Jump to content

Am I still allowed to question climate change?

Recommended Posts

Cold fusion is fundamentally impossible.

Regular fusion (>>1millionºC) is under active development but is still some decades off commercial viability.

There is also a new generation of fission power generation systems on the way which do not produce long-lived waste (and in fact can consume the existing stockpile of long-lived waste if we haven't done the sensible thing and buried it by then). These are likely to be ready earlier.

 

Other than that I emphatically agree with you.

The greens don't want the solution, they want the issue. They want de-industrialisation and they don't care about the billions of people who will die because of it.

They know nuclear solves the CO2 issue but they fight against it because without the CO2 issue they'd become less powerful.

 

The cold fusion line was a bit tongue in cheek :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They know nuclear solves the CO2 issue but they fight against it because without the CO2 issue they'd become less powerful.

 

You give them too much credit, few politicians look that far into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You give them too much credit, few politicians look that far into the future.

 

Many of the people who wield power now, still expect to wield it in 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They [the green lobby]know nuclear solves the CO2 issue but they fight against it because without the CO2 issue they'd become less powerful.

 

Do you know any die hard hippie types who actually are the kind who have inclinations to 'deindustrialise'?

 

Because I do, and they pretty much all think that nuclear is bad and evil, in any form, it's almost a dirty word for them. They aren't part of any conspiracy they're just a product of popular culture which has drilled into us over the past century that Nuclear power is super scary and not to be trifled with. They're all a few minutes away from blowing up, make 3 eyed fish, etc. Hell I could make a good case just using the Simpsons, and that's one of the smarter mass market shows.

 

What makes you think they're actually cynical liars and not just foolish?

Edited by flamingjimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I do, and they pretty much all think that nuclear is bad and evil, in any form, it's almost a dirty word for them. They aren't part of any conspiracy they're just a product of Hollywood films and the Simpsons and other popular culture which has drilled into us that Nuclear power is super scary and not to be trifled with.

 

What makes you think they're actually cynical liars and not just foolish?

 

Some people watch the Simpsons, and some Newsnight ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people watch the Simpsons, and some Newsnight ;)

 

Hey the news isn't much better.

 

Remember that Japanese plant that got damaged in the Tsunami?

 

How many people do you think died of radiation? The answer is 0 and yet it was all over the news for ages and ages and people were really worried.

 

Whereas every year thousands of people are killed in accidents at fossil fuel production sites, they're far more dangerous in terms of casualties caused per watt of power generated. Here are the numbers if anyone's interested:

 

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100

Coal electricity – world avg 60

Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170

Coal electricity- China 90

Coal – USA 15

Oil 36 (36% of world energy)

Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)

Biofuel/Biomass 12

Peat 12

Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)

Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)

Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)

Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)

Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

 

Figure is 'deaths per TWh of power generated' (source)

 

By those numbers, in terms of people killed Nuclear fusion is several thousand times safer than coal, and installing solar roof panels is 10 times more dangerous than working at a nuclear power plant. , in fact it is the safest form of power generation we've got.

 

So not just for the environment, we should switch no Nuclear and fewer people will die in accidents.

Edited by flamingjimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey the news isn't much better.

 

Remember that Japanese plant that got damaged in the Tsunami?

 

How many people do you think died of radiation? The answer is 0 and yet it was all over the news for ages and ages and people were really worried.

 

Whereas every year thousands of people are killed in accidents at fossil fuel production sites, they're far more dangerous in terms of casualties caused per watt of power generated. Here are the numbers if anyone's interested:

 

Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100

Coal electricity – world avg 60

Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170

Coal electricity- China 90

Coal – USA 15

Oil 36 (36% of world energy)

Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)

Biofuel/Biomass 12

Peat 12

Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)

Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)

Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)

Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)

Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

 

Figure is 'deaths per TWh of power generated' (source)

 

By those numbers, in terms of people killed Nuclear fusion is several thousand times safer than coal, 10 times as safe as solar power, in fact it is the safest form of power generation we've got.

