapons. It also successfully and safely powers almost 20% of the planets electricity now.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Chernobyl was built without a containment dome - no reactor in the west was ever done that way and no reactor in the present or future will be either.

and the opinion of those living close to nuclear facilities should carry some weight for you

Try to get an oil refinery, liquefied natural gas terminal, transmission line or even a wind farm cited and built anywhere in the United States, and good luck. The not-in-my-backyard syndrome still casts a shadow over most big energy projects. But it’s no longer much of a problem for nuclear power. Instead of opposing nuclear power, people in communities closest to nuclear plants are among its strongest supporters. In Georgia, Maryland, Texas, South Carolina and other states where electricity companies are planning nuclear plants, there is overwhelming support for new reactors among people living close to existing nuclear plants. And that support extends to the Callaway nuclear plant in Fulton, where a new reactor might yet be built once the demand for electricity picks up.
Consider the results of a national public opinion poll of people residing within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear power plant (and, importantly, people working at the plant are excluded). Polling indicates 76 percent support for new reactor construction. What’s more, the poll — conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. — found that 90 percent of nuclear plant neighbors believe a new reactor would provide an economic stimulus for their communities. A Gallup poll shows that Americans’ support for nuclear power has climbed to 62 percent, the highest level of support since Gallup first began asking in 1994.

more

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/apr/04/neighbors-see-value-of-nuke-plants/

as an open minded science type you might want to rethink your anti-nuke stance.....evidence does not support it and no we have no choice f we want any sort of a carbon neutral first world lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I know very little about it, and I'm a product of 30 years of hard anti-nuclear lobbyism from green-groups in Sweden. I'm going to check in to it.
 
uke2se said:
Like I said, I know very little about it, and I'm a product of 30 years of hard anti-nuclear lobbyism from green-groups in Sweden. I'm going to check in to it.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is nice.

The idea of thousand after thousand of windmills with all their consequences and maintenance being considered equal or superior to one nuclear plant can't be seriously entertained. That's why opponents of nuclear use fright factors, never sound logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom