"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

[Pannonian]

Go nuclear. Simple.

Is there enough fuel to go round for even the developed countries to go significantly nuclear? Is there any waste, and what happens to it? NB. these aren't rhetorical questions, I genuinely don't know the answers to the questions that immediately occur to me.

[CBR]

Is there enough fuel to go round for even the developed countries to go significantly nuclear?.

If we went all nuclear then the estimated reserves would be gone in a decade or so. If we can get Thorium to work, it would last a lot longer.

Nuclear can't replace oil though. Better batteries/biofuel for cars and biofuel for planes might cover those gaps.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Is there enough fuel to go round for even the developed countries to go significantly nuclear?

The question is not as straightforward as might seem at first due to the fact there are quite a few reactor/reaction designs which call for different fuels. In any case the widely available and commercially implemented are by and large 1970's BWR tech (boiling water reactors) based on Uranium and are basically a spin off of military research into nuclear bombs. They are relatively inefficient and have a few well known safety issues (thermal runway conditions). There are mitigations for most of the safety issues (pellets, molten salt based design) but inefficiency and waste products are essentially fundamental features of the design.

Alternatives include Thorium and a few similar elements which are more efficient and more importantly the isotopes produced by fission have a different decay trajectory which means that the reactor does not produce radioactive wasste material (or rather the waste decays so rapidly that it is not practical to transport it out of the reactor before the decay completes). Designs are a variation on 1950's research into "fission as an energy source".

Is there any waste, and what happens to it?

Yes, fundamentally the reaction is: whack a stable isotope, cause it to break up into isotopes of a smaller element and emit radiation and energy (heat). Capture radiation (or use it to whack the next isotope) and energy (heat). The question of waste is a matter of what isotopes are produced during whack-a-stable-isotope, can they be used as fuel for the reactor themselves and how do they decay into stable (non radioactive isotopes). Eventually Uranium decays into element isotopes which have a very long half life, which makes it impractical to keep them in the reactor (volume adds up) until they are decayed to an fully stable isotope of some other element. With Thorium and similar the decay is more rapid, and crucially at each step no long half-life isotopes should be produced. IIRC some of those isotopes can actually be used as fuel as well.

However there is another waste product to consider. That of extraction from ore, which is not necessarily very eco-friendly either (rather worse than drilling for oil). On the other hand mining for Uranium (yellow cake) is a small part of the total supply of yellow cake, as opposed to recycling reactor fuel.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Slowly the new energy economy is coming together. TA's post on nuclear is good. The main problem I hear from those that talk about alternative nuclear fuels is that the infrastructure surrounding them is so different, regulatory agencies who only deal with uranium reactors don't know how to go about certifying these radically different designs. In particular for the molten salt thorium reactor, you have entirely new designs carrying a very corrosive material, but materials science engineers have made new alloys to specifically curb corrosion from molten salt in order for the infrastructure to last 15-25 years. So you have to go about getting information about a brand new alloy, being used in conjunction with a highly corrosive material that is not often used, for a design that not many people have experience with.

Tesla has already done their tech demo of an electric car getting its battery swapped out in less than 90 seconds. If the future of electric cars is swapping batteries instead of recharging, then that's essentially one of the biggest hurdles eliminated (as long as liability for the battery is placed on Tesla and not the individual).


The US is already succeeding in shutting down coal production (which is good news for the Appalachian mountains), in favor of natural gas (fracking comes with its own problems though). But once the grid is free of fossil fuels and everyday transportation is handled by electric cars, the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption will be negligible I believe. At which point we can maybe focus our efforts on engineering proposals to reduce the levels of CO2 already present in the atmosphere, perhapsvback down to pre 1800s levels.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Look up the Oglala aquifer. Fracking has already ruined much of our water.

Water which will be depleted by inefficient farming in another 100 years. That's another thing we need to tackle as soon as we get our energy problems solved.

[Fragony]

If we went all nuclear then the estimated reserves would be gone in a decade or so. If we can get Thorium to work, it would last a lot longer.

Nuclear can't replace oil though. Better batteries/biofuel for cars and biofuel for planes might cover those gaps.

Deutorium, ocean is full of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

[CBR]

Deutorium, ocean is full of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

It is not a limiting factor. Unless you thought of fusion I don't know why you bring that up

[Fragony]

It is not a limiting factor. Unless you thought of fusion I don't know why you bring that up

What else would I be thinking of? It can be used for fusion yeah, and the sea is full of it. The water we can recycle.

[CBR]

What else would I be thinking of? It can be used for fusion yeah, and the sea is full of it. The water we can recycle.

Commercial fusion energy is likely to be several decades away, and we have no idea if it even will be cheap.

[Fragony]

Commercial fusion energy is likely to be several decades away, and we have no idea if it even will be cheap.

Even in the darkest scenario's that is plenty of time. By that we will have Thorium-reactors running beautifully to sponch things up. That green-energy that does more harm than good is a waste of time. Looking at different options would also be a boost to the academic world, these windmills and solar-panels are costly in every way, it hurts living conditions, it hurts the wildlive, they hurt scientific progress.

[Beskar]

Commercial fusion energy is likely to be several decades away, and we have no idea if it even will be cheap.

Not really decades away, still have ITER, it is just taking its time due to countries not really investing it in. But it is currently under construction in France as we speak.

[CBR]

Even in the darkest scenario's that is plenty of time.

Then you don't know what the darkest scenario is, but no big surprise there. I think most people can see the benefit in diverse energy research. It seems to me that a lot of "skeptics" have a craving for fossil fuels and a hatred towards alternative energy forms, so who is really hurting progress the most.

