Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I am obliged to remind the posters that this is a thread about Global Warming. I am amazed that the left wing liberals give such little evidence.

I will repost my evidence on part of the topic and will ask for rebuttals.

If the below cannot be shown to be in error, IT STANDS!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scholarly Mr. Walter Hinteler produces a post which gives a link allegedly showing a rise in the earth's temperatures.

I do not think Mr. Walter Hinteler has examined the evidence based on scholarly articles and the findings of the IPCC which I set forth previously.

It is regrettable that people do not know how to read!!

Let us begin--

NOTE: I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN EVIDENCE BUT I CAN REPOST EVIDENCE FROM SCHOLARLY ARTICLES AND THE IPCC ON ANY OF THE POINTS BELOW IF REQUESTED.

l. Mr. Walter Hinteler's post indicates that "Evidence from Proxies" show that the earth is warming.

This is incorrect. The Ipcc, in its own reports, said that it is debatable whether there is enough temperature proxy data to be representative of hemispheric, let alone global climate changes given the lack of large spatial scale coherence in the data

2. The last 400 years were mentioned, but the Medieval Warm Period seems to have been overlooked. That was the period in 700 to 900AD when Greenland and Iceland was so warm that the Vikings farmed it.
I do not believe there were any SUV's in Greenland at the time.

3. If you read Mr. Walter Hinteler's link(I DID) you will find that it says that the s u r f a c e temperatures were level from 1856 to 1910, then rose to 1945, then declined slightly to 1974, then rose to the present.

The question must be asked Why did the temperatures rise from 1910 to 1945? If CO2 is the cause, there was very little put into the air during that period. If CO2 is the cause, why was there not a larger rise beween 1945 to 1974 when industry began to boom all over the world???

4.And JUST HOW LARGE WAS THE TEMPERATURE RISE WORLD WIDE THIS LAST CENTURY?

O.6C six tenths of a degree centigrade SAYS MR. HINTLER'S LINK!!!

AND, DO NOT FORGET A MOST IMPORTANT POINT-

These were surface measurments.

5. Were they thorough surface measurements?

No, Not according to Mr. Hinteler's link which said:

QUOTE:

"The stations( those that measure temperature) are not spatially distributed to monitor all land areas with equal density. Unpopulated and undeveloped areas always tend to have poor coverage"

6. Mr.Hinterer's own link says that the stations do not monitor all land areas with equal density. Could there be a problem with S U R F A C E temperature monitoring?

Certainly-- according to the United States Climatological Network, New York City's average yearly temperature went up l degree Fahrenheit since 1930 while Albany,New York's temperature went down l degree F. since 1930.

Why? Scientists have named it the "Heat Island Effect"--Large cities generate so much of their own heat that they raise the temperature. The heat island effect is not caused by Co2.

7> Is there another way to measure Temperature changes?

Yes, a much better one. It is the measurement of temperatures from satellites which do not have the failings mentioned concerning surface measurement mentioned in No. 5 above by the IPCC themselves. IT IS VITAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE IPCC( THOSE WHO ARE PREDICTING GLOBAL WARMING) PREDICT THAT, ACCORDING TO THEIR COMPUTER MODELS, THE TEMPERATURE IN THE TROPOSPHERE SHOULD INCREASE AS FAST OR FASTER THAN THEIR SURFACE MEASUREMENTS.

AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY DO NOT!!!

I have provided 7 sections which show that the evidence provided in Mr. Walter Hinteler's link is not only weak but almost nonexistent.

0 Replies

I am obliged to remind the posters that this is a thread about Global Warming. I am amazed that the right wing conservatives give such little evidence. But nevertheless, BernhardR, I'll certainly answer your off-topic question here:

BernardR wrote:

But I might feel like being indolent a while. How much would I get a week in American Dollars, Mr. Walter Hinteler, if I were unemplyed in Germany?

Depends on what you got as salary before and how long you paid in jobless insurence - but not more than $1500/month ... for one year. Than $ 350/month.

0 Replies

I can't possibly live on that, Mr. Hinteler. Just what is wrong with your system? I need 350 a week, not $350.00 a month!!!

