Why is climate science political?

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, Todd, you didn't, you know you didn't, and we both know why you didn't.

Storing radioactive material in places like California, Turkey, Italy and Japan is not viable because of the earthquake risk. And neither are nuclear plants viable in places with a tsunami risk.

They are not viable for scientific reasons, and it is not viable because no population will accept it.

Presenting nuclear as a simple, catch-all solution is just stupid.

I am pro-nucelar, but I wince when I see people pretend that we should forget what just happened in Japan because it will never happen here/again etc etc etc.

There isn't nuclear waste currently stored in Califirnia?
Are you sure?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Please respond only to what I post - not what you might think I might post.

 

[bobgnote]

Westwall -

I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies.

So far you have not responded to either.

T-Tard and Wally like to quote in quote in quote, and they fail to reply, to issues.

Let's see how many pages they can hijack.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.

I missed this earlier.

Tidal power has considerable potential in countries with straits or large tidal harbours. It's already in use in Scotland, Norway and New Zealand, and I can imagine great potential in Japan, the US, Philipinnes, Indonesia etc etc.

As for cost - consider this, based on Total system Levelized Cost (USD/Mwh hour)

Coal 94.8

Advanced Coal 109.4

Wind 97.0

Hydro 86.4

Advanced Nuclear 113.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal is not particularly cheap.

I haven't seen a realistic figure for tidal yet as it is still so new, but I can imagine it falling well below that figure for nuclear, because in the long term it requires little maintenance, few personnel, and generates large volumes of electricity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Please respond only to what I post - not what you might think I might post.

Storing radioactive material in places like California, Turkey, Italy and Japan is not viable

And yet it is stored there. Maybe reprocessing the waste would make things safer?

You're welcome.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Why do I always feel with you that I need to take what I assume to be common knowledge, and then go backwards about three steps?

The point is that storing any form of nuclear waste in an earthquake zone is now unsustainable both politically and environmentally, in light of the earthquake in Japan.

Likewise, building nuclear power plants in tsunami zones in clearly impossible, and is politially impossible in earthquake zones as well (even if scientifically feasible).

Governments in countries like Japan, Italy, Turkey and New Zealand will likely never build another nuclear power station, because the perceived risk of earthquake is simply too high.

I really hope this is clear enough for you....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Why do I always feel with you that I need to take what I assume to be common knowledge, and then go backwards about three steps?

It's probably because your assumptions are so weak in general.

The point is that storing any form of nuclear waste in an earthquake zone is now unsustainable both politically and environmentally, in light of the earthquake in Japan.

In case you've been asleep, moving nuclear waste in the US has been a political non-starter.

You asked for a solution to the waste problem and I gave it to you.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

This was your solution -

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.

In light of the recent tsunamis in Japan and Asia, and the recent earthquakes in Italy, New Zealand and Japan - do you see any potential problems selling this to people as a concept?

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies.

So far you have not responded to either.

No, you havn't. You posted CLAIMS. There was no evidence to support the claims. Here in Reno the city installed 400,000 worth of wind turbines. They figured out it will take 130 YEARS to pay for them at the rate of "savings" they are realizing. Of course the windmills will be worn out in 25 years so in point of fact they will NEVER pay for themselves.

You see dear person, reality is most often far, far different from the claims you all make.
Don't take this as a denial of technology on my part because I am not anti tech or anti research into technology. far from it. What I despise though are the green companies getting the government to outlaw cheaper alternatives so that the green option is the only one available to the public. That is fraud by another name and another method.

That results in very slow technological development because there is no reason to get better.

 

[westwall]

TODD -

Please do not spam the thread. Either address the topic or leave it for others.

Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.

Actually, toadsteretard, all you ever point out is your own ignorance, confusion and rank stupidity. All of your posts amount to worthless spam because you don't actually know squat about climate science or science in general. You're pretty much just another clueless retard who's been bamboozled by rightwingnut fossil fuel industry propaganda, misinformation and lies and is now severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You make this obvious with every one of your ignorant idiotic posts.

Blunder, under the dictionary entry for D-K effect is your picture...just sayin!

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.

I missed this earlier.

Tidal power has considerable potential in countries with straits or large tidal harbours. It's already in use in Scotland, Norway and New Zealand, and I can imagine great potential in Japan, the US, Philipinnes, Indonesia etc etc.

As for cost - consider this, based on Total system Levelized Cost (USD/Mwh hour)

Coal 94.8

Advanced Coal 109.4

Wind 97.0

Hydro 86.4

Advanced Nuclear 113.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal is not particularly cheap.

I haven't seen a realistic figure for tidal yet as it is still so new, but I can imagine it falling well below that figure for nuclear, because in the long term it requires little maintenance, few personnel, and generates large volumes of electricity.

Yes it does and some of those areas enjoy a high population density which makes it even more favorable. Where it makes sense it SHOULD be employed. Just like where solar can work it SHOULD be employed. What shouldn't happen is government making cheaper alternatives illegal to make the green option the only one available. That has ramifications far beyond even your worst imaginings.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.

I missed this earlier.

Tidal power has considerable potential in countries with straits or large tidal harbours. It's already in use in Scotland, Norway and New Zealand, and I can imagine great potential in Japan, the US, Philipinnes, Indonesia etc etc.

As for cost - consider this, based on Total system Levelized Cost (USD/Mwh hour)

Coal 94.8

Advanced Coal 109.4

Wind 97.0

Hydro 86.4

Advanced Nuclear 113.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal is not particularly cheap.

I haven't seen a realistic figure for tidal yet as it is still so new, but I can imagine it falling well below that figure for nuclear, because in the long term it requires little maintenance, few personnel, and generates large volumes of electricity.

No coal isn't but natural gas is. Also the figures for wind are very optimistic. Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels. Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.

 

[Saigon]

No coal isn't but natural gas is. Also the figures for wind are very optimistic. Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels. Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.

I think wind is a technology that is only really viable in extreme conditions.

Spain and Denmark have those, but not everywhere does.

Tidal is a far stronger technology in my book, because of the density of water and the reliability of the tides.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

This was your solution -

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.

In light of the recent tsunamis in Japan and Asia, and the recent earthquakes in Italy, New Zealand and Japan - do you see any potential problems selling this to people as a concept?

The used fuel is there whether we reprocess it or not.
We need energy despite the occasional earthquake or tsunami.

There is always a problem when dealing with idiots.

What's your solution? Solar? Wind? Tidal?

 

[Saigon]

The used fuel is there whether we reprocess it or not.
We need energy despite the occasional earthquake or tsunami.

There is always a problem when dealing with idiots.

What's your solution? Solar? Wind? Tidal?

More used fuel is not created if countries do not use nuclear energy - which you must realise as well as I do is a done deal in countries like Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Turkey.

My solution is to ignore politics and vested interests, and rely on scientific analysis of local conditions.

For Finland, which lacks the resources to produce much hydro, solar or wind - I believe we should use largely nuclear.

Elsewhere, nuclear is a great technology for Northern Europe, but impossible in large parts of the world due to the earthquake/tsunami risk and the lack of popularity associated with that.

I think tidal is a magnificant technology that can produce great results in the US, Scotland, Norway, New Zealand, Indonesia, Argentina, Chile and Japan.

Wind is a strong option for Spain and Denmark, but I think will be of limited use elsewhere. It is of some use in Africa and South America, I think.

Solar (Photovoltaic) can be a major player in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Spain, Australia and the southern US, but obviously less so in northern Europe.

Natural gas is fine, but its a limited resource and is perhaps more of a source for the next 20 years than the century beyond those.

 

[westwall]

No coal isn't but natural gas is. Also the figures for wind are very optimistic. Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels. Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.

I think wind is a technology that is only really viable in extreme conditions.

Spain and Denmark have those, but not everywhere does.

Tidal is a far stronger technology in my book, because of the density of water and the reliability of the tides.

I have never seen windpower get a favorable review whenever it is honestly analyzed. Add to that the slaughter of wildlife and there is no reason why windpower should even be considered. Wind farms kills more birds than all the oil spills of the world combined ever, in a single year.

 

[westwall]

The used fuel is there whether we reprocess it or not.
We need energy despite the occasional earthquake or tsunami.

There is always a problem when dealing with idiots.

What's your solution? Solar? Wind? Tidal?

More used fuel is not created if countries do not use nuclear energy - which you must realise as well as I do is a done deal in countries like Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Turkey.

My solution is to ignore politics and vested interests, and rely on scientific analysis of local conditions.

For Finland, which lacks the resources to produce much hydro, solar or wind - I believe we should use largely nuclear.

