The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[coolotter88 2]

the uranium doesn't have to be locked up deep underground, we can recycle the spent fuel rods in fast breeder reactors and keep using the same uranium/plutonium over and over again.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 the uranium doesn't have to be locked up deep underground, we can recycle the spent fuel rods in fast breeder reactors and keep using the same uranium/plutonium over and over again.quote>

It still doesn't detract from the other negative aspects of nuclear energy, such as the vulnerability to terrorist attack, proliferation of nuclear technology, or possibilities of accidents causing widespread damage. Furthermore, you don't need a nuclear physicist to maintain a solar photo-voltaic cell, nor do you need security guards to keep a watch over a solar plant.

And even more importantly, solar is not the only solution to fossil fuel energy.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

It's relevance is that it doesn't produce carbon emissions. It doesn't produce toxic waste. It's clean. And I'm sure that you know how this relates to climate change. Thus, it's "immediately relevant."

quote>

Well, it's clean during normal operation.  But not during manufacture and disposal.  plus, solar panels cost more CO2 than nuclear, so if I was to believe in AGW, I would support nuclear, not solar.

The "leap" you speak of is occuring right now, as energy spending on solar is increasing exponentially. Clean, alternative and renewable energy sources are the future. Ask any market analyst and ask them what kind of energy they think will have the lion's share of the market in 50 years. You'll get an overwhelming answer for clean renewables like solar, geothermal and similar technology.

quote>

Can you give me details of this breakthrough in solar technology that dwarfs the progress in other types of energy production?

I think if I was to ask an analyst, he would say something like this;

'Renewable energy sources are very expensive.  Unless there is motivation involving political factors, such as the belief in AGW, there is no reason why these sources would be our principal energy production anytime soon.  Sure, they are renewable, but just because a resource is limited, does not mean you cannot use it.  Besides, we have enough nuclear fuel for several thousand years and enough coal for a couple hundred.  If your primary interest is increasing energy production and decreasing energy costs, it does not make sense to opt for expensive means with limited capacity.'

PC is short for personal computer.

Do PCs get thrown out in the garbage? Sure... why? Because they become obsolete. Solar panels and the like, when they grow old and dysfunctional, will most definately become recyclable themselves. I'm sure the "greenies" will make a federal law to make sure their disposal is taken care of properly.

quote>

You mean like the laws they have for radioactive waste disposal?  The cost of disposing the spent fuel safely is covered 100% by the energy companies, not a penny from the tax payer.

Like I said, I don't know where you got your figures. I'll have to research this some more... however, the limits of nuclear energy are (also) apparent. Eventually, they stop giving off usable energy, and we have to store the spent fuel rods in an underground bunker deep inside of some mountain. With solar, you don't have this problem.

quote>

distance from sun to earth:

light travels at 3 x 10^8 meters a second.

light takes about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, or about 500 seconds.

thus, the sun is about 150 million kilometers away.

energy density of fissile uranium.  (i made a mistake from memory.  it is 90 million million joules per kilo, not 60)

power per unit area of sun light.

fuel can be reprocessed and bred.  We have plenty of U-235 to last for a very long time, and we've worked out very secure methods of dealing with spent fuel.  With solar you have different issues.

I'm saying the usage of energy at night is a significant fraction of the energy we use during the day. Seriously. Thus, solar provides a great relief to this large amount of energy that needs to be provided during the day.

quote>

Early evening demand is actually very significant.

I think that if individuals want to buy solar panels to supplement their day time energy demand, that's great.  It's their choice, and I whole heartedly support the ability for people to make their own decisions.  But large scale projects are not practical for the reasons I gave earlier.  Recall the Canadian government wasting money on making a large scale solar farm that produced energy at 20 times more cost than normal and then wasting more tax payer money to make it marketable.

 

Where are you going to store the 6 billion trash cans? (1 for every human on the planet.) Solar produces exactly 0 trash cans of radioactive waste per person.

quote>

it wouldn't be 6 billion, because that figure referred to western consumers.  Currently, the total radioactive waste that the world has produced in the 50 years since nuclear power first began, can all fit on a football pitch stacked 8 feet high.  Please, this is the one thing that people constantly get their knickers in a twist about for no good reason, have faith that scientists and engineers have secure and durable ways of storing the waste for the hundreds of years necessary.

Solar produces no radioactive waste, sure.  But it has its own toxins, plus various other problems that we've been talking about.

Finally, we agree on something. That was my original point. Birds and bats don't run into windmills, and when they do, it's a very rare thing.

quote>

Yeah, it really bothers me how environmentalists try to shoot down their best solutions to their problems out of pure ignorance.

I looked up the criticisms, and there are... let me count... 6 documented cases of dispute that refute or call into question all or some of Mr. Gore's documentary. These do not come near to the thousands of documented cases that back up Mr. Gore's statements. As far as statements concerning "fear-mongering" and the such, the science has been slow to cause "panic" and only in recent decades has the topic become a hot-button issue for politicians and the media. I don't really see anyone out there "panicking" or promoting "fear" when it comes to this issue. Discussing the facts and making people aware does not equate to fear-mongering.

quote>

I think that Al Gore's movie should be staved off for a while.  I could go on for hours about how stupid that man is.  Lets talk about nuclear vs solar for a while longer.

Of course, they could always use that "money tree" they've been storing away all these years. Things cost money, and when it comes to government, that requires taxes. Would you support a tax to change all energy in the country to nuclear? The fact is the changes in our environment and abrupt climate change are going to require governments to undergo radical changes, and those changes are going to cost money.

quote>

If I actually believed in man-made global warming, I would, definitely, advocate spending money developing nuclear power.  Given that I already support nuclear power above anything else, and I really don't care about the fact that it has zero CO2 emissions, if I did believe in AGW, I would be nuts about supporting nuclear power. 

If you are like me, and you believe that man's energy supply should be expanding as quickly and as cheaply as possible, given that energy is the fundamental basis of prosperity, then you support nuclear power.  If you are a green freak with a brain in your head, then you would support nuclear power too, for the simple reason that it is the only practical solution for large scale reductions in CO2 emissions.  combine that with the already happening shift to electric cars and you've knocked 50% of CO2 emissions out in one go (25% of CO2 emissions are from vehicles, 25% from electricity production).

[Constantina 5]

There's a village in Devon that's stopped using plastic bags. The name of that village is Modbury:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6605435.stm

[MrFingers 0]

I think it's important not to mix environmental efforts with the global warming hysteria.

