Climate change

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Carl, how does that follow. 60 years ago, just before nuclear energy, we didnt live in caves; we wernt living "au naturale". Not using nuclear energy does not mean not using technology.

You know, we dont live in a fairy tale world. Adjustments have to be made to the way we live so our demand on fossil fule genuinly reduces. Trying to fix the problem with something thats just going to be a much bigger problem in a few years time is not a fix at all. You say we cant wait 20-30 years but of course if we make some sacrafies on our demands then we can wait. But of couse at present that will never happen because the system is geared up to encouraging you to want and demand and buy until you drop. As they are saying in Copenhargen. Its not climate change we need. Its system change.

I think there is too many people in the world to go back to "au naturale". It would be nice but just unrealist. A happy medium yes. I just can't see it happening while the country is run by the rich.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Seems amazing to me how the anti-nuclear power advocates chant Chernobyl...yet don't seem quite as vocal in accepting the very real human (and environmental) cost of coal fired power:

Over 6000 coal miners killed in China in 2004 alone.

4000 new cases of black lung occur in USA mine workers every year, along with around 50 deaths. (isn't Wiki cool? )

Aussie stats are a little harder to find...but it seems Oz coal miners have a 1:28 chance of being killed (!!) from mining.

French (nuke) power reactor fatalities. Zero. Not bad after 40 years of operations.

Damed lies and statistics? I think not.

Peter,

And of course the Chinese authorities have spared no expense to ensure that their miners are protected from disease and accident. Clearly US employers could do better but you know, the bean counters call the shots and they will only spend so much on protecting their workers after considering other factors including what the market will pay, the success rate of court actions and the average payout after court action (same in Australia).

BTW, as for the 4000 US cases of Black lung, it seems that the condition sounds much worse then it really is. Apparently in most cases it only slightly affects lung function and is often asymptomatic (yes I agree Wiki is cool - the peoples encyclopaedia - As an aside don't you think its amazing how people working voluntarily have put together such a comprehensive encyclopaedia many times bigger and better then the commercial varieties).

Anyways I'm very heartened by all this concern for miners safety and I would encourage you to campaign for the chinese etc to spend more on protecting the safety of their miners but to suggest we should go over to nuclear to make up for employer's failing in this regard does not make much sense to me esp when many more deaths and environmental degradation is likely to occur down the track if we adopt nuclear energy.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

Nuclear has it's risks but Chernobyl was poorly managed by a country that was not ready to take on the venture. I think a lot of people woke up when that happened and a lot more care is considered before putting in Nuclear. That event will never go away and maybe that is a good thing to remind us the need for good management, but it should not be condemned as a good power source.

Indeed Chernobyl was poorly managed but do you think all will be OK as long as we are reminded that we need good management. The financial meltdown (apt expression) was poor management too (and by people who have devoted their life to devising systems for protecting their $$$$). But its not just poor management and S%&T that happens. Cutting corners happens; cost cutting happens; political expediency happens; conflict of interest happens; fires happen, floods happen; sabotge happens and we could go on. There is no such thing as a safe nuclear power plant and the more we build the more likely a major nuclear accident will occur. To suggest otherwise is either not being truthful with one's self or not being truthful with us.

[renormalised (Carl)]

There is no such thing as a safe nuclear power plant

There's no such thing as a safe oil refinery, or a safe coal mine, oil tanker, drilling platform, pipeline, airliner, skyscraper....where are you going to stop with labeling something as being unsafe?? They're all vulnerable to attack or sabotage. They're all vulnerable to cost cutting, unsafe construction, political corruption and expediency etc etc. Nothing is 100% safe. You know they still can't take fish from the Princess Charlotte Sound in Alaska, and how long has it been since the Exxon Valdez?? Destroy a major oil refinery or an oil field and see what happens. Or better yet, dam two huge rivers and then pump all the water out of a once thriving sea to grow cotton and wheat. Pump the place full of pesticides and watch what happens. Think Chernobyl was bad, you should see what's happened since they've done exactly what I have just told you to the Aral Sea. The cancer rates after Chernobyl pale in comparison to what's happened to the people around the Aral. Not to deny that Chernobyl was bad, but there have been far worse disasters than it, that have affected far more people for a lot longer.

