Nuclear Polyticks

[bjornredtail]

Wait one, I slightly misspoke. I didn't notice that you had slipped carbon dioxide in there. So, I ask for further clarification, Do you believe that modern coal fired powerplants are ineffective at blocking the release of directly harmful chemicals and materials, such as particulates and sulfides?

That, and I must challenge your claim that more CO₂ emissions are worse than nuclear waste? When was the last time someone died of Carbon Dioxide poisoning? Okay, when was the last time someone died of radiation poisoning?

Furthermore, how about that senate resolution? There are plenty of scientists that disagree, and some of which bring some interesting data to the table.

Finally, the Kyoto treaty sold us out... How come folks like the US have pay vast sums to build out "carbon free" or "carbon neutral" technologies, while China gets to keep spewing their crap (as in stuff far worse than Carbon Dioxide) into the air? Doesn't China have enough unfair advantages in terms of manufacturing like slave labor, currency fixing, and a domestic lack of environmental laws? It's simply not fair that Americans are expected to give up a number of fundamental freedoms, while other nations have to sacrifice nothing.


Ps. It's raining right now here at Poly. It's been going off and on for the past 24 hours.

[Freenhult]

is it going to rain this afternoon freen?

I mean, shall i put me washing out?

Do ye really want an answer?

Do you believe that modern coal fired powerplants are ineffective at blocking the release of directly harmful chemicals and materials, such as particulates and sulfides?

Yeah. Its a proven fact that junk still gets released. Most plants aren't even up to date with the tech to stop that.

That, and I must challenge your claim that more CO2 emissions are worse than nuclear waste? When was the last time someone died of Carbon Dioxide poisoning? Okay, when was the last time someone died of radiation poisoning?

Nuclear waste is short term. CO2 is long terms. It doesn't matter that no one has died because of breathing it because of factories, but it is far worse. More CO2 is put out than Nuclear waste is even, or will be generated. All of that CO2 is warming our atmosphere. Tell me, how do you think the Earth getting warmer wont' kill people? If sea levels rise... people on islands that are low level will get flooded, or in densely packed countries won't be able to move away from the shoreline. Plus, even if no one dies from that, all that land is now underwater. Even then, its not over. Possiblity of increased Hurricane intensity or storm intensity. Increased cloud cover means less sunlight and fewer plants, which translates into fewer animals. Food shortages? Mass extinctions of species, estimated to be as high as 50% in the next 100 years? Compared to nuclear waste? Forget that.

Furthermore, how about that senate resolution? There are plenty of scientists that disagree, and some of which bring some interesting data to the table.

No, maybe polititions, but they're all dumb trunks anyway. Nearly no scientist working around that field should protest with the ICPP results. Bjorn, there is no data that disagrees anymore. Its simple. The Earth is getting warmer. We can tell that from the simple past 50 years of comparison by plotting the data. Guess what. CO2 went up. Temperature went up. Methane and other gasses went up too. So? Guess we should build more coal plants because there isn't and obvious correlation there? This is not because we're closer to the sun, infact we're moving away. Or some sort of intensified solar heating. This is us, and we're the only ones doing this. The rate of warming is faster than ever before in history, as far as we can tell in the ice.

It's simply not fair that Americans are expected to give up a number of fundamental freedoms, while other nations have to sacrifice nothing.

What? The right to just drive around for no reason? To make 3am Wendy's runs because they're hungry? Bullocks. IF people want to start fixing the CO2 problem, or even attempt to (Assuming we can) then we need to take major and derrastic steps.

[bjornredtail]

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

I mean, come on, correlation doesn't imply causality.

While we are at it, if we want to drastically cut our carbon dioxide emissions now, we should build more coal fired plants. A modern coal fired powerplant is not only cleaner than an older plant, it is also far more efficient. Building new plants would allow older plants to be retired, or taken offline for modernization.

What? The right to just drive around for no reason? To make 3am Wendy's runs because they're hungry? Bullocks.

Yes... I'm tired of folks making a moral judgment about my desire to drive a high clearance vehicle with a solid rear axle and four wheel drive.

[Freenhult]

This is assuming that Carbon Dioxide is the driving factor behind global climate change... Which I dispute.

Nuclear waste is definitely not short term... most of this stuff is hot for around 10,000 years.

Then you're behind mate. Its just about a proven fact. Do the research your self. Its a done deal with the rest of us.