If, and I'm almost completely certain that it will, the global warming thing turns out to be a garbage theory, then you will damage all the decent environmental efforts (like minimising plastic use) by association.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Well, it's clean during normal operation.  But not during manufacture and disposal.  plus, solar panels cost more CO2 than nuclear, so if I was to believe in AGW, I would support nuclear, not solar.quote>

And in forty years, the lifespan of a modern solar cell, we will be no more efficient at disposing of or recycling the cells? We're talking components here, not radioactive rods. There's a fundamental difference. The fact is, nuclear still has sensitive political issues surrounding it, as well as the aforementioned terrorist threat they pose due to the nature of their energy source. Solar energy comes with none of these burdens, and, as you stated, provides no carbon emissions during operation. The figures you posted are modern... who knows what our technology will allow us to do with recycling these cells and reducing their own minimal carbon imprint.

Can you give me details of this breakthrough in solar technology that dwarfs the progress in other types of energy production?quote>

Sure. Watch the documentary and you'll see. More and more research and funding is going into this energy source every year, proof of its viability and utility.

I think if I was to ask an analyst, he would say something like this;

'Renewable energy sources are very expensive.  Unless there is motivation involving political factors, such as the belief in AGW, there is no reason why these sources would be our principal energy production anytime soon.  Sure, they are renewable, but just because a resource is limited, does not mean you cannot use it.  Besides, we have enough nuclear fuel for several thousand years and enough coal for a couple hundred.  If your primary interest is increasing energy production and decreasing energy costs, it does not make sense to opt for expensive means with limited capacity.'quote>

Why does everything with you come down to cost? How much does a human life cost? How much does your soul cost? How much does your left sock cost? Does it really matter? I believe that you can't just spend without abandon, but it's not like energy sources and their associated technology plop into our lap one day. They require, by their very nature, money to develop and research, just as nuclear technology was pursued in the Atomic Age. Back then, nuclear was the future. Now, it's renewables.

You mean like the laws they have for radioactive waste disposal?  The cost of disposing the spent fuel safely is covered 100% by the energy companies, not a penny from the tax payer.quote>

Again, it's all about taxes, taxes, taxes. Anything associated with a left-leaning point of view screams taxes. The last time I checked, you could donate your PC to Dell or Gateway for recycling, free of charge. Several charities also re-tool and recycle old computers for use in all sorts of applications. I'm confident in 40 years such organizations will exist to recycle, reuse, or safely dispose of any dangerous byproducts left behind by solar cells, without costing the consumer a penny.

distance from sun to earth:

light travels at 3 x 10^8 meters a second.

light takes about 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, or about 500 seconds.

thus, the sun is about 150 million kilometers away.

energy density of fissile uranium.  (i made a mistake from memory.  it is 90 million million joules per kilo, not 60)

power per unit area of sun light.

fuel can be reprocessed and bred.  We have plenty of U-235 to last for a very long time, and we've worked out very secure methods of dealing with spent fuel.  With solar you have different issues.quote>

Amount of uranium on planet Earth: a finite number which you claim will last "a very long time."

Amount of sunlight provided: several millions of years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, until we perish or prosper across the universe.

Despite your points about the "low density" nature of the sun, what else would you propose to develop in the deserts and arid unpopulated regions of the earth that collect the most sunlight?

Early evening demand is actually very significant.

I think that if individuals want to buy solar panels to supplement their day time energy demand, that's great.  It's their choice, and I whole heartedly support the ability for people to make their own decisions.  But large scale projects are not practical for the reasons I gave earlier.  Recall the Canadian government wasting money on making a large scale solar farm that produced energy at 20 times more cost than normal and then wasting more tax payer money to make it marketable.quote>

You see waste. The Canadian people see progress. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

it wouldn't be 6 billion, because that figure referred to western consumers.  Currently, the total radioactive waste that the world has produced in the 50 years since nuclear power first began, can all fit on a football pitch stacked 8 feet high.  Please, this is the one thing that people constantly get their knickers in a twist about for no good reason, have faith that scientists and engineers have secure and durable ways of storing the waste for the hundreds of years necessary.

Solar produces no radioactive waste, sure.  But it has its own toxins, plus various other problems that we've been talking about.

quote>

Again, why create unnecessary problems with an energy source that is finite, produces waste, comes with a dozen or so politcal responsibilities, and is vulnerable to terrorist attack?

Yeah, it really bothers me how environmentalists try to shoot down their best solutions to their problems out of pure ignorance.quote>

I don't see how you could possibly twist something positive around on it's end. Who exactly is shooting down the idea of wind power? You confuse me!

I think that Al Gore's movie should be staved off for a while.  I could go on for hours about how stupid that man is.  Lets talk about nuclear vs solar for a while longer.quote>

He must be pretty stupid, you know... getting elected over and over again like that. Must be why his lectures sell out, too. Everyone loves the fool, right?

Look, you may disagree with a man, but he is far from unintelligent. And he's much smarter than you or I.

If I actually believed in man-made global warming, I would, definitely, advocate spending money developing nuclear power.  Given that I already support nuclear power above anything else, and I really don't care about the fact that it has zero CO2 emissions, if I did believe in AGW, I would be nuts about supporting nuclear power.quote>

Look, do I think nuclear is a viable energy source to provide a solution to abrupt climate change? Sure. But, I'm here to play devil's advocate in favor of renewables. Of course, since they're new, they cost more and aren't as efficient. I'm sure the first nuclear power plants were just as costly and inefficient.

If you are like me, and you believe that man's energy supply should be expanding as quickly and as cheaply as possible...quote>

It already is! That's why our nation currently depends on fossil fuels. The quick and cheap path has lead us to this point!

...given that energy is the fundamental basis of prosperity, then you support nuclear power.  If you are a green freak with a brain in your head, then you would support nuclear power too, for the simple reason that it is the only practical solution for large scale reductions in CO2 emissions.quote>

I would agree with some of what you said, but not all. Energy is one basis for prosperity, among many. Culture, education, crime, economics and environment are all major factors for this as well. I do resent the use of the word "freak", as if I'm some sort of mutant that somehow developed a brain in some fluke accident. I'm a rational human being that has read the facts and come to my own conclusions, not because I was taught that way or forced to believe anything. The other statement about nuclear being the "only practical" solution is hardly a fair statement, as there are plenty of other renewable energy sources currently being developed that can, in time, provide similar results with similar costs.