Regardless of whatever they decide or don't decide upon at Copenhagen, or whatever other conference they will hold in the future (and you can be certain they will), nothing is really going to change. Not unless everyone, and I mean everyone (every single individual of the 6.7 billion on this planet) takes the responsibility for change (on all levels, not just for climate) into their own hands, learn to co-operate with one another and realise that we're all in this together. Can it happen??. Yes, it can. Will it happen?? That's a question only you can answer, and everyone else can answer. Ultimately, the politicians won't make the decision, nor will the financial institutions or the big multinational corporations. It's not in their interests to do so. Not unless they can control everything that goes on and make a profit from it. In which case it'll be the same old wolf, just dressed in another sheepskin.

So, what's the answer??

Let tell you what I think will happen...I hope it doesn't come to this because I hope humanity finally wakes up to itself and grows up....things will go on as they are now. They'll tinker around the edges, make a few token gestures, but nothing in the final analysis will change. The planet will reach a tipping point in the future and things will rapidly go downhill from there. We will suffer for the consequences of our stupidity and so will the planet. If we're lucky, we may just survive as a species but we're going to take a lot of others with us if we do go, or just scrape by. Probably after several hundred years of living in a sorry mess we will have come to realise just how woeful we were as a species, and hopefully will grow up, look back in hindsight and then set about rebuilding our civilisation. Except this time, we take a different path.

Maybe it's our fate to learn the hard way, but I hope by saying this, the chances of that outcome above become close to zero. Let's hope that we can do something about what we're doing to ourselves before it's too late.

[glenc (Glen)]

Stephen said: "What has to occur is all the so-called experts must provide 2 balanced viewpoints in a well-presented, easy to read format (not pages and pages or cited references and publications, such as on this forum), for the average person to absorb and understand. Only then will the average member of the public start supporting the cause."

This is one half of that, a one page summary from the UNSW. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/d...ES_English.pdf
The detail is here: "The Copenhagen Diagnosis".

We can drive over the crest of the [climate] hill on the wrong side of the road, and hope that nothing is coming, but it's a risky move.
As I understand it humankind has never seen a 3C rise in temperature and the consequences are uncertain.
Here are some suggested action plans: http://bravenewclimate.com/climate-action-plans/
and http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

The latest draft from Copenhagen is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...gen_accord.pdf

[Barrykgerdes]

I see the rich nations have agreed to limit the temerature rise to two degrees. Ha! Ha! As we are probably approaching the top of the temperature cycle it is a pretty safe bet that the temperature rise will be less than that so the pollies while be able to say they were right.

Baz

[glenc (Glen)]

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Either they say the world is not actually getting warmer or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

[renormalised (Carl)]

As I understand it humankind has never seen a 3C rise in temperature and the consequences are uncertain.

We have, actually, at the end of the last Ice Age, but that was coming from a low base. Now it seems to be happening from a higher base.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I see the rich nations have agreed to limit the temerature rise to two degrees. Ha! Ha! As we are probably approaching the top of the temperature cycle it is a pretty safe bet that the temperature rise will be less than that so the pollies while be able to say they were right.

Baz

Baz, to have such complete confidence when the overwhelming line up of experts is that human induced global warming is happening, dramatically deminishes your credibility. IC you now purport to be able to estimate where the top of the temperature cycle will be. Where did you get that from? A 10 min segment on the Kerrie Ann show. Have you ever entertained the possibility that all those experts may be right and if not why not. And if yes what is it that they are saying that most makes you feel uneasy about your position.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by marki

Monckton, C. (2009). Report to the US House of representatives Committee on energy and commerce. View at http://www.scotese.com/climate.html

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I see the rich nations have agreed to limit the temerature rise to two degrees. Ha! Ha! As we are probably approaching the top of the temperature cycle it is a pretty safe bet that the temperature rise will be less than that so the pollies while be able to say they were right.

I don't think we are anywhere near the top of the natural cycle, according to the graph we still have a long way to go.

