The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

I don't think we need a middleman between us and renewable energy, especially if we want America to profit from green technologies.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I don't think we need a middleman between us and renewable energy, especially if we want America to profit from green technologies.

Of course we do. Renewable source are a long way off from replacing fossil fuels. I, for one, think it will be hundreds of years before fossil fuels are not used at all. They are just to good.

I always find it interesting how greenies reject things like Nuclear Power. It makes me think that global warming IS just an excuse to institute another objective.

After all Nuclear Releases no green house gases and can supply tremendous amount of energy in virtually any location. Sure there is a risk but the damage done will be relatively short lived and relatively isolated compared to the supposed threat of global warming.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Of course we do. Renewable source are a long way off from replacing fossil fuels...

If McCain gets elected, yes. If public policy was based on facts, then no.

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

If McCain gets elected, yes. If public policy was based on facts, then no.

does McCain have an super secret weapon that we don't know about that will use of all the fossil fuels found in the world in under 100 years?

Do you realistically and honestly think Obama has the Environment on the top 3 things he wants to achieve if he is elected?


Gringo,

I agree with you, with your nuclear power comment, i was just discussing it with my boss and he always laughs as well when greenies diss nuclear power. It is a lot safer than many people think.

I notice as I work in Manhattan that even the traffic lights should be solar powered, in Indonesia, and India there are cell phones that are run and PDA's that are run by solar power.....

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

I agree with you, with your nuclear power comment, i was just discussing it with my boss and he always laughs as well when greenies diss nuclear power. It is a lot safer than many people think.

There are some misconceptions represented here. First of all, many 'greenies' strongly support nuclear power due to its near zero carbon emissions. Nuclear power presents a serious paradox in terms of environmental benefits. The tradeoff can be simply put as a choice between clean air and highly dangerous radioactive waste, including uranium and plutonium. I don't think that I need to provide references explaining the health effects of these rogue elements or the implicit dangers they pose to international peace. The subject of nuclear waste disposal is an interesting one because the U.S. Government's solution is to bury it deep in Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear is easy bait in this day and age of fossil fuel costs, but in my opinion it is not worth the price when sustainable (solar, wind, water) options are out there just begging to be developed.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by AMosely

There are some misconceptions represented here. First of all, many 'greenies' strongly support nuclear power due to its near zero carbon emissions. Nuclear power presents a serious paradox in terms of environmental benefits. The tradeoff can be simply put as a choice between clean air and highly dangerous radioactive waste, including uranium and plutonium. I don't think that I need to provide references explaining the health effects of these rogue elements or the implicit dangers they pose to international peace. The subject of nuclear waste disposal is an interesting one because the U.S. Government's solution is to bury it deep in Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear is easy bait in this day and age of fossil fuel costs, but in my opinion it is not worth the price when sustainable (solar, wind, water) options are out there just begging to be developed.

The problem is getting those things developed to the point they can even come close to replacing oil/natural gas/coal and nuclear. Of course we should have been developing these things for the past 30 years. And if we had I might have a different view at this point in time.

But it wasn't and there is no way that sun, wind etc can even come close to supplying the energy we need in the near future. It just can't.

And if fossil fuels where cheap and clean and didn't have the geopolitical consequences and wasn't getting harder to get then I prefer it over nuclear.

But really the Nuclear waste problem is way overblown. It isn't as dangerous as many believe. I worked with it and around it for six years. There are not many cases of it contaminating the world at large. That is due, in part, to it's very nature. Most of it is solid metals meaning it is actually pretty easy to control. Most the "loose" stuff decays pretty rapidly.

Look at it this way. Nuclear power has generated about 20% of our energy for about the past 20 years. There isn't any deaths attributed to it's use. There isn't any widespread contamination that I know of. And all of this is done on first generation designs that are overly complex and error prone. The only thing that I was even remotely afraid of while working in the engineering space of the Nuclear plant was the high pressure steam pipes. Those scared the poop out of me.

It definitely isn't ideal. But looking at the current alternatives and what we want to achieve, Nuclear is almost necessary.

Give the choice between the following in my back yard.

Nuclear
Solar/Wind
Fossil

I choose solar, nuclear, fossil in that order.

[Switch]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

And if fossil fuels where cheap and clean and didn't have the geopolitical consequences and wasn't getting harder to get then I prefer it over nuclear.

If guys had vaginas and tits i'd prefer them too.

But really the Nuclear waste problem is way overblown. It isn't as dangerous as many believe. I worked with it and around it for six years. There are not many cases of it contaminating the world at large.