...combine that with the already happening shift to electric cars and you've knocked 50% of CO2 emissions out in one go (25% of CO2 emissions are from vehicles, 25% from electricity production).quote>

Look, bottom line is, you produce a product that provides a solution or service to people, it will slowly start to catch on. Investment, research, global governmental action, and in-depth discussion will help spur growth in these fledgling markets and eventually provide the cheap, practical energy you so desperately desire in an instant. Several examples of how solar energy, for instance, have created entire solar markets in pockets of the world is exactly what I'm talking about. (See the above post concerning the amount of jobs created by the nicknamed 'Solar Valley' in the documentary I discussed.)

Originally posted by: MrFingers I think it's important not to mix environmental efforts with the global warming hysteria.

If, and I'm almost completely certain that it will, the global warming thing turns out to be a garbage theory, then you will damage all the decent environmental efforts (like minimising plastic use) by association.quote>

Last time I checked, people weren't freaking out in "hysteria" over global warming. Your characterization is grossly exaggerated. I tend to use the neutral word phenomenon when discussing current events and their associated topics, as to ascribe a non-polemic attitude when using them in argument. Using such language is biased and reflects a negative tone.

(Oh yeah, and I found an interesting word that I'm going to use from now on. I'm not pedantic, I'm apologetic, in the ancient Greek form of the word, not the colloquial. )

I hardly think saving the environment and intervening abrupt climate change are entirely unrelated. There are myriad number of examples where basic environmental principles apply to changing our carbon imprint, and in fact, most recent trends were designed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to encourage recycling in efforts to cut down on the production of petroleum-based products. (i.e. plastics.)

[crazyyaya 4]

Mr fingers do you beleive the world climate is currently going through a change because of human activities. I kinda get mixed messages from you?

[crazyyaya 4]

You too coolotter, iwould like you to clearly post if you beleive global warming is happening from human activities.

[coolotter88 2]

global warming is happening, just not caused by humans.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

And in forty years, the lifespan of a modern solar cell, we will be no more efficient at disposing of or recycling the cells? We're talking components here, not radioactive rods. There's a fundamental difference. The fact is, nuclear still has sensitive political issues surrounding it, as well as the aforementioned terrorist threat they pose due to the nature of their energy source. Solar energy comes with none of these burdens, and, as you stated, provides no carbon emissions during operation. The figures you posted are modern... who knows what our technology will allow us to do with recycling these cells and reducing their own minimal carbon imprint.

quote>

I thought we'd already concluded the terrorists...

Nuclear power only has sensitive political issues surrounding it because poeple don't understand it.

Again, you are operating under the assumption that everything but solar technology is going to be static.  Sure, people will find better ways to recycle cadmium, but they will also find better ways to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, etc.

Sure. Watch the documentary and you'll see. More and more research and funding is going into this energy source every year, proof of its viability and utility.

quote>

Ok

Why does everything with you come down to cost? How much does a human life cost? How much does your soul cost? How much does your left sock cost? Does it really matter? I believe that you can't just spend without abandon, but it's not like energy sources and their associated technology plop into our lap one day. They require, by their very nature, money to develop and research, just as nuclear technology was pursued in the Atomic Age. Back then, nuclear was the future. Now, it's renewables.

quote>

Average UK life is worth 1.5 million sterling.  I'm not sure about US.  My soul costs whatever someone is willing to be gullible enough to pay for it.  I'm not religious.

I'm confident in 40 years such organizations will exist to recycle, reuse, or safely dispose of any dangerous byproducts left behind by solar cells, without costing the consumer a penny.

quote>

Clearly impossible.  If we inject a new process into the production chain that costs energy, money, and labour, someone has to pay for it.  That will inevitably be the consumer.

Amount of uranium on planet Earth: a finite number which you claim will last "a very long time."

quote>

Again, just because a resource is finite does not mean you cannot use it.  That's a common conception I come across and I find it REALLY strange.  Capitalism is specifically designed to ration finite resources.

Besides that, we can breed Uranium, we can process spent fuel, and at the moment we have well over 3000 years of fuel.  That's easily enough to develop the next best thing - fusion.

Amount of sunlight provided: several millions of years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, until we perish or prosper across the universe.

Despite your points about the "low density" nature of the sun, what else would you propose to

develop in the deserts and arid unpopulated regions of the earth that collect the most sunlight?

quote>

Great, but it arrives at earth in comparatively low density.  Any energy source that is low density is inherently inferior.  I realised that on my last acid trip.

Do nothing with deserts, they still have no use to us.

You see waste. The Canadian people see progress. You're entitled to your opinion.

quote>

Well they've been duped with misinformation from environmental groups and Al Gore.  But you're right, it's their money to waste.

Again, why create unnecessary problems with an energy source that is finite, produces waste, comes with a dozen or so politcal responsibilities, and is vulnerable to terrorist attack?

quote>

See above.

He must be pretty stupid, you know... getting elected over and over again like that. Must be why his lectures sell out, too. Everyone loves the fool, right?

quote>

George Bush.  Enough said.

Look, you may disagree with a man, but he is far from unintelligent. And he's much smarter than you or I.

quote>

Speak for yourself, and I find that very insulting.  At my age, all he'd done with his life is flunk divinity school.  I'm studying theoretical physics at the 5th best university in the world and I have an IQ of 147.  We are hardly even on the same planet. 

Look, do I think nuclear is a viable energy source to provide a solution to abrupt climate change? Sure. But, I'm here to play devil's advocate in favor of renewables. Of course, since they're new, they cost more and aren't as efficient. I'm sure the first nuclear power plants were just as costly and inefficient.

quote>

They actually weren't.  The vast majority of the cost for nuclear power goes to making it as secure and safe as possible.  We were not aware of many of the hazards when we first started making nuclear power plants 50 years ago.  I recognise that renewables are infantile, but I believe that they are fundamentally inferior, mainly due to the energy densities.

It already is! That's why our nation currently depends on fossil fuels. The quick and cheap path has lead us to this point!

quote>

I don't see anything wrong with where we are now.    seriously.

I would agree with some of what you said, but not all. Energy is one basis for prosperity, among many. Culture, education, crime, economics and environment are all major factors for this as well. 

quote>

Energy consumption is the basis of human productivity.

Several examples of how solar energy, for instance, have created entire solar markets in pockets of the world is exactly what I'm talking about. (See the above post concerning the amount of jobs created by the nicknamed 'Solar Valley' in the documentary I discussed.)

quote>

These communities use solar power because of the lack of access to a power grid.  I'm almost completely certain.  Unless they are an environmentalist community and are prepared to pay 20 times more for energy to do what they believe is saving the world.