0 Replies

I must apologize for getting off topic. Here is another of my posts which went Unrebutted/ If Unrebutted, IT STANDS!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We really should be getting back to the topic-I believe it is correct to stay on topic-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted twelve Items so that Mr. Kuvasz could peruse them and answer them.

No one has seen fit to attempt to rebut them. I will hold that the twelve Items I posted, when read by anyone who knows how to think, will show that there are so many problems involved in the global warming area, that there can be no definitive answers at this time.

Mr. Timberlandko was the only one who delved into "climate science" and Foxfyre touched on it.

I will not replicate my posts but will rather list the main point covered by each one of my items- 1-12. If those posts cannot be rebutted, I must, of course, indicate that I have not been rebutted and, therefore, my posts stand.

l. Problem with usage of temperature proxy data

2. Problem set up by the 1910-1945 temperature increase

3. Problem set up by the inability to predict the global temperature over the coming years because of the incredible complexity of the Earth's climate and the factors which go into it.

4. Faithful modeling of all the important factors in the climate system is something that current computer models cannot handle.

5. The effect of water vapor feedback is poorly understood and may, according to some theorists, lead to much less warming than predicted.

6. Problem set up by the fact that the observed troposcopic warming shows no real trend.

7. Models utlized by the IPCC appear to overestimate "warming". The IPCC has laid out 40 scenarios and appear to be touting the most pessimistic ones. It must be repeated that these are all COMPUTER MODELS.

8.Other contributors to the possible warming may be, for one, solar activity. If that is correct, at least part of the global warming is completely uncontrollable

************************************************************

People who have read about "Global warming" are aware that the Kyoto Protocol was presented to the US Senate in 1997. The US Senate turned it down 95-0 mainly because the protocol did not include China and India since they were listed as "Developing Countries".

Mr. Walter Hinteler gives an interesting poll which shows how people FEEL about Global Warming.

I have information which, I am certain, is far more important than how people feel about Global Warming. It tells us what people DO about Global Warming--especially the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR20050628011248

note- If this link does not get you to the information below, search--

Robert Samuelson Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Robert Samuelson tells us that Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy.

quote

"Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George W. Bush for not embracing the Kyoto protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions--the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990(Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002,global emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The US increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases:

France 6.9 percent, Italy 8.3 percent, Greece 28.2 percent, Ireland 40.3 percent, the Netherlands 13.2 per cent, Portugal 59 percent, spain 46.9 percent, It is true that Germany ( down 13.3 percent) has made big reductions. But those cuts were not due to Kyoto. Since 1990 Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in Eastern Germany, that was a huge one time saving....On their present courses, many Euopean countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming--and then do little...since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent, Japan's 18.9 percent"

end of quote.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyclops, the impacts of windmills and solar panels, I agree they seem pretty benign, but have you considered the numbers of these things required if you replace a comparable amount of energy that oil now produces? How about the toxic things used to produce solar panels, and the mining in ecologically sensitive areas to produce enough panels to be significant?

In the case of windmills, what happens when the wind quits blowing? And I don't care how windy it is most of the time in some areas, it does quit blowing sometimes. If you cover half the panhandle of Texas with windmills, are we going to wake up to the possibility that the wind being captured and converted to energy is possibly altering the weather patterns? Not much chance now, but with the numbers required to make real impacts, has anyone considered this. In the case of solar panels, has anyone considered the impact of solar energy lowering the surface temperatures of the earth, causing rare species to die, and plants native to the areas to die? Not happening now perhaps, but the amount of solar now is so miniscule, we really do not have enough data to project what would happen.

Yeah, there have been studies done on the issues that you raise.

When it comes to wind power, there are places where the wind literally never stops blowing. Ever. There are also places where the wind blows between 90-95% of the time, a lot of them; these places are naturally some of the best possible sites for wind installation. They also happen to be quite scenic in many cases, which heightens resistance to installing wind generators (though they are quite beautiful if you think about it, compared to coal plants).

As I said earlier, it will be difficult for either wind or solar to 'replace' oil as a power source, because we don't have the portability that gasoline and oil offer; Battery storage technology really has to improve before the 'electric car' is a reality for the average consumer. Fortunately there is some thought that this storage will improve dramatically once our micro and nano technologies improve and see greater usage.