Wildlife is hurt by many things we do, and we could start with the cats before we even think about wind. Of course there is nothing we can do about the horrible animal suffering from solar cells. It is just so awful we have to stop!

Not really decades away, still have ITER, it is just taking its time due to countries not really investing it in. But it is currently under construction in France as we speak.

That is a test reactor. It has to be finished first, then run tests with whatever conclusions that will bring, and then a commercial design has to be designed and constructed. Estimates are from 2040 to even 2060 and beyond.

Lockheed does claim they have another design and it could be ready by 2025. Let's hope for the best.

[Vuk]

I've been really busy with work and haven't had a lot of time to check in here, but I thought you guys may be interested in this and this.

[CBR]

I've been really busy with work and haven't had a lot of time to check in here, but I thought you guys may be interested in this and this.

Oh boy! The foundation of my green altar is shaking, or maybe not...

Let's take a look at your first link.

A big warning sign is obviously that it is the Daily Mail, but that is no excuse to just dismiss it. The funny thing is that if anyone spends a bit of time following what is happening in the denierosphere, as well as the proper science, then what is quoted in the article makes perfect sense. So, if we forget about the sensational title and negative tone in the article, the quotes do not show some conspiracy or that the whole science is wrong or whatever people might get out of it. (I'm assuming the quotes are correct)

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

All of them make some excellent points. It is deniers who tried to make big headlines with the focus on too few years or the silly start at 1998, and we know how they love to cherry pick and quote mine whenever possible. We don't need more of that in the actual IPCC reports. But this is also a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. There is more than enough research that shows why surface temperatures haven't gone up so much.


Time for the other link.

Talking about a report made by the so called NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) Yes that definitely sounds very credible, right? It is supposed to be peer-reviewed, like all proper science should be, so it must be true, right?

A quick look at the authors and reviewers showed several of the usual "skeptical" suspects. And who put this together? Heartland Institute. Luckily others have done the work:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...dibility-test/

Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute.

Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference.

There is little need for anyone to concern themselves with paid pal-reviewed "science"

[HopAlongBunny]

Gah!
Yet another attempt to explain away the precise conclusions of qualified journalists!:

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...ord/index.html

[Risasi]

Have CO2 emissions gone down since last year? If so why/how?

[Ironside]

Have CO2 emissions gone down since last year? If so why/how?

No, it hasn't.
August 2013: 395.15 ppm
August 2012: 392.41 ppm
(that monthly value should be quite close to the yearly average. The peak month value is over 399 for 2013)

Now there's always a natural variation due to the seasons (plants uses co2 after all), so if you cherrypick the highest value for 2012 vs the lowest for 2013, it'll have dropped.

That's the equivalent of proving regional cooling by comparing July values vs Januari values though.

[CBR]

Have CO2 emissions gone down since last year? If so why/how?

Apart from the small dip because of the recession it still seems to be rising http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...-s-reductions/

[Beskar]

Apart from the small dip because of the recession it still seems to be rising http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...-s-reductions/

At least the European Mandates have worked, shame no one else cares.

[InsaneApache]

At least the European Mandates have worked, shame no one else cares.

/facepalm/

[HopAlongBunny]

The song remains the same:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gl...says-1.1870378

accompanying graphs:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sl...a-for-yourself

[Vuk]

More.

[Hax]

What is CainTV?

[Fragony]

More.

People who lie about the climate aren't quiting yet, repeat repeat keep repeating. Sea levels will RISE with 82cm, temperatures will RISE with almost 5 degrees celcius. ICECAPS will melt, causing DOOM. It's MANMADE

sigh... they ain't going down without a fright

Yeayeah boyzzz

[Husar]

What is CainTV?

Herman Cain captured the nation's attention during the 2012 presidential race because, while others were obsessed with the politics of distraction, Mr. Cain offered real solutions to the nation's economic and fiscal challenges. And he did it with a smile on his face and a sense of humor, because this is the way he achieved a lifetime of success in business and broadcasting.

With the debut of the nationally syndicated Herman Cain Show in January 2013, we want to expand the influence of the program via the web with Best of Cain. It's a constant flow of commentary, news, audio, video, humor and reader/listener interaction. Each day we bring you multiple commentaries from Mr. Cain and our team of contributors, as well as fun bits and our increasingly popular Fake Facebook conversations. We also offer each day, at the conclusion of the radio program, Overtime with HC, and video presentation from Mr. Cain that serves as a bonus for loyal listeners.

Best of Cain is the web extension of the phenomenon that is The Herman Cain Show. Join us each day, share your thoughts and tell your friends. The Cain Train has never stopped rolling, and the place to hop aboard is here at Best of Cain!

Should be reliable and without bias.

[Papewaio]

What is CainTV?

It's like cAble TV but with a much more punishing outcome for fallen shows.

Their agricultural shows are to die for and the Cain anchormen all hit the mark.

[Pannonian]

It's like cAble TV but with a much more punishing outcome for fallen shows.

Their agricultural shows are to die for and the Cain anchormen all hit the mark.

CainTV may be good for agro-related programmes, but are they abel to cover livestock keeping as well?

[Vuk]

They wanted to paint everything black back then to increase the absorption of sunlight, and now they want to paint everything white to reflect sunlight.

[Ironside]

They wanted to paint everything black back then to increase the absorption of sunlight, and now they want to paint everything white to reflect sunlight.

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

[CBR]

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

But who cares about peer-review when you have fair and balanced news