Last time I checked, people weren't freaking out in "hysteria" over global warming. Your characterization is grossly exaggerated.

quote>

Not really sure how to respond... how about this.  It's pretty hard to deny there is a global warming hysteria.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya Mr fingers do you beleive the world climate is currently going through a change because of human activities. I kinda get mixed messages from you?quote>

it's complete twaddle.

[coolotter88 2]

uranium is virtually infinite on our planet. 3000 years worth of nuclear energy is basically renewable, the problem is solved for the next 3000 years, you don't have to worry about it, the people living 3000 years in the future do. and don't give me any of that "well, you should care about the future generations" crap because I don't care about the future generations 3000 years in the future, neither do you or the guy on the street, you don't see people saying "well, we have to solve the problems of the people living in the year 5000 AD". Maybe in the future they'll have fusion (as mrFingers stated), or deep earth mining, there is a lot of uranium down in the core, or if they could do deep earth mining, they could probably drill a pipe down there and use geothermal energy.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

I thought we'd already concluded the terrorists...

Nuclear power only has sensitive political issues surrounding it because poeple don't understand it.quote>

Unregulated nuclear proliferation could put nuclear weapons or technology in terrorist hands. This is why there was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to prevent terrorists or rogue states to take power into their own hands and start a nuclear holocaust. Enriched uranium is contained in nuclear power plants, thus making them a source for theft or hijack. I understand this premise quite plainly, in fact. There isn't a misunderstanding.

Again, you are operating under the assumption that everything but solar technology is going to be static.  Sure, people will find better ways to recycle cadmium, but they will also find better ways to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, etc.quote>

Except that cadmium doesn't become toxic unless it's inhaled in industrial environments where cadmium is being burned or melted. Radioactivity penetrates through almost everything, and is typically blocked by the dense materials such as lead.

Average UK life is worth 1.5 million sterling.  I'm not sure about US.  My soul costs whatever someone is willing to be gullible enough to pay for it.  I'm not religious.quote>

How demeaning and ignoble to actually cite such figures. You didn't address my point, but rather answered my rhetorical questions.

Clearly impossible.  If we inject a new process into the production chain that costs energy, money, and labour, someone has to pay for it.  That will inevitably be the consumer.quote>

How much did you pay to enact the services of Gateway and Dell to start their recycling programs? Do you pay dues to the Sierra Club? Of course the answer to both questions is no. It's not clear, nor impossible. Your view of the future is incredibly narrow.

Again, just because a resource is finite does not mean you cannot use it.  That's a common conception I come across and I find it REALLY strange.  Capitalism is specifically designed to ration finite resources.quote>

Ok, you have two doors. One door will provide you three meals a day for the rest of your life. The other door provides meals for you and your offspring for the rest of their lives, and their children's lives, and their children's lives, and so on and so forth until the end of time. Which do you choose?

Besides that, we can breed Uranium, we can process spent fuel, and at the moment we have well over 3000 years of fuel.  That's easily enough to develop the next best thing - fusion.quote>

Fusion is not even on the radar as far as possible and viable technology. It still remains on the very frontiers of science. Solar, wind and geothermal are all here and exist right now. They are virtually infinite, are not radioactive, carry no political burdens, and most importantly:

Their sources are not quantifiable and therefore cost nothing. The only costs are the tools in which we harness this energy.

Great, but it arrives at earth in comparatively low density.  Any energy source that is low density is inherently inferior.  I realised that on my last acid trip.quote>

Ahh, the source of your infinite wisdom is finally brought to light.

Do nothing with deserts, they still have no use to us.quote>

Desert regions are such because of the amount of sunshine they endure. They are, quite literally, solar "crops" waiting to be reaped.

Well they've been duped with misinformation from environmental groups and Al Gore.  But you're right, it's their money to waste.quote>

Which misinformation are you speaking of? And how did the Canadian government manage to swindle an entire population? Please leave your incredible conspiracy theories for another thread.

Originally posted by me:

He must be pretty stupid, you know... getting elected over and over again like that. Must be why his lectures sell out, too. Everyone loves the fool, right?

quote>

George Bush.  Enough said.quote>

George Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States. And he lost the popular vote, twice. This country never wanted him to be our leader. They did, however, want Gore. In the hopes of staying on point, this is all we should really discuss about this topic. (Perhaps a new thread?)

Originally posted by me:

Look, you may disagree with a man, but he is far from unintelligent. And he's much smarter than you or I.

quote>

Speak for yourself, and I find that very insulting.  At my age, all he'd done with his life is flunk divinity school.  I'm studying theoretical physics at the 5th best university in the world and I have an IQ of 147.  We are hardly even on the same planet. quote>

You are, in fact, on the very same planet, although your ego might soon envelop our entire sky in darkness and rip apart the Earth with it's gravitational pull. Check Al's credentials if you want, he's extremely accomplished.

They actually weren't. The vast majority of the cost for nuclear power goes to making it as secure and safe as possible.quote>

The vast majority of the cost for solar power goes to making its technology more readily available and effecient. There are zero costs for security, and I'm sure there is currently laws governing their safe disposal, which is relatively harmless unless you're a careless dolt who rips the solar panels off of roofs to burn them and huff the fumes.

...We were not aware of many of the hazards when we first started making nuclear power plants 50 years ago.  I recognise that renewables are infantile, but I believe that they are fundamentally inferior, mainly due to the energy densities.quote>

Perhaps, but renewables provide the cleanest and safest technology to lead us into the future.

I don't see anything wrong with where we are now.    seriously.quote>

Perhaps you should read a scientific journal now and again. I'm sure you could find something disturbing in there. Maybe a newspaper article or news broadcast of some sort? Most of the information is readily available to someone with an open mind.

Energy consumption is the basis of human productivity.

(GRAPH DELETED)

quote>

Hmm, no graph for the other factors I listed. You're simply not factoring them in, mainly because some of them aren't measurable. Your argument is simplistic.

These communities use solar power because of the lack of access to a power grid.  I'm almost completely certain.  Unless they are an environmentalist community and are prepared to pay 20 times more for energy to do what they believe is saving the world.quote>

The valleys in California and Germany are connected to the power grid, and currently provide access to a major grid. They are highlighted in the documentary. In Germany they pay $.20/kwh ($15-20 more a month), not an increase of 2,000%.

Originally posted by me:

Last time I checked, people weren't freaking out in "hysteria" over global warming. Your characterization is grossly exaggerated.

quote>

Not really sure how to respond... how about this.  It's pretty hard to deny there is a global warming hysteria.quote>

How about this? It's pretty hard to deny there is a knitting hysteria. Come on.. that's your rebuttal!? I'm disappointed.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 uranium is virtually infinite on our planet. 3000 years worth of nuclear energy is basically renewable, the problem is solved for the next 3000 years, you don't have to worry about it, the people living 3000 years in the future do. and don't give me any of that "well, you should care about the future generations" crap because I don't care about the future generations 3000 years in the future, neither do you or the guy on the street, you don't see people saying "well, we have to solve the problems of the people living in the year 5000 AD". Maybe in the future they'll have fusion (as mrFingers stated), or deep earth mining, there is a lot of uranium down in the core, or if they could do deep earth mining, they could probably drill a pipe down there and use geothermal energy.quote>

Well, you should care about the future generations of people. This type of attitude has put us in a situation where the world is warming at an unprecedented rate due to man-made abrupt climate change.

And here we are, debating forms of energy other than fossil fuel. We have to solve the problems of the people living in the year 5000 AD, as well as those in 2050 AD. Maybe in the future the Earth will be too warm to support human life, and instead of deep Earth mining, we'll be living there in the relatively cool refuse of the crust.

Or perhaps, taking the advice of the world's top leaders and scientists, we followed their advice and made Earth a more hospitable place and tended to it's health as we would any member of our family. The Earth is sick, and we need a cure.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/sc_nm/globalwarming_ice_dc

You guys will love this. Since it is impolite to drop grenades and run, I will only say that previous discussion about the inaccuracy of climate models is true, but not in the direction nay-sayers want. Things are moving faster than our models suggest, so look forward to beachfront property in inland New York around 2020.

Wait, since our stupid consensus of obviously stupid global, internationally-recognized scientists just don't know what they are talking about, expect it around 2015.

Barbarossaquote>

This is scary news indeed. How many more articles do you all need to convince yourselves?

[Goldfish4209 9]

Originally posted by: schm0 It still doesn't detract from the other negative aspects of nuclear energy, such as the vulnerability to terrorist attack, proliferation of nuclear technology, or possibilities of accidents causing widespread damage. Furthermore, you don't need a nuclear physicist to maintain a solar photo-voltaic cell, nor do you need security guards to keep a watch over a solar plant.quote>

Well, that's relatively easy to fix. Putting up a giant concrete dome is alot easier than containing free flying radiation, or carbon that won't go away for a while. Nuclear physicists, while not cheap, are worth it when you consider that there's no pollution, if things work correctly.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209

Originally posted by: schm0 It still doesn't detract from the other negative aspects of nuclear energy, such as the vulnerability to terrorist attack, proliferation of nuclear technology, or possibilities of accidents causing widespread damage. Furthermore, you don't need a nuclear physicist to maintain a solar photo-voltaic cell, nor do you need security guards to keep a watch over a solar plant.quote>

Well, that's relatively easy to fix. Putting up a giant concrete dome is alot easier than containing free flying radiation, or carbon that won't go away for a while. Nuclear physicists, while not cheap, are worth it when you consider that there's no pollution, if things work correctly.quote>

Ahhh.... if. To err is human.

[Normandy 0]

Hrm. From what I can see, from both mass-media and this forum thread, I think people are too one-sided. There are the people who think the "world is ending", and really try to do anything to stop global warming, whatever the cost. Then you have the people who say "global warming isn't real", and counter-act everything the people who do think global warming is occurring do. And the only people who have any sense left are the neutral ones, but as said in many comedy news shows, you can't be "very neutral". In my opinion, we shouldn't really be taking this to either side. We should take this step by step, not bound by bound. Now I'm not one to deny global warming is coming, and/or coming fast. Nor am I one to say Global Warming is all our fault. However, it is in my opinion that Carbon Dioxide, above all, is bad for us, global warming or no global warming. However, we don't need to take it at a breakneck pace, which is exactly why a lot of global warming legislation fails. It's too radical. Lets take an example:

Person A has 500 simoleans. He gets 10 simoleans a week (income - living expenses). He/she has an average family: married with 2.5 kids.

All of a sudden somebody in his local townhouse proposes that every house has to have solar panels. Lets say solar panels cost 750 simoleans. Now person A, being a sensible person, says that's too much. Even though the costs will eventually be offset, it doesn't matter. He'll/She'll need to take out a 750 simolean loan, which will take him/her 25 weeks to pay off, not including interest. To regain his/her original 500 simoleans, he'll\she'll have to work another 50 weeks. This isn't including any expense hikes he/she may face. So he says this idea is totally unacceptable. It fact, it is. However, take it the way nature has: Humans took millions of years to develop, so why not our policy on global warming? A much more feasible solution:

Another person has proposed a new bill saying that all major buildings have to have solar panels (post offices, fire houses, hospitals, etc...). Also, every person must pay a 1 simolean a month fee to help fund the solar panels. Though it isn't exactly going to completely eliminate pollution, it is much more economically viable.

[coolotter88 2]

your so called highly enriched uranium found in nuclear power plants doesn't exist. IIRC, the nuclear power plant fuel grade is only 3% enriched, OTOH, weapons grade uranium is 98% enriched. stealing uranium from your local nuclear reactor wouldn't work too well unless if you had something to bombard it with neutrons at home or something like that.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 your so called highly enriched uranium found in nuclear power plants doesn't exist. IIRC, the nuclear power plant fuel grade is only 3% enriched, OTOH, weapons grade uranium is 98% enriched. stealing uranium from your local nuclear reactor wouldn't work too well unless if you had something to bombard it with neutrons at home or something like that.quote>

Thank you for the correction. I'll edit my original message.

The correction still doesn't change the fact that a rogue state could easily have the technology to upgrade their fuel rods to weapons grade and sell them on the black market. If there wasn't such a fuss, then we would go ahead and let Iran or North Korea pursue nuclear technology with no regulation or disruption. I wouldn't put it past either of these two nations (for example, not to mention Pakistan or several former USSR nations) to offer something like this to a terrorist group for the right price.

My point is there are none of these political burdens with solar, geothermal, wind or other renewables.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Normandy Hrm. From what I can see, from both mass-media and this forum thread, I think people are too one-sided. There are the people who think the "world is ending", and really try to do anything to stop global warming, whatever the cost. Then you have the people who say "global warming isn't real", and counter-act everything the people who do think global warming is occurring do. And the only people who have any sense left are the neutral ones, but as said in many comedy news shows, you can't be "very neutral". In my opinion, we shouldn't really be taking this to either side. We should take this step by step, not bound by bound. Now I'm not one to deny global warming is coming, and/or coming fast. Nor am I one to say Global Warming is all our fault. However, it is in my opinion that Carbon Dioxide, above all, is bad for us, global warming or no global warming. However, we don't need to take it at a breakneck pace, which is exactly why a lot of global warming legislation fails. It's too radical. Lets take an example:

Person A has 500 simoleans. He gets 10 simoleans a week (income - living expenses). He/she has an average family: married with 2.5 kids.

All of a sudden somebody in his local townhouse proposes that every house has to have solar panels. Lets say solar panels cost 750 simoleans. Now person A, being a sensible person, says that's too much. Even though the costs will eventually be offset, it doesn't matter. He'll/She'll need to take out a 750 simolean loan, which will take him/her 25 weeks to pay off, not including interest. To regain his/her original 500 simoleans, he'll\she'll have to work another 50 weeks. This isn't including any expense hikes he/she may face. So he says this idea is totally unacceptable. It fact, it is. However, take it the way nature has: Humans took millions of years to develop, so why not our policy on global warming? A much more feasible solution:

Another person has proposed a new bill saying that all major buildings have to have solar panels (post offices, fire houses, hospitals, etc...). Also, every person must pay a 1 simolean a month fee to help fund the solar panels. Though it isn't exactly going to completely eliminate pollution, it is much more economically viable.quote>

 

The problem with taking the slow and steady route is that action must be taken immediately.  Indeed humans took millions of years to evolve, but that is irrelevent in terms of solving global warming as anthropogenic global warming doesn't take millions of years.  It is accepted that 2 degrees celsius of additional warming will occur EVEN if we stopped all CO2 prodcution immediately.  Doesn't sound too bad, but if no action is taken, then warming could reach 3 degrees.  Thats where disaster will occur as positive feedback loops will send Earth into an upward temperature spiral that we at that point CAN'T do anything about. So, if we can't avoid 2 degrees, and three degrees is realistically our "tipping point", then immediate, revolutionary action HAS to be taken.  

In terms of the economics, your example does work if and only if the government decides to issue a mandate with no financial assistence.  What most anthropogen global warming supporters such is for a broader governmental action, not just individual.  Its a societal problem, not just Jim's or mine alone.  Therefore it is reasonable to expect financial assistance in reducing CO2 outputs.  With the US having a multi-trillion dollar budget, it is ACCEPTABLE to have tax money used for combating global warming. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

But you realy cant do wholesale changes in power generation Immediatly.

TXU has decided to build some new nuclear facilitys but the process

from deciding to do that and the day the new plants go online

is expected to be somewere around 2015. And with the normal cost  and time overruns it would will probabaly be 2020 before their done.Things may totaly change in those 18+ years.

Its anything but fast.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

Unregulated nuclear proliferation could put nuclear weapons or technology in terrorist hands. This is why there was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to prevent terrorists or rogue states to take power into their own hands and start a nuclear holocaust. Highly enriched uranium is contained in nuclear power plants, thus making them a source for theft or hijack. I understand this premise quite plainly, in fact. There isn't a misunderstanding.

quote>

Well there clearly is.  The uranium in power plants has a about 5% U-235 in it.  That's 19 times less than the 95% concentration required for a chain reaction fast enough to make a bomb.  The uranium radioactivity level used for fuel in a reactor is comparable to many isotopes that the medical industry uses every day.  If a terrorist wants to build a dirty bomb (which is about all he can do with nuclear power plant fuel), then there are many easier places to get radioactive material from with much less effort.

Except that cadmium doesn't become toxic unless it's inhaled in industrial environments where cadmium is being burned or melted. Radioactivity penetrates through almost everything, and is typically blocked by the dense materials such as lead.

quote>

More misinformation.  Radiation comes in 3 (mainly) different types, alpha, beta, and gamma.  Each one has different penetration and ionising strengths.  gamma rays are the only ones which need lead shielding.  beta can be stopped by a couple sheets of paper and alpha takes just 10cm of air or skin.  Uranium decays produce alpha particles.

Read here. 

How much did you pay to enact the services of Gateway and Dell to start their recycling programs? Do you pay dues to the Sierra Club? Of course the answer to both questions is no. It's not clear, nor impossible. Your view of the future is incredibly narrow.

quote>

The cost always returns to the consumer, they are those companies' source of income and those programmes cost money.  Just because it isn't conveniently labelled "recycling fee" for you, doesn't mean it isn't in the price you are paying for a product.

Ok, you have two doors. One door will provide you three meals a day for the rest of your life. The other door provides meals for you and your offspring for the rest of their lives, and their children's lives, and their children's lives, and so on and so forth until the end of time. Which do you choose?

quote>

Dude, wait... who is simplistic again?

Fusion is not even on the radar as far as possible and viable technology.

quote>

Wrong again.  Seriously man, if you are going to debate this stuff with a physics student, make sure you know what you are talking about.

It still remains on the very frontiers of science. Solar, wind and geothermal are all here and exist right now. They are virtually infinite, are not radioactive, carry no political burdens, and most importantly:

Their sources are not quantifiable and therefore cost nothing. The only costs are the tools in which we harness this energy.

quote>

Yeah, and it STILL costs more them anyway!

Which misinformation are you speaking of? And how did the Canadian government manage to swindle an entire population? Please leave your incredible conspiracy theories for another thread.

quote>

This is the global warming thread isn't it?  And it's not a conspiracy, its just general left wing greed with the media, environmentalists, and politicians all mutually benefiting each other by speading garbage theories about the end of the world.

George Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States. And he lost the popular vote, twice. This country never wanted him to be our leader. They did, however, want Gore. In the hopes of staying on point, this is all we should really discuss about this topic. (Perhaps a new thread?)

quote>

Bush was voted in, twice.  If you think he isn't supposed to be there because it wasn't a fair democratic win, please leave your conspiracy theories at the door

The vast majority of the cost for solar power goes to making its technology more readily available and effecient. There are zero costs for security, and I'm sure there is currently laws governing their safe disposal, which is relatively harmless unless you're a careless dolt who rips the solar panels off of roofs to burn them and huff the fumes.

quote>

The companies that actually make the solar panels do not spend a large portion of their money on new R&D, because universities and government funded institutes is where most of the technology for solar panels is created.  My dad does investment banking business with these companies all the time.