There is a chance that many wind towers would alter weather patterns, though the general thought is that you would need millions of them to put a dent into our environment, seeing as the vast majority of air movement occurs at levels far above the height of wind towers. It would have to be considered, of course, the way that any technology has to be considered. Have you thought about how much our weather patterns are shifted by heightened carbon and CO2 emissions, especially in concentrated areas such as large cities? Every technology has its ups and downs.

As for solar panels, the newer technology solar panels don't use as much toxic chemicals as some of the early models. We really are in the infancy of solar panels and solar power; every year there are increases in the level of technology and science involved with solar panels. Lately there have been improvements in areas such as flexible solar panels, dirty-carbon solar panels, solar shingles, and improved solar stoves and solar heating for homes.

As for the lowering of the surface temp of the earth, I'm not sure how solar panels would do that exactly. If this turned out to be a large problem, there have been many proposals for space-born power generation systems which would then transfer the power to the earth in the form of microwave or other beam transmission.

I don't pretend that there are only benefits and no dangers to wind and solar technologies. As I've said many times, everything in life has its ups and downs. The responsibility of society in general is to measure which ups and which downs are worse for humanity in general. While there may be potential problems with solar and wind technologies, we know for a fact that there is a big problem with pollution from the burning of oil. It would be nice if there wasn't (hybrid technology is a good example of working to solve this), but there is, and it is foolish to ignore this fact and keep on pumping pollutants into our ecosystem, acting as if nothing is wrong with the practice.

Quote:

Yes sir, and I love it. Go ride your bicycle if thats what you want and quit compainin.

I, in fact, do exactly that. But my bike riding doesn't keep me from having to inhale plenty of pollution from people in cars around me who don't give a damn about the effects of their ride to Starbucks. At some point, society at large has to examine the effects of our cultural dependence on convienence.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Mr. Clclopitchorn avoids the MOST PAINFUL fact that Windmills will not become a reality in the Massachusetts area because the Conscience of the Senate,Ted Kennedy,will not allow windmills to spoil his view.

Mr. Cyclopitchorn, like most left wing liberals, rarely face facts which show blatant left wing hypocrisy!!

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2117319#2117319

Cycloptichorn Wrote:

Quote:

What are the enviornnetal impacts of greatly increased wind power? I don't believe that tripe about bird migration and whales bumping into them. I think the biggest problem would be that it screws up a bunch of rich people's scenic views (as exemplified by NIMBYS including many prominent Democratic idiots).

I say to the air that fools who do not follow the conversation, often fall flat with their accusations.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As for the lowering of the surface temp of the earth, I'm not sure how solar panels would do that exactly. If this turned out to be a large problem, there have been many proposals for space-born power generation systems which would then transfer the power to the earth in the form of microwave or other beam transmission.

Cyclops, I read your entire post, but just included the above for brevity sake. In regard to the above question, obviously solar panels catch sunlight and convert it into an electrical current to be transported somewhere, so you have a net loss of radiant energy striking the earth, thus if you have huge solar farms in a desert for example, it could have enough impact to change the ecology of the area. As I said, that is no big deal to me, but I am just pointing out that tree huggers need to be very alarmed about that if they are to be consistent. Also, wind is a product of solar energy, and inasmuch as windmills capture some of this energy, you are affecting the ecology. Here again, no big deal, but I don't think man produced CO2 is a big deal either compared to other factors, but by using convoluted computer modeling by global warming geeks, it is supposedly now engraved in stone according to intelligentsia as an absolute fact now. No proof, but we are all supposed to swallow it hook, line, and sinker, based on computer models.

Cyclops, I can't disagree with all of your points, actually, but given the fact that wind, solar, biomass, etc. together totals not more than 3% of the nation's total electrical generation. If you expand those energy sources to compete as coal does, you may be surprised to find out there are more impacts than projected. And you claim the wind never quits blowing in some places. Well, maybe, but the wind has to be strong enough to turn the turbines. I am skeptical that very many areas fit this category. Only minor percentages of the country are suitable for wind, and or solar, with current technology.

