49 States have snow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Nobody cares anymore. Global warming has lost the ear of the world. It is too technical, too polarised. The sceptics have managed to kill it.

---

if sceptics have 'killed' C(co2)AGW* then a large part of the blame must be put on the evangelical 'pro' camp, for they are the people that pushed public policy in advance of the science by; campaigning on conclusions that ALWAYS verged on the extreme end of what science postulated, and did so by placing a greater certainty on the science than was justified at the time.

when these extreme conclusions became unjustifiable the public became amenable to the sceptic message.

the science will advance to the point were the margin for interpretation becomes reasonable, but if climate scientists and policy wonks will have an uphill struggle in future it is because of the disaster-fetishists, not because of big-oil indoctrinating the 'dumb' public.

* Catastrophic CO2 induced Anthropogenic Global Warming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

NONONONONONOO IT IS ABOUT HITLER HIDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EARTH MAKING A MESS OUT OF THIS PLACE STILL WHILE HE CHILLS WITH LIPPE SMOKING SIGARS!!!

---

For a genius you sure are staggeringly normal, go here www.fok!.nl there it's smart, normal is really boring. Wrong thread, you want to take it the one you didn't reply to.

the site doesnt load.

and you cant be genius at everything. im sure einstein had some things he wasnt good at. or shakespeare...

haha this ended up nicely

Even if one doesn't agree with the premise of global warming, one can surley agree that there are ways to improve humanities long term sustainability

There is a reason you don't shoot does and throw the little fishies back. People don't understand that. A balance must be struck.

Sure, nuclear energy. But that leads to nononoNO BADBADBAD. Windmills and solar panels are 100% OK though, even if only 10% of our energy comming from it would increase mining tenfold. Flaggalants and fashionists drive in hybrid cars that are actually more polluting.

Nuclear energy imo, is the only feasible way to go. There are many type of reactors that are safer and don't produce radioactive waste that can be used for bombs. There are also nuclear plants that use spent radioactive waste as its fuel and renders it into relatively harmless material. The stereotype must be over come however.

The Green Khmer is ideologically opposed to nuclear energy. Even if nuclear were 100% clean and safe they would still claw eyeballs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Nuclear energy imo, is the only feasible way to go. There are many type of reactors that are safer and don't produce radioactive waste that can be used for bombs. There are also nuclear plants that use spent radioactive waste as its fuel and renders it into relatively harmless material. The stereotype must be over come however.

---

I was unaware the advances that have been made in the last 40 odd years with levels of waste something like 1/1000th of what it was (due to most being reused). Of course such improvements hardly help the anti-nuclear argument who would like us to use... well I'm never clear on that, as wave and tidal affects estuaries and beaches, wind affects bats and birds, fossil is CO2 and I'm sure there's a problem with solar. Biomass? Probaby against as it destroys habitats. :wall:

~:smoking:

In the red corner:
Some scientists with data suggesting that we shouldn't carry on using loads of energy for stuff we like doing.

In the blue corner:
Weathy industrialists and their media telling people that they should carry on doing the things we like doing.

Hardly a surprise how this one is going to play out.

People don't need any inducements to be selfish. They're not neutral parties who would weigh up the evidence if it were not full of Industrialists and their lies. They're short-term thinkers who want cheap fuel, cheap food, cheap clothes - i.e. a good standard of living for them now.

Fish stocks are collapsing in the Atlantic. Who is pressing for increased quotas? Fishermen!

It's not specifically the amount of energy used, it's how the energy is generated.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

In the red corner:
Some scientists with data suggesting that we shouldn't carry on using loads of energy for stuff we like doing.

In the blue corner:
Weathy industrialists and their media telling people that they should carry on doing the things we like doing.

Hardly a surprise how this one is going to play out.

---

Red corner, lying scientists supported by lobby-groups of powerful industrialist and emmision-rights brokers, a billion dollar industry

Bleu corner, serious scientists who have no acces to MSM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Fish stocks are collapsing in the Atlantic. Who is pressing for increased quotas? Fishermen!


~:smoking:

---

The worst thing about fishing is the people involved do not actually own the resource until the have caught it, therefore they have no incentive to protect the fish stocks. Of all the primary industries fishing has to be the most misunderstood of all, people they talk like fishing it is a subset of farming when infact it is more like mining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Red corner, lying scientists supported by lobby-groups of powerful industrialist and emmision-rights brokers, a billion dollar industry

Bleu corner, serious scientists who have no acces to MSM

---

I am starting to worry about you Fragony.

tbh Idaho, it doesn't appear much more unbalanced a view than yours below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

In the red corner:
Some scientists with data suggesting that we shouldn't carry on using loads of energy for stuff we like doing.

In the blue corner:
Weathy industrialists and their media telling people that they should carry on doing the things we like doing.

Hardly a surprise how this one is going to play out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The worst thing about fishing is the people involved do not actually own the resource until the have caught it, therefore they have no incentive to protect the fish stocks. Of all the primary industries fishing has to be the most misunderstood of all, people they talk like fishing it is a subset of farming when infact it is more like mining.

