Climate Change must be tackled NOW

Thanks, Walter. That explains why I remember reading something on it. c.i.

George, I'm not just gonna bend over for your mummified worldview. You have made a travesty of fundamental objectiveness. Let me explain.

Internationally established greenhouse effect measurements, by a panoply of independent transgovernmental organisations, you dare to interpret as opinionated. In-depth findings of the high CO2-emission of nuclear plants, through results by an expert environmental institute -- you pay no attention to them. My links are irrelevant, in your eyes.

Yet, you arrogantly demand my respect for c.i.'s contribution on so-called nuclear safety. This contribution links to a text written by the UIC (Uranium Information Centre) "funded by companies involved in uranium exploration, mining and export in Australia."

The guts.

You eloquently yet uselessly use rationalistic camouflage in an arid conservative landscape. At each post, you try to discredit me as an environmental dogmatizer. The former clearly shows it's you who is prejudiced and thus self-projecting to the fullest.

You indeed are a pedigree debunker.

Wolf,

We all agree greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere. There really is no disagreement about that. The question is, will monotone heating of the atmosphere result from it ? As has been noted here many times, there are many reasons to doubt it, or to expect the effect will be too small to significantly alter the larger, well established cycles known from tree ring data and the geological record, or will have any significant adverse effects on the ability of the planet to sustain life. Finally there is very good reason to conclude that the cost of reversing the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will be far to high to be worth the effort. All of this has been laid out for you many times here. You don't respond: instead you just change the subject.

I did read your information on the CO2 equivalent effect of the nuclear fuel cycle, and the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. This is a complex calculation and before accepting it I would want to know more about the study and the methodology behind it. I note that you compared nuclear power only with hydroelectric plants, and found the nuclear process contributed about 70% more CO2 equivalent per unit of power than dams & their turbogenerators. No data was quoted for coal or gas fired plants which produce several orders of magnitude more greenhouse gases. Why didn't you include them?? That was, at best, a deceptive omission on your part.

Hydro constitutes only a tiny fraction of electrical generation in most countries (perhaps Norway is an exception). In the United States hydroelectric sources amount to about 6% of our production. Here and in other developed countries there are few unexploited sources of this power - little potential for growth. Coal and gas fired plants provide about 68% of the electrical power produced in the U.S. and the great majority of what is produced in nearly all other countries. Moreover, the supply of these fuels is ample. THAT is the comparison you should have cited. It would show that nuclear is vastly superior in greenhouse gas emissions than the major sources throughout the world, and, unlike hydro and other renewables, it has great capacity for expansion and growth.

You also faulted nuclear power for its large capacity plants and its use of transmission grids to deliver power nearly everywhere. I found this very curious. Almost all the electrical power consumed in the world is delivered on such grids and our civilization would not be the same without them. Evidently you are in the grip of fantasies about point of consumption power generation through various renewable sources. These are schoolboy fantasies that just don't pass the most elementary engineering scrutiny. I'm not at all against such innovations or the various cogeneration schemes that have been developed over the last several decades - indeed companies I have managed were in the business of designing and constructing such plants. However, I know their efficient applicability is very limited.

I'm afraid your environmental activism far exceeds your understanding of the basic processes and trade offs involved in such matters. Moreover, you appear to be unwilling to consider facts and ideas that don't support the opinions you have absorbed from those who have influenced you, and disinclined to think for yourself.

LOL, I would be glad to lend credit to alternative theories for the greenhouse effect, and I have read them, but they happen to be totally outnumbered and outqualified by innumerable governmental and non-governmental sources alike. Tree ring astrophysicists crushed by a tree ring specialist will not change my slavish mind, I'm afraid.



The point you so elegantly missed, is that nuclear energy has far more polluting CO2 emission rates than renewable energies, such as aeolians.



Your knowledge needs to stand up from the grave, I'm afraid. The wind energy potential in the United States -- all studies are unison on this -- exceeds even the current consumption of all energy sources combined. Study

I'm confident you'll come up with a fuzzy rationale to discredit this. Let me guess... windmills kill birds?

wolf, I doubt very much we are argueing about only one source of energy. We need to look at current and future demands on energy against the economic and environmental impact of all energy sources. I agree with you that wind energy has great potential to satisfy both the economic and environmental concerns. If wind energy has the greatest advantage, why hasn't the energy producing companies changed over to it? There must be reasons for that, and I personally do not have the answers. c.i.

Cicerone

One reason is that wind energy, even with Federal and State tax subsidies and regulations requiring utilities to buy the power produced by independent operators, still costs a good deal more than energy produced by burning coal or gas or by nuclear power.

Another reason is that with the current standard 500 - 1000KW wind turbines, it takes 2000-3000 individual wind turbines to deliver the power of a single coal/gas-fired or nuclear plant. The requirements for land and the attendant dislocation of other uses are enormous.

Another reason is that not every location is suitable for the use of these wind turbines, and even in good areas, the wind doesn't blow all the time. As a result the levels of power produced are variable and unreliable. You likely have driven by the wind farm at the Altamont pass east of Livermore. It is a rare event to see more than a third of the hundreds of turbines there operating at the same time.

Wind energy currently produces less than 2% of our electrical power. Without subsidies that total would likely approach zero. Advocates of wind turbines call for additional subsidies and the waiver of certain environmental and wildlife regulations to facilitate the construction of new capacity. If that is done they forecast the total contribution could more than double in the next decade. Even with all this it will remain an insignificant source.