[glenc (Glen)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

We have, actually, at the end of the last Ice Age, but that was coming from a low base. Now it seems to be happening from a higher base.

Yes, I meant a 3C rise above recent levels not a 3C difference peak to peak.

Unfortunately the recent draft from Copenhagen was not made by all of the big emitters: China, USA, EU, Russia, India and Japan.
President Obama said the US, China, Brazil, India and South Africa had "agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2C and, importantly, to take action to meet this objective".

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

There's no such thing as a safe oil refinery, or a safe coal mine, oil tanker, drilling platform, pipeline, airliner, skyscraper....where are you going to stop with labeling something as being unsafe?? They're all vulnerable to attack or sabotage. They're all vulnerable to cost cutting, unsafe construction, political corruption and expediency etc etc. Nothing is 100% safe. You know they still can't take fish from the Princess Charlotte Sound in Alaska, and how long has it been since the Exxon Valdez??

Carl

As I have said, what singles out nuclear power is the extent of the potential disaster with just one nuclear accident. As it happens with Chernobyl some things went right. There wasnt a nuclear explosion (most of the damage was due to fall out) But probability says that one of these days we wont be so lucky. Even so the fallout from Chernobyl was 400 times more than that released from Hiroshima. The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Northern Europe, with some nuclear rain falling as far away as Ireland. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people (not fish). What area were you saying was effected by Exxon Valdez. Thats right, Princess Charlotte Sound. The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe

Originally Posted by renormalised

Regardless of whatever they decide or don't decide upon at Copenhagen, or whatever other conference they will hold in the future (and you can be certain they will), nothing is really going to change. Not unless everyone, and I mean everyone (every single individual of the 6.7 billion on this planet) takes the responsibility for change (on all levels, not just for climate) into their own hands, learn to co-operate with one another and realise that we're all in this together. Can it happen??. Yes, it can. Will it happen?? That's a question only you can answer, and everyone else can answer. Ultimately, the politicians won't make the decision, nor will the financial institutions or the big multinational corporations. It's not in their interests to do so. Not unless they can control everything that goes on and make a profit from it. In which case it'll be the same old wolf, just dressed in another sheepskin.

I agree entirely. We need to make real sacrafices and most importantly we need to get back control and implement a strategy that really addresses the problem rather then some bull#@!t scheme to make some people rich.

[glenc (Glen)]

Claude "Integral Fast Reactor design can be practically failsafe, relying on physical properties of reactor components to shut down in even the most adverse situations, thus avoiding coolant problems of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the earthquake problem."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/2...-are-integral/

[marki]

Claude I don't know why you persist to argue the case against nuclear power based on a fear that the reactor will go critical. In modern reactors this is a non event, they are very safe and have a very large magnitude of safety built in as we have learned from our mistakes. Why not try something that is 100% certainty, what do we do with the waste?

Mark

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by glenc

Claude "Integral Fast Reactor design can be practically failsafe, relying on physical properties of reactor components to shut down in even the most adverse situations, thus avoiding coolant problems of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the earthquake problem."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/2...-are-integral/

Glen
How often do we hear of failsafe systems that go wrong. There is no such beast and indeed one of the official findings into the Chernobyl disaster is that those concerned held too much faith in the reactor; to them, a catastrophe was simply inconceivable.

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by marki

what do we do with the waste?

Mark

This is from the article posted by Glen

"There are two compelling alternatives to address these issues, both of which will be needed in the future. The first is to build reactors that keep the neutrons ‘fast’ during the fission reactions. These fast reactors can completely burn the uranium. Moreover, they can burn existing long-lived nuclear waste, producing a small volume of waste with half-life of only sever decades, thus largely solving the nuclear waste problem. The other compelling alternative is to use thorium as the fuel in thermal reactors. Thorium can be used in ways that practically eliminate buildup of long-lived nuclear waste."

Sounds pretty good aye?

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by marki

Claude I don't know why you persist to argue the case against nuclear power based on a fear that the reactor will go critical. In modern reactors this is a non event, they are very safe and have a very large magnitude of safety built in as we have learned from our mistakes. Why not try something that is 100% certainty, what do we do with the waste?

