The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by sordavie

There are a lot of new radioactive elements created in the process of nuclear fission.

Are these new radioactive elements not created naturally by the isotopes decaying in the mountain?

bkelly

[sordavie]

No, these are products of nuclear fission. It's highly unlikely for U-238 to spontaneously fission. Fission is a different phenomenon from radioactive decay. Roughly, fission is smashing atoms apart, resulting in a huge release of energy and other by products. And decay (in this instance, alpha decay since U-238 is an alpha emitter) is when an unstable isotope gradually loses energy, emitting radiation and transforms the atom to another kind of atom. U-238 decays into U-234, which decays into some other uranium isotops, until it arrives at lead-206, which is a stable isotope.

P.S. sorry I was slightly incorrect about what U-238 decays directly into. Here's the full series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...nium_series.29

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by sordavie

Fission is a different phenomenon from radioactive decay.

Gotcha. Thanks for the answer, sordavie.

bkelly

[ScratchMonkey]

Originally Posted by sordavie

Why are they polling engineers?

From the article:

The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

I'd guess the engineers are those who design large public works projects, and hence will be affected by any mitigation policies that come out of climate change findings.

[sordavie]

There are also a lot of electrical and computer engineers in that association. Just take a look at the current positions that employers have posted on the jobs section. Anyway, just because some these engineers might be affected by climate change policy doesn't mean that their opinions contain much evidential weight for or against the the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

[ScratchMonkey]

Agreed. This is a bit like the guys in white lab coats shilling medical miracles on late night TV. Just because a person is highly qualified in one field doesn't make him an expert in another.

[xTYBALTx]

Whenever people talk in awe of the supposed greatness of renewables, I can't help but be reminded of the myriad perpetual motion machines that have been "invented" over the years.

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Whenever people talk in awe of the supposed greatness of renewables, I can't help but be reminded of the myriad perpetual motion machines that have been "invented" over the years.

Why? Nobody claims renewable energy sources (wind, tides, geothermal, solar, etc...) violate conservation of energy. They're just renewable in the sense that they are quickly naturally replenished. They too will run out eventually, i.e. sun burns out of fuel.

[GlobalWarmin]

Costs Of Climate Change, State-by-state: Billions, Says New Report
ScienceDaily (July 25, 2008)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0723134445.htm

Climate change will carry a price tag of billions of dollars for a number of U.S. states, says a new series of reports from the University of Maryland's Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER). The researchers conclude that the costs have already begun to accrue and are likely to endure.

Combining existing data with new analysis, the eight studies project the long term economic impact of climate change on Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and Ohio. Studies on additional states are in the works.

Colorado: More than $1 billion in losses due to impacts on tourism, forestry, water resources and human health from a predicted drier, warmer climate.

Georgia: Multi-million dollar losses from predicted higher seas along Georgia's coast.

Kansas: Losses exceeding $1 billion from impact on agriculture of predicted warmer temperatures and reduced water supply in much of the state.

Illinois: Billions of dollars in losses from impact on shipping, trade and water resources. Warmer temperatures and lower water levels predicted for much of the state.

Michigan: Billions of dollars in losses from damage to the state's shipping and water resources. Warmer temperatures and lower water levels predicted for much of the state.

Nevada: Billions of dollars in losses from a much drier climate and pressure on scarce water resources. Water limitations could affect tourism, real estate, development and human health. Many western states may confront similar challenges.

New Jersey: Billions of dollars in losses from higher sea levels and the impact on tourism, transportation, real estate and human health.

Ohio: Billions of dollars in losses from warmer temperatures and lower water levels and the resulting impact on shipping and water supplies.

http://cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by sordavie

Why? Nobody claims renewable energy sources (wind, tides, geothermal, solar, etc...) violate conservation of energy. They're just renewable in the sense that they are quickly naturally replenished. They too will run out eventually, i.e. sun burns out of fuel.

Fossil fuels provide us with the condensed energy from millions of years worth of solar activity.

[sordavie]

...Millions of years worth of solar activity?

[ScratchMonkey]

Is that the current wisdom? I thought "fossil" fuels were now believed to be similar to carbon asteroids. What's the current situation with that? Are they still considered smooshed dinosaurs and ferns or just another kind of "ore" accreted along with all the other debris when the Earth formed?

[GlobalWarmin]

...millions of years of plants absorbing C02.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by AMosely

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



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



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?

I have no idea why we haven't been developing solar/wind. It has been a blunder on our part. And we still are not putting that much effort into it. Silly.

But we aren't.

And I don't see how we could switch to solar/wind for all domestic needs in thirty years unless we made it a national priority like we did with getting to the moon. Really, really pushed it. And that isn't going to happen no matter how much I would like it to.

I am surprised how many people are afraid of nuclear power plants. Otherwise intelligent and educated people. Of course if you are talking about a Chernobyl design I understand. Those designs where crazy and inherently dangerous. They where positive alpaT design meaning as the temperature goes up more energy is produced thus the temperature goes up. But every design in used in America is negative alpa T. Which means as the temperature goes up the LESS energy is produced.

Consider that the Navy has something like 50 years experience with nuclear. The men aboard those ships are generally prime to be negatively affected by radiation in that they are pretty young. All of them live, eat, drink with in yards of the plant for long periods of time. The water they consume is produced in the engineering spaces. All the systems are interconnected by design for ship survivability during a battle.

I was told and shown some documentation while in the Navy that those that serve aboard nuclear powered vessels have normal or below normal cancer rates. (Heart disease and a couple other things where much higher.)

Sordavie is right. There are only a handful of products from the fission process that are really dangerous. They are brand new stuff created by splitting atoms into smaller things. The really good thing about them is that they are easy to contain and generally are produced in the core itself. And the amount of the bad stuff produced is relatively small compared to the amount of energy produced.

And if you do buy into the global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels then those bad atoms are nothing compared to the stuff being spewed into the air. According to some this can indirectly cause millions of deaths and billions, maybe trillions, of property damage.

What is it, exactly, that people fear about a nuclear power plant?

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by Sordavie

...Millions of years worth of solar activity?

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

...millions of years of plants absorbing C02.

Originally Posted by Scratch Monkey

I thought "fossil" fuels were now believed to be similar to carbon asteroids.

Originally Posted by El Gringo Grande

I have no idea why we haven't been developing solar...

"Photosynthesis is a series of enzyme-catalyzed steps for the conversion of light energy into chemical energy by living organisms. Its initial substrates are carbon dioxide and water; the energy source is light (electromagnetic radiation); and the end-products are oxygen and (energy-containing) carbohydrates, such as sucrose, glucose or starch."

"It is generally accepted that [fossil fuels or mineral fuels] formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years."

Quote #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Quote #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels