Top Climate Change scientists plead: Please go nuclear

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
27,328
Reaction score
5,928
Location
Little Karoo | Dallas TX
Now here's a breath of fresh air from some Carbon Crusaders. One of them is even credited with 'discovering' global warming. All hope is not lost, it seems - if only garden-variety Greens can be persuaded.

Open Letter to Enviro Types

(Posted from my telephone)
 
Last edited:
Nuclear is the ONLY way forward, coal is just dirty, wind and solar aren't powerful enough and they're intermittent, not all countries have vast enough resources for hydro and when Nuclear is managed properly it is definitely the healthiest for the environment.

Governments need to start ignoring the hippies :mad:
 
Interesting, it has been my impression for years that nuclear should play a big role next to the pure renewable kinds of energy as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
I was very surprised that the present Angela Merkel government allowed themselves to be so influenced by over emotional sandal wearing greenies after Fukushima to start scrapping nuclear power in Germany. Angela herself is a scientist, a chemist by training.
Read also :http://www.techcentral.co.za/sa-gets-renewables-religion/44634/#comment-1100061011 and my comments under this article.
 
Ho hum - there is little doubt that of the "non-renewable" energy types, nuclear energy is indeed the cleanest - but really folks, please answer this for me, why is it that the nuclear physicists also agree that the issue of spent fuel disposal (and other nuclear wastes) is something that still needs to be resolved. For any energy source to actually be "green" - we should not be leaving the traces for our descendants to deal with the "fall-out" (pun intended).

One does not have to be a hippy to be anti-nukes. Yes, large parts of our planet do not have recourse to the conventional types of renewable energy resources (solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc.) but most of Africa does. Africa has enough of these resources to be able to export energy to Europe and then some. However, every single inhabited area does have recourse to renewables - in the forms of biogas and biowastes, etc. These technologies are actually developing rather quickly and are being used in all sorts of applications. No, they do not necessarily work at regional or sub-regional scales - but are extremely efficient and cost-effective at local (i.e. urban) and household scales - witness the recent roll-out of the biowaste to energy in JHB.

The way I read the article posted in the OP - is that (safer options) for nuclear energy are being posed as an interim measure in the gap where renewables are being upscaled. They are calling for safety to be improved for a non-renewable energy source that is less (immediately) polluting than coal-fired power.
 
IIRC the spent fuel rods are "cooled off" in water tanks on site of the reactor facility for about a decade, then after they've cooled off they are moved to a quarry and buried, at that stage the radioactivity is very very low, the problem with burning anything like biomass is that it releases CO2 and other harmful gases, I'd rather put up with a bit of mildly radioactive waste in the middle of nowhere than the effects of poison gasses
 
(carefully) wading in here, the above (maybe along with a number of other factors), may be addressed by using thorium possibly even for transport. :erm:

I remember posting this in another thread, Thorium isn't a fissile material, you need to make U-233 which is fissile. Our knowledge of Thorium cross sections is limited so the whole process becomes difficult and expensive. Couple that with the slow return on investment for nuclear power, people are reluctant to put their money into something like this.
 
Now here's a breath of fresh air from some Carbon Crusaders. One of them is even credited with 'discovering' global warming. All hope is not lost, it seems - if only garden-variety Greens can be persuaded.

Open Letter to Enviro Types

(Posted from my telephone)

Most people who want to help stop global warming are advocates of nuclear energy. It means less carbon which means less heating.

Glad you finally understanding CO2 is causing heating :)
 
IIRC the spent fuel rods are "cooled off" in water tanks on site of the reactor facility for about a decade, then after they've cooled off they are moved to a quarry and buried, at that stage the radioactivity is very very low, the problem with burning anything like biomass is that it releases CO2 and other harmful gases, I'd rather put up with a bit of mildly radioactive waste in the middle of nowhere than the effects of poison gasses

All the spent fuel rods at koeberg are still onsite. We don't know what else to do with them. Only low level waste gets burried in sealed concrete drums in namaqaland.
 
Search IRP 2010. The DOE is planning a 9.6GW Nuclear build program until 2030. An optimistic timeline, but we are not ignoring the possibility.
 
Glad you finally [-]catching on[/-] understanding CO2 is causing heating :)
You labour under a misapprehension.
CO2 does not cause heating.
This is false. It is not true. It is fallacious.
It does not comport with reality.

Oh, a CO2 blanket can trap heat from other sources, in certain conditions. This is well-established.

But it certainly doesn't cause heating. And I've never thought so.

What an odd notion, really! ;)
 
You labour under a misapprehension.
CO2 does not cause heating.
This is false. It is not true. It is fallacious.
It does not comport with reality.

Oh, a CO2 blanket can trap heat from other sources. This is well-established.

But it certainly doesn't cause heating. And I've never thought so.

What an odd notion, really! ;)

Sure. Ill take that :) Huge improvement. Congrats.
 
Germans did not get the memo :erm:
 
I've been a nuclear fan ever since Global Cooling was the scientific consensus. I already use indirect nuclear (fission) to power the house.

Arthur ive corrected you on numerous occasions, global cooling has never been scientific consensus, it was nothing more than conjecture. Global warming has been the scientific consensus from about the 70s.
 
Arthur ive corrected you on numerous occasions, global cooling has never been scientific consensus, it was nothing more than conjecture. Global warming has been the scientific consensus from about the 70s.

Bah, facts or irrelevant to Arthur! :D
 
Arthur ive corrected you on numerous occasions, global cooling has never been scientific consensus, it was nothing more than conjecture. Global warming has been the scientific consensus from about the 70s.
Revisionist history.

They'll doubtless say the same when the current AGW fad collapses in its contradictions.
 
Found this great article on common lies / mistruths the climate change denialists use to in their argument. We see them here so often I thought I would share. Ill share 10 here, and link to the rest of the 119.

1.) "Its the Sun" (killadoob) - In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
2.) “Climate’s changed before” (many forumites) - Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
3.) “It’s cooling” (Arthur) - The last decade was the hotted on record.
4.) “Ice age predicted in the 70s” (Alan) - The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
5.) “Antarctica is gaining ice” (techne) - Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
6.) “Al Gore got it wrong” (any conservative) - Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
7.) “It’s just a natural cycle” (Pitbull) - Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.
8.) “Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy” (Chris) - Several investigations have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing.
9.) “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” (Arthur) - Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
10.) “The science isn’t settled” (multiple) - That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.

There are 119 common mistruths and disinformation at this link: http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/

People are ganna be loving me in this thread :D Information is important though.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/388949-Common-Climate-Change-lies


This is a post from 2011.


In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
GlobalCooling.JPG

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Revisionist history? My ass. The science community did not go fake a whole lot of heating studies to revise history. The studies were always there.
 
Last edited:
Can you please post a graph and links showing nuke-hating Warmists that nuclear power isn't an evil capitalist plot but actually quite benign for both man and beast.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X