---

I agree that mining is a better analagy based on how fishermen appear to treat fish stocks with no thought to the future. But since fish numbers do regenerate they could be "farmed" "free range" at sea. Fat chance any time soon: get the money now, then demand aid from the EU for support...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I am starting to worry about you Fragony.

---

Don't worry about me I'm going to be perfectly fine, just like everybody else. In 10 years we will have a laugh about people who were absolutely terrified of CO2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

tbh Idaho, it doesn't appear much more unbalanced a view than yours below:

---

I gave a glib synthesis of the debate. Fragony has a near psychotic paranoia about the all-powerful leftist alliance trying to subvert the world for their own wicked ends.

Nuclear fission is a bad idea, doing nuclear fusion as in ITER is a very good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nuclear fission is a bad idea, doing nuclear fusion as in ITER is a very good idea.

---

nuclear fission is just fine, whereas nuclear fusion has the potential to be much better.*



* at some unknown stage in our future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I gave a glib synthesis of the debate. Fragony has a near psychotic paranoia about the all-powerful leftist alliance trying to subvert the world for their own wicked ends.

---

No that's just that voice in your head, but it's a scam a lot of people get rich/live on. Is massive funding of NGO's a conspiracy? Nah it's just networking and job hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nuclear fission is a bad idea, doing nuclear fusion as in ITER is a very good idea.

---

France seems comfortable in having the majority of its electricity supplied by nuclear fission. What about it is bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No that's just that voice in your head, but it's a scam a lot of people get rich/live on. Is massive funding of NGO's a conspiracy? Nah it's just networking and job hunting.

---

More an economic sub-culture than a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

France seems comfortable in having the majority of its electricity supplied by nuclear fission. What about it is bad?

---

All run from reactors on their north coast - which if they blow, will send radiation across the UK and northern Europe, largely missing France. Gotta love those French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

France seems comfortable in having the majority of its electricity supplied by nuclear fission. What about it is bad?

---

Chernobyl? Radioactive Waste which stays active for thousands of years, which has to be disposed at in special sites? Limited Fuel Desposits? A host of other major concerns.

Nuclear Fusion (ie: ITER) on the other hand doesn't have radioactive by-products or would cause a nuclear explosion, it is effectively has fuel in mass abundance (There is enough fuel in Lake Guevara alone to power Las Vegas for a trillion years) and can be easily set up on coastal sites. It's waste product is "Helium", which is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, inert monatomic gas. Intrinsically safe.

I think it is pretty clear which is the best option. When Nuclear fusion hits the gold, we will be on the verge on potential "unlimited energy" (produce it faster than we can use it), which will drastically reduce the constraints on resources such as water, it would get rid of concerns such as CO2, and it would put an end to wars over resources such as Oil/Gas as they become obsolete.

What is not to love about it? Everybody wins.

Chernobyl's meltdown was due to shoddy engineering and is not really representative of nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear waste is become less of an issue as new reactors become capable of reprocessing fuel more and more times. In addition storage methods have become better over time and we can now store waste with minimal risk. The fact is, fusion is currently a purely hypothetical source of energy. Maybe in fifty years it will turn into the holy grail that we need but until that time what should we do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Chernobyl? Radioactive Waste which stays active for thousands of years, which has to be disposed at in special sites? Limited Fuel Desposits? A host of other major concerns.

Nuclear Fusion (ie: ITER) on the other hand doesn't have radioactive by-products or would cause a nuclear explosion, it is effectively has fuel in mass abundance (There is enough fuel in Lake Guevara alone to power Las Vegas for a trillion years) and can be easily set up on coastal sites. It's waste product is "Helium", which is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, non-toxic, inert monatomic gas. Intrinsically safe.

I think it is pretty clear which is the best option. When Nuclear fusion hits the gold, we will be on the verge on potential "unlimited energy" (produce it faster than we can use it), which will drastically reduce the constraints on resources such as water, it would get rid of concerns such as CO2, and it would put an end to wars over resources such as Oil/Gas as they become obsolete.

What is not to love about it? Everybody wins.

---

Chernobyl as Lord Winter has said was largely part to the shoddy work of the USSR in the second half of the USSR while (although we didn't know at the time) it was already beginning its long decline. Not to mention that their clean up and contingency plans were not exactly the best thought out ("Let's just bury it all in the forest!").

Also to note is how the nuclear fission power has only been around for 60 years, at that time it was only around for 30. All technology is inherently dangerous in its first few decades of being used. The Model T came out in 1908, in 1958 after 50 years of development on cars, they were still death traps. It has only been in the last few decades that the standards on cars have become sufficient to become truly safe for the driver and his/her passengers.

Nuclear fission waste is actually much better than any other source of power. It is extremely dense which means that a years worth of waste can be stored in a relatively small room if it is shielded correctly. Coal plants actually also produce nuclear material as well in its byproducts and that material is injected into the atmosphere along with all its other toxins. The nuclear waste issue is quite frankly, not a problem. As I have said before as well, there are also plants that basically use that waste as its own fuel and turn it into inert waste which isn't nuclear.