This from the following link:

Coal 50%
Natural gas 18%
Petroleum 3%
Hydroelectric 7%
Nuclear 20%
Other, including wind and biomass 3%

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/energy/1dd3ec2abf2db010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Cyclops, I am enthusiastic about wind. I think the wind farms are beautiful, and I love the concept of solar. However, these still have a long way to go to make a real significant impact.

Now as Bernard points out, time to get back to the subject.

0 Replies

okie said

Quote:

I think the wind farms are beautiful,

I think that is the very first thing you've said with which I agree.

The first wind-generator emplacement I saw was the one on the mountains on the California side of the Mohave. I was utterly knocked out by their beauty. It seemed a perfect, if unintentional, confluence between two of America's great gifts to the world...respect for engineering accomplishment and stoned-hippy art.

0 Replies

Bernie,

You should try driving over the Altamont pass just east of Livermore California. It is one of those places where "the wind never stops" as Cyclo described it. (The truth is always a good deal less than that,)
There are about 2,500 large wind turbine towers dotting the ridgeline across the pass. Each generates about 500KW when at full speed. Together, if all were operating at capacity, they would generate about as much electrical power as a standard coal fired or nuclear power station.

The problem is one never sees more than about 30-40% of them operating, even on the windiest day. Depending on slight variations in wind direction, many are in local wind shadows; many others are inoperable, needing repair or maintenance that often costs more than the value of the power they produce.

In fact it is a very ugly sight. I'll agree that one or two such turbine towers is a fairly beautiful sight (particularly on a ridgeline in the desert), but one or two don't produce a significant amount of power. Several thousand are decidedly ugly.

Another of those places where "the wind always blows" is in the shallow water north of Cape Cod Mass. Some utilities were interested in constructing an array of turbine towers there. The local population, led by their Democrat Congressmen and (of course) Sens Kennedy and Kerry rose up to defeat the proposal. Later they secured legislation making the area a "sanctuary, forever forbidding such visual pollution before the eyes of the liberal population of the Cape.

The United States has, right now, enough enriched uranium to meet the current 20% of our electrical energy needs for the next century. Rich ore deposits have been recently brought on line in Canada and their potential is great enough to provide all the continent's electrical power needs for several centuries. If we were to add the reprocessing of spent fuel to recover the fissionable plutonium produced in the power process we would add about 30% to those estimates. The use of breeder reactors would increase their potential by a factor of three.

It is interesting to note that the public dose of nuclear radiation, per KW-HR generated, resulting from the burning of coal exceeds that from nuclear powerplants by several factors of ten. This is a result of the radioactivity of the naturally occurring impurities (including uranium) found in even high quality coal.

I believe that there is very large untapped potential in the use of biogas produced in the controlled anerobic decay of food and agricultural products, particularly ariound processing plants and livestock & dairy facilities. That and the incidental application of wind and solar power (where it is economical) can increase our current levels of about 3% of electrical energy production to about 12% (tops). That is still a big enough improvement to warrant action, but it is pale in comparison to the potential of nuclear power.

0 Replies

George,

I've come to believe that the United States will have to greatly decrease its dependance on fossile fuels over the next inext 20 years. If so, then we must find alternative energy sources, and without delay. I doubt that any single alternative will completely meet our needs.

Solar power, is on the surface an attractive alternative. Wind Farms have generally been disappointing on a cost/benefit basis. Individual photo-electric systems remain far too expensive. I've recently seen something that suggested that South Africa has developed a photo-electric cell that can be very cheaply produced while producing more power per square than previous systems. I'd like to know more about that. Unless there were very great changes, photo-electric energy is more suited for individual residences than for powering industries or cities. Decentralization of production and relieving the load on the main power grids might be worth pursuing.

I still like the idea of collecting power on a geosychronis satelite, and then transmitting the power to earch on a narrow microwave beam. Shades of Tellsa! The technology already exists, though payloads to orbit are still prohibitive.

I'm afraid that only an increase in the number of nuclear power plants is likely to make a large difference in the time frame I believe we are going to have to work within. That means we will have to reduce the time from decision to production. Few communities want a nuclear power plant in their area, but should local resistence confound a project that has national importance? The nuclear power technology has to be the best that the 21st century has to offer, and provision for continual improvements should be in place. Safely getting rid of nuclear wastes has to be addressed.