Elsewhere, nuclear is a great technology for Northern Europe, but impossible in large parts of the world due to the earthquake/tsunami risk and the lack of popularity associated with that.

I think tidal is a magnificant technology that can produce great results in the US, Scotland, Norway, New Zealand, Indonesia, Argentina, Chile and Japan.

Wind is a strong option for Spain and Denmark, but I think will be of limited use elsewhere. It is of some use in Africa and South America, I think.

Solar (Photovoltaic) can be a major player in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Spain, Australia and the southern US, but obviously less so in northern Europe.

Natural gas is fine, but its a limited resource and is perhaps more of a source for the next 20 years than the century beyond those.

You're close to my opinion this but remove windpower, and natural gas is abundant for at least the next 100 years. With what we have and can prove now. Who knows what will be found in the future.

 

[IanC]

the main problem with renewable energy other than hydro is the fact that it is not steady. solar only works in the daytime (even if some charlatans were selling power at the bonus rate even at night), and wind power only when the wind blows (as long as its not too strong).

unfortunately we need power when the consumer demands power. so even though wind and solar can add to the grid we still need a steady source to accomodate the load. part of the cost of W&S should be the necessity of having a back-up supply on hand. or we could just regress to a lifestyle where you only use electricity when it is available. that would play havoc with production though. ask South Africa how they like constant rolling blackouts and unreliable electricity.

 

[bobgnote]

the main problem with renewable energy other than hydro is the fact that it is not steady. solar only works in the daytime (even if some charlatans were selling power at the bonus rate even at night), and wind power only when the wind blows (as long as its not too strong).

unfortunately we need power when the consumer demands power. so even though wind and solar can add to the grid we still need a steady source to accomodate the load. part of the cost of W&S should be the necessity of having a back-up supply on hand. or we could just regress to a lifestyle where you only use electricity when it is available. that would play havoc with production though. ask South Africa how they like constant rolling blackouts and unreliable electricity.

Unfortunately, idiot skeptics of pragmatism translate, to idiot skeptics of AGW, which translate to blockers of all notice of acceleration of both warming and acidification, which translate to blockers of carbonic acidification data, who then prevent all biomass media and re-greening media. Oil and nukes persist, during this dilemma.

So even though you didn't read most of this thread, you are over here posting, without the slightest clue, as to biomass availability or necessity. You disdain the hockey 'stick,' which describes acceleration of warming, while presenting hockey 'puck' and lots of stupid cross-checking and hooking. You are an asshole. Fuck you. Learn to read, or move back to Russia, sell us some oil, and then find out, Siberia is melting, wingnutski:

Technology - Nicole Allan - Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - The Atlantic

When you can read, notice we like to use good grammar and punctuation, in English. Capitalize letters, at the start of any sentence. Put up some links. Respond to points of information and issues. This means you, asshole! WTF, IanC . . .

 

[freedombecki]

Westwall -

I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies.

So far you have not responded to either.

No, you havn't. You posted CLAIMS. There was no evidence to support the claims. Here in Reno the city installed 400,000 worth of wind turbines. They figured out it will take 130 YEARS to pay for them at the rate of "savings" they are realizing. Of course the windmills will be worn out in 25 years so in point of fact they will NEVER pay for themselves.

You see dear person, reality is most often far, far different from the claims you all make.
Don't take this as a denial of technology on my part because I am not anti tech or anti research into technology. far from it. What I despise though are the green companies getting the government to outlaw cheaper alternatives so that the green option is the only one available to the public. That is fraud by another name and another method.

That results in very slow technological development because there is no reason to get better.

Thanks for pointing out about the error in thinking that windmills will create plenty of free energy for nothing. There are so many problems with windmills and battery storage. Their costs are overwhelming, They're unweildy, unsightly, and are a threat to some now-endangered bird species. One out of three of them is down for repairs a year after installation, and peak hours do not necessarily deal with demands. That's such a good post.

Green energy does not belong in the political arena, it belongs in the private sector. If it can't make it there, it can't make it anywhere, even if the seaport of Copenhagen displays them prominently so the world will think of them as Green Giants. They did as good a job as I've seen of trying to make them look aesthetic, but they're still ugly buggers wherever they are. But the Copenhagen ones weren't as ugly as the Pickens group south of Lamar all the way down the road through Oklahoma's panhandle to Amarillo. Barf.