Nuclear waste is a very serious problem because it will continue to pollute for thousands of years after we create it. Nuclear waste is a burden put on future societies for the benefit of our current society. It is as dangerous as everyone belives, probably much more so -- but I do believe it can be managed and future advances in technology could change that burden into routine waste processing.

The proper response to nuclear power safety issues it to acknowledge that the raw nuclear materials and waste is extraordinarily dangerous with our current level of technology but can be safely managed if we are willing to invest in the proper infrastructure.

As it stands, raw nuclear waste has been dumped into the ocean, its been buried in leaky barrels, and its been stockpiled in places like Yucka. These are not environmentally sound solutions.

Look at it this way. Nuclear power has generated about 20% of our energy for about the past 20 years. There isn't any deaths attributed to it's use. There isn't any widespread contamination that I know of. And all of this is done on first generation designs that are overly complex and error prone.

I found a lovely vacation spot for you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

It definitely isn't ideal. But looking at the current alternatives and what we want to achieve, Nuclear is almost necessary.

I agree... responsible nuclear power is a valid option at this point.


Side note:

After speaking with my uncle Ben (a professional in this field his first nuclear gig was some thing called the Manhattan Project: http://www.bederson.org/bensr/CURRIC...0VITAE%201.doc ) he seems rather convinced that there will be artificial ways to de-radiate or accelerate decay of waste material. While stock piles are building at the moment, they will be manageable as long as they are properly stored.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

The problem is getting those things developed to the point they can even come close to replacing oil/natural gas/coal and nuclear. Of course we should have been developing these things for the past 30 years. And if we had I might have a different view at this point in time.

If we should have, why aren't we starting now? We all know we should be, and we're still not.

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But it wasn't and there is no way that sun, wind etc can even come close to supplying the energy we need in the near future. It just can't.

Oh yes it can, its just that certain politicians and interest groups (namely oil, gas and cheney) aren't willing to let that happen.

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Give the choice between the following in my back yard.

Nuclear
Solar/Wind
Fossil

I choose solar, nuclear, fossil in that order.

Solar/Wind, Fossil, Nuclear for me - especially in my backyard. I would imagine most people, especially today, would say Solar/Wind first. So why isn't our representative government saying that and backing it up with our tax dollars instead of yammering about offshore drilling, ANWR, and gas taxes?

[USN_Squid]

Causes of climate change varied: poll

EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

[sordavie]

Why are they polling engineers?

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by sordavie

Why are they polling engineers?

I'm sure someone here can tell us the variety of specialties within the 51,000 members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

edit:
The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) is a trade association specific to the Canadian province of Alberta. The association, which acts as a regulatory agency, derives its authority is from the statute of Alberta. It was created in 1920.

APEGGA regulates the profession of engineers, geophysicists and geologists in Alberta.

[sordavie]

I'm sure we could find that out on our own from the internet. But, I'm not sure why that's relevant. My real question: why does anyone think that polling engineers about their views on global warming support any conclusion about the causes of global warming?

[sordavie]

Why poll members of a trade association instead of members of a scientific association?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switch

Nuclear waste is a very serious problem because it will continue to pollute for thousands of years after we create it.

Wait a minute, we don't actually create high-level radioactive waste- we refine it. We are currently unable to produce uranium of any useful quantities.

Switch, here's a question that sounds crazy but is sincere: Not considering low-level nuclear waste for the moment, since the original radioactive material came from a slightly hot mountain what is wrong with distributing our spent nuclear fuel back through that same mountain when we're done with it?

bkelly

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Wait a minute, we don't actually create high-level radioactive waste- we refine it. We are currently unable to produce uranium of any useful quantities.

Switch, here's a question that sounds crazy but is sincere: Not considering low-level nuclear waste for the moment, since the original radioactive material came from a slightly hot mountain, what is wrong with distributing that was back through that same mountain when we're done with it?

bkelly

That's not quite right. Elements much more hazardous than U-238 are created during nuclear fission. U-238 is actually not that dangerous. It's not as if we dig some U-238 from a mountain, use it, and just put U-238 back. There are a lot of new radioactive elements created in the process of nuclear fission. But, again, there are lots of dangerous radioactive elements created in the process, and some of them have half-lives of hundreds or thousands of years.

As a general rule, the danger posed by a radioactive element is inverse to the length of its half-life. The two most dangerous are Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 because they act like potassium and calcium and are absorbed deep into body tissue and bones. The half-lives of these are each about 30 years.