Instead of addressing this issue, which may be critical in the long run, we find ourselves embroiled in partisan guerilla warfare over "gay marriage", voting machines, and whether terrorist murderers should be released back into the wild. Oh well, no one ever accused our species of living up to its scientific name. We remain monkeys slinging our own **** at one another.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Bernie,

You should try driving over the Altamont pass just east of Livermore California. It is one of those places where "the wind never stops" as Cyclo described it. (The truth is always a good deal less than that,)
There are about 2,500 large wind turbine towers dotting the ridgeline across the pass. Each generates about 500KW when at full speed. Together, if all were operating at capacity, they would generate about as much electrical power as a standard coal fired or nuclear power station.

The problem is one never sees more than about 30-40% of them operating, even on the windiest day. Depending on slight variations in wind direction, many are in local wind shadows; many others are inoperable, needing repair or maintenance that often costs more than the value of the power they produce.

In fact it is a very ugly sight. I'll agree that one or two such turbine towers is a fairly beautiful sight (particularly on a ridgeline in the desert), but one or two don't produce a significant amount of power. Several thousand are decidedly ugly.

Another of those places where "the wind always blows" is in the shallow water north of Cape Cod Mass. Some utilities were interested in constructing an array of turbine towers there. The local population, led by their Democrat Congressmen and (of course) Sens Kennedy and Kerry rose up to defeat the proposal. Later they secured legislation making the area a "sanctuary, forever forbidding such visual pollution before the eyes of the liberal population of the Cape.

The United States has, right now, enough enriched uranium to meet the current 20% of our electrical energy needs for the next century. Rich ore deposits have been recently brought on line in Canada and their potential is great enough to provide all the continent's electrical power needs for several centuries. If we were to add the reprocessing of spent fuel to recover the fissionable plutonium produced in the power process we would add about 30% to those estimates. The use of breeder reactors would increase their potential by a factor of three.

It is interesting to note that the public dose of nuclear radiation, per KW-HR generated, resulting from the burning of coal exceeds that from nuclear powerplants by several factors of ten. This is a result of the radioactivity of the naturally occurring impurities (including uranium) found in even high quality coal.

I believe that there is very large untapped potential in the use of biogas produced in the controlled anerobic decay of food and agricultural products, particularly ariound processing plants and livestock & dairy facilities. That and the incidental application of wind and solar power (where it is economical) can increase our current levels of about 3% of electrical energy production to about 12% (tops). That is still a big enough improvement to warrant action, but it is pale in comparison to the potential of nuclear power.

Out relatively near the Texas/New Mexico state line on Interstate 40 is the tiny community of San Jon. The small-country-sized mesa called the Caprock rises starkly just south of San Jon with a highway stretching into and up the cliff providing a short but scenic panoramic view both rising and coming back down. Or at least it used to. Now a long expanse of the rim of the mesa is a windfarm effectively blocking the view. And while each windmill is aesthetically pleasing, the mass effect is cluttered, unsightly, and the great view is much harder to come by.

And yes, in this part of the world where the 'wind literally always blows', most of the windmills have been idle when we have gone by which raises the question of how economically feasible they actually are.

I am not opposed in any way to wind power or solar power or any other clean, unexhaustible sources of energy, but I do question both the aesthetic considerations and the economic feasibility of using these on a large enough scale to make a significant dent in the nation's energy needs.

I too am looking again at nuclear and its remarkable overall safety record worldwide. Wouldn't you think there is also a scientific process for neutralizing radiation when you don't need it any more? I hope somebody really smart is actually working on that.

0 Replies

No. Unfortunately no one can hasten the half-life decay of radioactive materials.

Here is a choice that you don't have to make in July, 2006, but may one day be necessary. You can have one of the following two: Electricity and no view, or you can have beautiful few but no electricity. By the time it gets to be that sort of choice, it will be far too late. Trends are hard to buck, especially when they are picking up momentum. If you want to make changes in trends, the time to do it is early.