Perhaps you should read a scientific journal now and again. I'm sure you could find something disturbing in there. Maybe a newspaper article or news broadcast of some sort? Most of the information is readily available to someone with an open mind.

quote>

I'm a science student, CLEARLY I'm going to read scientific journals.  I just don't believe everything I read, and I recognise that the media has a tendency to really distort a situation.

The valleys in California and Germany are connected to the power grid, and currently provide access to a major grid. They are highlighted in the documentary. In Germany they pay $.20/kwh ($15-20 more a month), not an increase of 2,000%.

quote>

I'm going to make a wild guess that they are not exclusively using renewable power then.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 uranium is virtually infinite on our planet. 3000 years worth of nuclear energy is basically renewable, the problem is solved for the next 3000 years, you don't have to worry about it, the people living 3000 years in the future do. and don't give me any of that "well, you should care about the future generations" crap because I don't care about the future generations 3000 years in the future, neither do you or the guy on the street, you don't see people saying "well, we have to solve the problems of the people living in the year 5000 AD". Maybe in the future they'll have fusion (as mrFingers stated), or deep earth mining, there is a lot of uranium down in the core, or if they could do deep earth mining, they could probably drill a pipe down there and use geothermal energy.quote>

Well, you should care about the future generations of people. This type of attitude has put us in a situation where the world is warming at an unprecedented rate due to man-made abrupt climate change.

quote>

Please stop going around, like every one of you AGW believers, and claiming the theory to be fact.  It makes it very obvious that your conclusion methods are questionable.  It is obvious to any objective observer that the debate around AGW is not yet concluded, as long as he/she is capable of realising Al Gore's and the IPCC's claim of a "scientific consensus" is false.

And here we are, debating forms of energy other than fossil fuel. We have to solve the problems of the people living in the year 5000 AD, as well as those in 2050 AD. Maybe in the future the Earth will be too warm to support human life, and instead of deep Earth mining, we'll be living there in the relatively cool refuse of the crust.

quote>

Garbage speculation. 

You sound like an ancient egyptian who doesn't understand how the minerals got to the nile delta, telling people we've got to save soil nutrients in the delta by starving ourselves so the people living around 2000 AD have enough food.  Seriously.

Or perhaps, taking the advice of the world's top leaders and scientists, we followed their advice and made Earth a more hospitable place and tended to it's health as we would any member of our family. The Earth is sick, and we need a cure.

quote>

What, is earth a living creature?  Are you one of those people who believe in Gaia?

[coolotter88 2]

we don't have to allow rogues states nuclear power, stable countries such as China can generate nuclear power and sell it to North Korea.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Well there clearly is.  The uranium in power plants has a about 5% U-235 in it.  That's 19 times less than the 95% concentration required for a chain reaction fast enough to make a bomb.  The uranium radioactivity level used for fuel in a reactor is comparable to many isotopes that the medical industry uses every day.  If a terrorist wants to build a dirty bomb (which is about all he can do with nuclear power plant fuel), then there are many easier places to get radioactive material from with much less effort.quote>

Tell me, then, why after 9/11 we increased the security around our nuclear power plants? I'm well aware of the various sources of radioactive substances. I also edited my original statement and omitted the word "highly." Radioactive is radioactive, even if they are 5% or whatever. The fact is SOLAR IS NOT RADIOACTIVE.

More misinformation.  Radiation comes in 3 (mainly) different types, alpha, beta, and gamma.  Each one has different penetration and ionising strengths.  gamma rays are the only ones which need lead shielding.  beta can be stopped by a couple sheets of paper and alpha takes just 10cm of air or skin.  Uranium decays produce alpha particles.

Read here. quote>

Look, I wasn't asking for a lesson in nuclear chemistry. The point is that nuclear energy is more dangerous than solar. It's just a fact.

The cost always returns to the consumer, they are those companies' source of income and those programmes cost money.  Just because it isn't conveniently labelled "recycling fee" for you, doesn't mean it isn't in the price you are paying for a product.quote>

Ok, so you would cheapen the prices of all products to eliminate recycling altogether? Or do you expect us to store all of our excess trash in that black hole in Nevada? I don't understand why you're so anti-anything that helps the environment. It's completely backwards. You seem to favor low costs at any cost, whether it be human life or damage to the entire planet. Just to let you know, a planet with no people creates no economy.

Dude, wait... who is simplistic again?quote>

You were. My analogy may be simplistic, but you claimed that energy production alone was the sole benchmark of human development. It's your argument that is simplistic, which is why I framed my analogy in a similar manner for you to understand. Again, nuclear energy carries with it several burdens (radioactivity, political responsibilities, etc.) that I've brought up. You have yet to respond to any of my claims. Renewables have NONE of the negative side effects which I mentioned. The only "negative" thing you can come up with is that it will cost people money to save the planet and the negative effects of breathing in burning cadmium. If we could do it for free, don't you think we'd already have done it?

Wrong again.  Seriously man, if you are going to debate this stuff with a physics student, make sure you know what you are talking about.quote>

Oh? You mean on Star Trek?

I've never heard of a nuclear fusion plant... I've heard of the fusion of a couple atoms here and there, and the science is fascinating, but it has never been brought to light on a large scale due to the immense amount of energy needed to contain the reaction. (From my limited understanding.) The reality of creating sustained nuclear fusion, my friend, is in the very far future and is most definately not used in any practical way today. (Other than our Sun, of course.) This is, of course, much different than all of the renewable sources of energy that I've mentioned, all of which currently are in use across the world.

Yeah, and it STILL costs more them anyway!

(Graph deleted.)

quote>

Again, everything is related to cost. I suggest you eat at McDonald's for the rest of your life. If it's all about cost, you're going to want to get more bang for your buck, right? Who cares about all the negative side effects like getting fatter, developing heart disease and becoming a fat slob? Hey, if it saves a buck or two, then it's gotta be good, right?

Do you see how your argument can be easily transposed to virtually any product? My dad taught me one thing that has never, ever been proved false from my experience in life: You pay for what you get. If you pay for and use cheap fossil fuels for a century or two, you will pay the consequences for squandering resources and polluting the environment.

This is the global warming thread isn't it?  And it's not a conspiracy, its just general left wing greed with the media, environmentalists, and politicians all mutually benefiting each other by speading garbage theories about the end of the world.quote>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, but seriously...

How does the media benefit? They get better ratings from reporting on Anna Nicole Smith than they do climate change. In fact, major news sources focus more on pop culture than most things nowadays. How do the environmentalists benefit? They get to breath clean air? And which politicians benefit? They get re-elected because they started legislation that is abating abrupt climate change?