 

So not just for the environment, we should switch no Nuclear and fewer people will die in accidents.

 

I was telling somebody the other day that nuclear is even safer than wind power when it comes to number of people killed, so it's good to have that confirmed (as they didn't believe me). I knew I read it somewhere but didn't have the facts and figures to hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep this. There is no perfect producer of power. At least not until we can get cold fusion and even then...humans require power, we just do, unless we want to go back to the caves. Be as green and eco friendly as you like, but you cannot get away that we need power so the aim should be the reduce the impact of that generation as much as we can. Nuclear is so obviously the solution that sometimes I honestly want to chuck things at the Green party, who I support on pretty much every other policy. It's infuriating. Of cause the risks to nuclear are staggering if it goes wrong, but it goes wrong so rarely that the risk is infinitesimally small. And the gains are almost pollution free power generation. At least pollution in the terms most people view it. Nuclear waste is a problem that was solved well enough a long time ago.

 

I dont think that the risks of nuclear vs other power generation is adequate explored by most people...

 

I mean lets look at it.

 

Nuclear from power generation - deaths so far known are 31 Chernobyl. Plus two Japanese technicians making fuel ingots. Perhaps a few in uranium mining too.

 

Coal - well theres all the coal miners who died. 400+ at Universal, 1000+ in France and those are just single incidents. Then theres 11000 in just the great smog of London....

 

Hydro - well you think the Vaiont dam with 2000+ would be bad, but the Banquio hydro scheme at 2 million in flooding and the famine after takes the biscuit.

 

But these are numbers the Greens dont like to hear. Throw things at the Greens? Id be chucking depeleted uranium till they get the message...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know any die hard hippie types who actually are the kind who have inclinations to 'deindustrialise'?

 

Because I do, and they pretty much all think that nuclear is bad and evil, in any form, it's almost a dirty word for them. They aren't part of any conspiracy they're just a product of popular culture which has drilled into us over the past century that Nuclear power is super scary and not to be trifled with. They're all a few minutes away from blowing up, make 3 eyed fish, etc. Hell I could make a good case just using the Simpsons, and that's one of the smarter mass market shows.

 

What makes you think they're actually cynical liars and not just foolish?

 

flamingjimmy,

 

I think if you were to delve into it ,you'll find that it's the "Deep Ecology" fraternity -rather than your bog standard Green/Environmentalist -who have a political perspective that includes de-industrialisation.

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle as the major sink for the

emissions of CO2 by human activities is crucial in the present study of climate change. Apparently ,there is about 50 times more carbon diss-

olved in the oceans than there is at present in the atmosphere today ( Changing Climates, Bert Bolin. Climate changes in the past. The Fragile Environment. New Approaches to Global Problems. Edited by Laurie Friday and Ronald Laskey.Cambridge University Press. ISBN,0-521-42266-3.p 135, Fig 7.7 .

 

If Bolin was correct what impact would it have on photosynthesis ?

 

If photosynthesis was to cease what impact would it have on CO2 to the

atmosphere ?

 

Anybody ?

 

well plants like co2 http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9576/20141014/global-warming-plants-absorbing-more-co2-than-we-thought.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If photosynthesis were to cease we'd all be dead soon afterwards since it's pretty much the only (significant) way we have on this planet of capturing energy from the sun (which is our only significant energy source).

I don't see how that question is related to whether the oceans contain dissolved CO2 (we know they do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was telling somebody the other day that nuclear is even safer than wind power when it comes to number of people killed, so it's good to have that confirmed (as they didn't believe me). I knew I read it somewhere but didn't have the facts and figures to hand.

 

Do you believe what you read online?

 

Nuclear from power generation - deaths so far known are 31 Chernobyl. Plus two Japanese technicians making fuel ingots. Perhaps a few in uranium mining too.

 

The death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

Uranium mining has more health risks than coal mining, but coal mining is done on a larger scale.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

 

When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources.

 

Who many people die in each category, depends on which news media you read ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.