I accept the notion that the mean temperature of the Earth has risen during the last century, largely as a result of human activities. If it were possible, which it isn't, to return to 19th century technology and population levels the current trends toward increased mean temperatures would continue for some time ... perhaps between 25 and 75 years. Given the continued reliance on petrochemicals (for the moment, lets ignore the dwindling supply), we may well see an increase in the tempo of climate change.

We should expect that the monsoons will fail in Southern Asia, and that major famines are on their way. If desertification continues, major agricultural regions in Siberia, the U.S. Mid-West, and in other places may fail or produce small surpluses. These are serious matters, and should be treated as such by thinking people.

No, I don't support shifting our national priorities from fighting international Islamic terrorism to the environment. When you find a person with terminal cancer, but bleeding from several knife wounds, your first priority is to stop the bleeding and stabilize the patient. Once that's done you might try to find a cure for cancer, but the patient may die long before the cure is found. Will the Universe really be all that grief stricken by the extinction of our species?

0 Replies

Asherman notes that we have little time left to solve this problem and bemoans the public's inability to deal rationally with issues such as energy production and the environkment -- I agree fully. Meanwhile he blithely passes over the fact that nuclear power, using proven technology, fuel, and waste disposal systems that exist today, can alone solve this problem. while he hopes for new advances in solar power that may one day render it economically and environmentally feasible.

I believe solar, Wind and biofuel sources all have their place in the solution, but there is no factual basis on which to forecast they will ever reach more than 15% or so of our still increasing needs. Virtually all of the new electrical generating capacity added in this country in the last decade has used naturasl gas for fuel - a fuel that releases every bit as much greenhouse gas as coal (much more if you consider leakage) and which is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. It shoukld be used instead as a fuel in our transportation system where its portability and ease of storage makes it efficient and ideal.

0 Replies

Asherman writes

Quote:

No. Unfortunately no one can hasten the half-life decay of radioactive materials.

Nobody can now, yes. But nobody ever will? I remember too many times in the past that knowledgeable scientists said something could not be done or that the results would be devastating if it was done, and then we went right ahead and did it with no devastating results. I'm not big on 'can't' when it comes to old fashioned Yankee ingenuity or the potential within humankind in general.

I believe we have only a small fraction of the science that there is yet to discover. So, I won't believe we can't until nobody ever does it. Let's wait a few decades and see how it goes. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Asherman writes

Quote:
No. Unfortunately no one can hasten the half-life decay of radioactive materials.

Nobody can now, yes. But nobody ever will?

Radioactive decay is governed by fundamental laws of physics, which we cannot rewrite. An invention that shortens the half-life of a radioactive subtance is about as likely as an the long-promised, never delivered perpetuum mobile.

But I agree with your broader point that nuclear energy is safe and viable. I believe it will be a major component of what comes after oil. Solar and wind might work, but I don't think they can deliver the needed energy content efficiently. I'm afraid biofuels will mostly turn out as corporate welfare for heartland corn farmers. But I'm willing to be persuaded.

0 Replies

I'm looking forward to my new 4000HP nuclear powered BMW.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I'm looking forward to my new 4000HP nuclear powered BMW.

... which, I imagine, would actually run on hydrogen, produced by electrolyzing water with nuclear energy.

0 Replies

You drive what you want and I'll drive what I want. Smile

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Asherman writes

Quote:
No. Unfortunately no one can hasten the half-life decay of radioactive materials.

Nobody can now, yes. But nobody ever will?

Radioactive decay is governed by fundamental laws of physics, which we cannot rewrite. An invention that shortens the half-life of a radioactive subtance is about as likely as an the long-promised, never delivered perpetuum mobile.

But I agree with your broader point that nuclear energy is safe and viable. I believe it will be a major component of what comes after oil. Solar and wind might work, but I don't think they can deliver the needed energy content efficiently. I'm afraid biofuels will mostly turn out as corporate welfare for heartland corn farmers. But I'm willing to be persuaded.

Well being neither a physicist nor a nuclear scientist, I will not pretend I have any certainty on this matter, and will bow to the possibility that you are right or even probably right. But I still have a hard time accepting "can't" as a perpetual condition about much of anything.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know