Mark

Mark, I agree there are lots of other problems with nuclear power we haven't touched on like waste as you mention and water pollution etc. As for the safety issue, I think statements that "it is safe" are frankly absurd. You may as well be standing on the Titanic declaring "It is unsinkable" How often have we fallen for that kind of rubbish, disseminated by people who only have one thing on their mind. Selling!!!

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by AG Hybrid

Sounds pretty good aye?

Yeah, I think they have a name for it "Too good to be true"

[renormalised (Carl)]

As I have said, what singles out nuclear power is the extent of the potential disaster with just one nuclear accident. As it happens with Chernobyl some things went right. There wasnt a nuclear explosion (most of the damage was due to fall out) But probability says that one of these days we wont be so lucky. Even so the fallout from Chernobyl was 400 times more than that released from Hiroshima. The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Northern Europe, with some nuclear rain falling as far away as Ireland. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people (not fish). What area were you saying was effected by Exxon Valdez. Thats right, Princess Charlotte Sound. The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe

You obviously don't understand the mechanics and physics of a nuclear explosion. There's no way that a nuclear power plant can go critical because the uranium in the plant hasn't been brought together under sufficient pressure to force the runaway reaction. If it was that easy to make uranium go critical, you'd never be able to build a powerplant!!!. In any case, you need to have an initiator source of fast neutrons to set off an explosion. They normally use polonium in nukes to achieve this. If you use plutonium in the powerplant, the only way to initiate the explosion is to implode enough of the plutonium to get it to initiate fission. The implosion has to be very precise, otherwise you just get an unholy mess scattered all over the place.

The only thing that will cause a nuke powerplant to explode is what happened at Chernobyl...enough of the uranium overheated and formed a pool of ultra hot metal in the reactor vessel. This, then, generated superheated steam when they shutdown the cooling pumps and that blew off the roof of the reactor building.

As for the Exxon Valdez....you've taken my comment there completely out of context with the rest of what I wrote. I never compared that disaster with Chernobyl. I was stating just how dangerous the oil industry can be if things go wrong, whether that be by misadventure or deliberate sabotage. 2.4 million Ukrainians is a lot of people, but what about the millions of people over the 50-60 years they've stuffed around with the Aral Sea...I've seen some pretty ghastly mutations of unborn babies caused by the environmental train wreck they've unleashed there. All in bottles of formaldehyde, sitting on shelves in the local hospitals and at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. People can't live there either, but they still do and the numbers of cancers and other diseases there have been alarmingly higher than elsewhere, for decades. The place is a poisoned cesspool.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Mark, I agree there are lots of other problems with nuclear power we haven't touched on like waste as you mention and water pollution etc. As for the safety issue, I think statements that "it is safe" are frankly absurd. You may as well be standing on the Titanic declaring "It is unsinkable" How often have we fallen for that kind of rubbish, disseminated by people who only have one thing on their mind. Selling!!!

It's like I said before, Claude. Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% safe. If you want that you might as well discard all technology and go back to living in caves. Even there, you could scorch yourself on an open fire.

If you want to see some progress being made in energy generation technologies, you're going to have to wait some time before things get a move along. Until then, we can only use what we have at hand, what our best and most consistently reliable sources for power generation are. At present, wind and solar are stopgap measures. They're not reliable or consistent enough to be the main power generating systems for society. Might be great for small to medium sized communities, but try and power a large city with them...or a whole nation. How many square kilometres of countryside are you prepared to put under mirrors or solar cells in order to power Canberra, or Sydney, or Melbourne?? You'd have the environmentalists complaining about that, then!!!!. Or, they'd complain about having to mine all the silica sand in order to make the mirrors and/or solar cells. They're never satisfied unless they hear themselves whining about something. 99% of them haven't a clue about what they're talking about. The other 1% aren't there solely for the sake of the environment, either.

If we have to go nuclear, then that's what we have to do. I'd rather do that than hold off on the promise of a "brighter" tomorrow, when that technology might take years to develop. We don't have decades left to hang around and wait. Once we have that technology, then we can implement it. The nukes can then be taken offline and dealt with in just the same fashion as the coal plants will have to be dealt with. Carefully.