Nuclear fusion is always being toted as being 50 years away. People said the same thing 50 years ago. To advocate on a technology which at this point has not even been successfully fulfilled is pretty much foolish if we are trying to make an impact now. Fusion is the best option, when it becomes available, but we have to do something now, not wait for it to come down 50 years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Chernobyl's meltdown was due to shoddy engineering and is not really representative of nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear waste is become less of an issue as new reactors become capable of reprocessing fuel more and more times. In addition storage methods have become better over time and we can now store waste with minimal risk. The fact is, fusion is currently a purely hypothetical source of energy. Maybe in fifty years it will turn into the holy grail that we need but until that time what should we do?

---

Also what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

All run from reactors on their north coast - which if they blow, will send radiation across the UK and northern Europe, largely missing France. Gotta love those French.

---

Good thing they probably won't blow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

More an economic sub-culture than a conspiracy.

---

Did I say otherwise? Never said it's a conspiracy, said it's a religion. Fact remains that making people absolutely terrified of CO2 is good business, and for the government it's a nice excuse to raise taxes. Better ways to spend these billions atm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Chernobyl's meltdown was due to shoddy engineering and is not really representative of nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear waste is become less of an issue as new reactors become capable of reprocessing fuel more and more times. In addition storage methods have become better over time and we can now store waste with minimal risk. The fact is, fusion is currently a purely hypothetical source of energy. Maybe in fifty years it will turn into the holy grail that we need but until that time what should we do?

---

Well, there have been some design issues discovered with the Chernobyl power plant itself but the actual meltdown wasn't due to “shoddy engineering” per se. It was a design which by then was 10-20 years or so behind the state of the art but we have to remember that at the time its actual faults were not as well known nor as extensively researched. Chernobyl served as a wake up call and research topic for nuclear engineers to evaluate their designs. But the actual meltdown happened during a stress test carried outside of the determined boundary conditions which to top it all off was carried out by staff that didn't design the test. That went rather badly wrong, and staff attempted to shutdown the reactor which was another mistake because the design of the reactor meant it was safer under moderate load than under near to no load. So human error on top of human error on top of staff which had no idea of what was going on.

Anyway, nuclear fusion is by far the more desirable technology. Even its waste product is valuable. Fission suffers from the same drawback as fossil fuel, actually: there's not enough fuel of it to power us indefinitely. That is, when you assume the energy consumption of Asia and Africa will eventually pick up to run at USA or even North/Western European rates per capita, and when you are looking for fuel that can be extracted somewhat easily in large quantities.

The snag is that fission was essentially developed for the purpose of highly destructive toys for the military, civilian energy technology piggybacked on the military funding for such research. It needed a lot, a lot of research, funding and testing sites for it to get where it is today. The same cannot be said for fusion: yes, there is funding, but there isn't some kind of military device-of-doom application for it so research goes at a correspondingly slower pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well, there have been some design issues discovered with the Chernobyl power plant itself but the actual meltdown wasn't due to “shoddy engineering” per se. It was a design which by then was 10-20 years or so behind the state of the art but we have to remember that at the time its actual faults were not as well known nor as extensively researched. Chernobyl served as a wake up call and research topic for nuclear engineers to evaluate their designs. But the actual meltdown happened during a stress test carried outside of the determined boundary conditions which to top it all off was carried out by staff that didn't design the test. That went rather badly wrong, and staff attempted to shutdown the reactor which was another mistake because the design of the reactor meant it was safer under moderate load than under near to no load. So human error on top of human error on top of staff which had no idea of what was going on.

Anyway, nuclear fusion is by far the more desirable technology. Even its waste product is valuable. Fission suffers from the same drawback as fossil fuel, actually: there's not enough fuel of it to power us indefinitely. That is, when you assume the energy consumption of Asia and Africa will eventually pick up to run at USA or even North/Western European rates per capita, and when you are looking for fuel that can be extracted somewhat easily in large quantities.

The snag is that fission was essentially developed for the purpose of highly destructive toys for the military, civilian energy technology piggybacked on the military funding for such research. It needed a lot, a lot of research, funding and testing sites for it to get where it is today. The same cannot be said for fusion: yes, there is funding, but there isn't some kind of military device-of-doom application for it so research goes at a correspondingly slower pace.

---

From my understanding, at current levels of energy demand there is enough uranium to supply the worlds energy demands for anywhere from 150-250 years depending on how much you project energy consumption will increase. That is still a century of additional research into better energy technologies, and it is better to spend that century using nuclear fission than emitting coal pollution. Even if you were to use up all the uranium, that will make nuclear bombs that much harder to produce because of the high cost of a dwindling supply (which is a win in my book) and then you could switch to thorium reactors, which would provide energy much, much longer because there is a lot more thorium in the crust than uranium.

I say we switch to nuclear fission to buy us enough time to get the fusion worked out. Then we switch to that.