Bush was voted in, twice.quote>

He won the electoral college twice. Once by the sanction of the Supreme Court. He did not win the popular vote.

If you think he isn't supposed to be there because it wasn't a fair democratic win, please leave your conspiracy theories at the door quote>

Again, I could go on and on about all the terrible things he has done to our country, but it is best left for another thread (and another time.) I don't know why you assume that I think in such grandiose terms when it comes to the election and subscribe to a conspiracy theory about how Bush won the electoral college. Re-read my original statement, not in between the lines.

The companies that actually make the solar panels do not spend a large portion of their money on new R&D, because universities and government funded institutes is where most of the technology for solar panels is created.  My dad does investment banking business with these companies all the time.quote>

Fair enough, but investment is still investment.

I'm a science student, CLEARLY I'm going to read scientific journals.  I just don't believe everything I read, and I recognise that the media has a tendency to really distort a situation.quote>

I agree that things can become distorted to a certain degree, but to convince an entire planet to spread a lie is a remarkable accomplishment, wouldn't you agree? I implore you to listen to the facts put out by the scientists, not the media. You will find an overwhelming majority of evidence that man has caused abrupt climate change.

I'm going to make a wild guess that they are not exclusively using renewable power then.quote>

Of course not... renewable energy is fairly new. Solar energy only came into the mainstream in the 1970's. Fossil fuels and nuclear have held the monopoly for decades... and as a result they have poisoned the Earth's atmosphere and created nuclear disasters.

Please stop going around, like every one of you AGW believers, and claiming the theory to be fact.  It makes it very obvious that your conclusion methods are questionable.  It is obvious to any objective observer that the debate around AGW is not yet concluded, as long as he/she is capable of realising Al Gore's and the IPCC's claim of a "scientific consensus" is false.quote>

The theory is a theory. Again, you read in too much to what I write (which is fairly easy in an online forum.) The theory goes a certain way, and the vast majority of science proves it to be correct. It is, by all standards, accepted as fact, much like the Theories of Gravity or Evolution. The true debate is over the amount that we affect climate change, not that we do in itself. And again, the majority of scientists have formed a consensus.

Garbage speculation. 

You sound like an ancient egyptian who doesn't understand how the minerals got to the nile delta, telling people we've got to save soil nutrients in the delta by starving ourselves so the people living around 2000 AD have enough food.  Seriously.quote>

Garbage dismissal.

You sound like an oil executive who wants to burn every ounce of fossil fuel until the sky turns black, telling people we've got to save money by using the cheapest materials available regardless of their consequence so the people living around 2100 AD have enough money to afford their six SUVs. Seriously.

Your analogy is a bit harsh, but I can see where you have cornered yourself into believing that every environmentalist is an idiot and that all they're out to do is raise taxes. It's just not that simple.

What, is earth a living creature?  Are you one of those people who believe in Gaia?quote>

No, but the Earth contains a living environment in which we reside. Therefore, we should take care of that environment. You wouldn't purposely poison the water in your fish tank if you found out that the filter you were using was causing the water to turn toxic. Similarly, you wouldn't just sit by and watch the world continue to fill up with pollutants as the Earth's glaciers, sea ice and ice caps melt away and becomes more volatile and hostile to human life.

My argument is plain: Renewable energy sources provide no detriment to the environment. They do not pollute, and their sources are virtually infinite. The only negative side effect (which you continually remind me of) is their cost, which will decrease as they become more prominent and the technology provides a better way to produce such materials.

The very first personal computers were never thought to be used outside the workplace. 20 years later, half of America have PCs in their home. And their cost has shrunk significantly as a result. A renewable economy is not only likely, but beneficial for the long-term.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 we don't have to allow rogues states nuclear power, stable countries such as China can generate nuclear power and sell it to North Korea.quote>

I would hardly call China "stable." While their economic progress is most certainly impressive, their human rights and environmental record are atrocious.

Originally posted by: confused04

The problem with taking the slow and steady route is that action must be taken immediately.  Indeed humans took millions of years to evolve, but that is irrelevent in terms of solving global warming as anthropogenic global warming doesn't take millions of years.  It is accepted that 2 degrees celsius of additional warming will occur EVEN if we stopped all CO2 prodcution immediately.  Doesn't sound too bad, but if no action is taken, then warming could reach 3 degrees.  Thats where disaster will occur as positive feedback loops will send Earth into an upward temperature spiral that we at that point CAN'T do anything about. So, if we can't avoid 2 degrees, and three degrees is realistically our "tipping point", then immediate, revolutionary action HAS to be taken.  

In terms of the economics, your example does work if and only if the government decides to issue a mandate with no financial assistence.  What most anthropogen global warming supporters such is for a broader governmental action, not just individual.  Its a societal problem, not just Jim's or mine alone.  Therefore it is reasonable to expect financial assistance in reducing CO2 outputs.  With the US having a multi-trillion dollar budget, it is ACCEPTABLE to have tax money used for combating global warming. quote>

Excellent points. We need to abate our contribution to this abrupt climate change, and this requires us to make changes in the way we consume energy and regulate our pollution.

[Goldfish4209 9]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

You see waste. The Canadian people see progress. You're entitled to your opinion.

quote>

Well they've been duped with misinformation from environmental groups and Al Gore.  But you're right, it's their money to waste.

quote>

So you're always right no matter what?

Originally posted by: coolotter88 we don't have to allow rogues states nuclear power, stable countries such as China can generate nuclear power and sell it to North Korea.quote>

Please define "rouge state". And you call it nuclear power. Nuclear power is different from nuclear missiles. But if you don't offend them and make them mad, it's not your problem. It's asia's problem, not anyone else's.

[coolotter88 2]

Human rights may be a problem but the Chinese certainly won't abuse nuclear power. goldfish4209, schm0 said NK and Iran would use Nuclear power to further enrich Uranium for nuclear bombs.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Solar Plant in Spain.

Looks very futuristic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm

they could probably do this almost anywere there is a lot of sunlight.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Solar Plant in Spain.

Looks very futuristic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm

they could probably do this almost anywere there is a lot of sunlight.

quote>

A snippet from the article:

"...Ultimately, the entire plant should generate as much power as is used by the 600,000 people of Seville....

Is it true that this power is three times more expensive than power from conventional sources? Yes, but prices will fall, as they have with wind power, as the technologies develop.

Also, a more realistic comparison is with the cost of generating power from coal or gas only at times of peak demand - then this solar system seems more attractive."

        

[schm0 27]

*yawn* happy mother's day.

*bump*