It is easy to "calculate" the potential for such technology if one suspends such questions as the reliability of the product, the land area required, and the very adverse economic factors involved. Realizing that potential is a very real problem- sort of like the problem of Aesop's mice as they discussed how to put the bell around the cat's neck.

The difference between the life cycle CO2 contributions of nuclear & wind power and the relatively enormous contributions of fossil fuel (or biogas) burning plants (even with Wolf's data) is trivial compared to what is produced by the latter. Wolf is being deceptive.

We have beaten the global warming question to death on this thread. Everything has been said several times. It is a pity Wolf merely insists that others accept his views and those of the environmental orthodoxy he quotes so avidly and, I believe, so thoughtlessly.

george, Yes, I have driven by those wind turbines at Altamont Pass many times, and wondered why most of them are inactive at any one time - even when it seems windy. They are very unsightly, and takes up much valuable land in an area where housing costs continue to escalate. Many drive from Modesto to Silicon Valley every day to work. I've often wondered how they could be economical when most are not used, and they certainly are not environmental - they're just plain ugly. c.i.

Boy oh boy. You guys wanna keep on living around nuclear timebombs and continue to spit millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fine; I guess that's the most sensitive thing to do. By your book, renewable energies are not worth pursueing. Very intelligent.

Finally, it's futile for me to exchange any sense with impaired nuclear propagandists. You're never going to admit a clean and sustainable energy production is necessary in the long term, if we want humanity to remain safe and sound, are you? So be it. Sweet dreams. You don't seem to be very responsible human beings.

wolf, If your solution is so "intelligent," why aren't they converting all energy to solar or wind turbine? You probably have all the right answers. I don't. c.i.

Because human nature is by default conservative.

There is a huge ecological, industrial and economical potential in renewable energies. The conversion from bombastic energy corporations to a myriad of renewable energy technology companies -- aeolian, solar, hydrogenic, biomass etc -- WILL stabilize the planet's climate, create a boost in employment opportunities, and save us from the perilous monopolist corporative influence on domestic and foreign policy.

There is a lot at stake for those who don't want to see this happen. The lever towards a sustainable future poses a threat to the classic energy productions, and conservatives fight with all they've got to break the ecological momentum and try to engender some public love for the classic way in which energy is produced. They go so far as to search for the truth in tree rings. They also want us to believe nuclear power is oh so safe. When presented counter-arguments of a much more authorititave source, they neglect them, and project this neglect on the proponent of those arguments. This was all tactically precooked -- debunkery has increased all over the www since the Bush corporate energy family took power over the US.

I do wish you conservatives had a more developed common sense, and could see past the need for immediate profit.

Your creditibility just went down the toilet. I'm not a "conservative," and I'll match my common sense to your's any day of the week - 24/7. c.i.

Conservative -- you say you're not. I say you are.

Steps towards a better ecology you label as hardly feasible. Yet you try to underline the safety of nuclear energy. That seems pretty conservative to me.

Neither Conservative nor liberal, Wolf, merely rational and practical.

wolf, Your problem is quick conclusions and labeling people you do not know. I'm as far from conservative or liberal as any you'll find in this world, but you seem to know better than me what to label me. Amazing skills if you ask me! c.i.

Since I know c.i. personally (and by internet quite some time as well), I only can wonder about your kind of "brandmarking" others.

Where you would place me on the political scale depends on the issue and on how rational a thinker you happen to be. On the environment, I tend towards conservative thinking which leans towards a less histrionic world view and a more rational consideration of the real-world tradeoffs inherent in existence on this planet.

Wolf, you not only complain that we must act immediately, but you then hamstring us by requiring that we follow the most costly and least productive means of solving the "problem". You exagerate the risks of those options you dislike, and exagerate the benefits and feasibility of those you like.

In effect, you have built a fantasy world around you, and are begging us all to come join you in it. No thanks.

I almost agree (as usual), but an even better way to put it might be that wolf has built a religion around a particular vision of a "good" environment. Now he chastizes as a barbaric heathen everyone who chooses not to be converted to his religion. The comparison comes to my mind because wolf's treatment of critical questions reminds me very much of the way priests tend to approach critical questions about the virgin birth etc. It would also explain the "brandmarking" observed by Walter.

-- Thomas

Thomas - Amen. Yes, I too have likened the view of global warming dogma as a religion. That's the only way to explain the response you get when you offer evidence that things are okay or not as bad as they claim. You'd think this would be good news, but instead of being pleased these people get angry, as if you'd claimed their god were dead.

Antarctic ice shelfs thinning = proof of global warming

Antarctic ice shelfs thickening = random, meaningless occurance to be ignored

Localized temperature increases = proof of global warming

Localized temperature declines = random, meaningless occurance to be ignored

Scientists who support global warming theories = proof of global warming

Scientists who disagree = morons who are out of touch with the "mainstream" and to whom "no one" listens

You Americans are soooo behind! Here in Europe, see, localized temperature declines are evidence that the Atlantic conveyor belt and the Gulf Stream are beginning to break down as a result of Global Warming

Scrat

Just as a matter of meterological interest: where did the localized te,perature decline (I mean, from a scientific point of view = over years)?