[Ruddertail]

For some of you. Quite frankly, I don't buy the "man-made global warming" bit, myself. However, I don't really have the time/interest to argue it - the research alone would take me too long, let alone composing posts.

[windhound]

Wait Rudder
are you saying this:

has absolutely no effect on the environment?

I think we're doing something
Just what we're doing I cant say, I havnt put the time in nor is it my area of expertise. But saying that crud we're throwing into the sky does absolutely nothing is asinine

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/air.html
*cough* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ODJr9W2d6k

as far as your "high clearance vehicle" nev, do you actually use it for what it was designed for?
If so you get no argument from me. I drive a small truck and I use its capabilities fairly regularly, unlike all the soccer mums with SUV's that'll never see dirt
However, if you just drive your HCV to look 'cool' or otherwise... eh.

The thing about nuclear is that we know about all its waste, what it does, and its all contained.
You can say CO₂ is harmless, but what if it isnt?
We know nuclear waste is harmful and we treat it as such

Modern nuclear plants are also much better than the old ones
Cost remains a huge factor to just demoing all the old plants and building new ones, despite any reduction in pollutants or output efficiency

[Ruddertail]

I didn't make any statement as to whether it has any effect on the environment. I'd say it's reasonable to assume that introducing materials into the air that wouldn't otherwise have been introduced at that level has some affect. What effect, I won't venture to say.

I simply question whether
A: Carbon Dioxide is what's causing the earth to warm.
B: The amount of Carbon Dioxide man puts out from industrial sources is enough to contribute to carbon caused earth warming, if that is indeed the cause.
C: The increase in temperatures we're seeing is indeed a bad thing, and
D: This is something that natural systems won't compensate for (i.e, more carbon + warmer temps = more plants, lusher growth, etc. = less carbon, more oxygen = stoppage/reversal of carbon caused warming).

[Freenhult]

I simply question whether
A: Carbon Dioxide is what's causing the earth to warm.
B: The amount of Carbon Dioxide man puts out from industrial sources is enough to contribute to carbon caused earth warming, if that is indeed the cause.
C: The increase in temperatures we're seeing is indeed a bad thing, and
D: This is something that natural systems won't compensate for (i.e, more carbon + warmer temps = more plants, lusher growth, etc. = less carbon, more oxygen = stoppage/reversal of carbon caused warming).

A: Yes. CO2 absorbs sunlight thats rebounding off the surface and keeping that energy in the Earth's air.
B: Yes. Carbon that was stored is now being released. The carbon isn't going anywhere other than plants at this point.
C: Yeah. Ice caps melting, animals dying because ecosystems are ripped apart, lands get flooded. Warmer winters, super warm summers, severe storms? Sound bad?
D: IT would if we stopped. But it can't. Plants can't grow because we're building on that land. Its not possible.

People are causing it. Fact of life.

[bjornredtail]

And I could show you a picture of Tracy Clark power plant with nothing but hot air emerging from the smokestacks... Or a geothermal plant outputting massive plums of white "smoke" from the condenser units... I'm not saying all coal fired plants are clean, but that the technology exists, and has been deployed in some plants to drastically reduce the amount of pollutants that are released from these plants. Are you trying to tell me that this is a bad thing?

And, yes, I did go four-wheeling quite often in the thing. I've crossed the 40 mile desert by dirt tracks. I've gone plowing through a good 5 foot deep trench full of mud in the thing in (a successful) effort to make it US 95A, though admittedly that is likely one of the very few times I've used the vehicle to it's fullest of it's capabilities. These days my dad uses it for commuting... Over Donner Pass. Given it's age and construction, it's a relatively fuel efficient vehicle. In good driving conditions we average 20 Mpg highway. (This is a '91 Jeep Cherokee)

However, here at school, I couldn't justify the expense of having a car. So, my current primary form of transport is one-wheel drive and human powered. Though, I really wish I had opted antilock break option

A: Yes. CO2 absorbs sunlight thats rebounding off the surface and keeping that energy in the Earth's air.

In labatory conditions... In real life there are a number of other factors, including those that may be currently unknown to science. In which case, CO₂ might have little overall impact.

oint.
C: Yeah. Ice caps melting, animals dying because ecosystems are ripped apart, lands get flooded. Warmer winters, super warm summers, severe storms? Sound bad?

In other news, other previously uninhabitable places become livable.

D: IT would if we stopped. But it can't. Plants can't grow because we're building on that land. Its not possible.

The Earth is 75% water. Most "plant" life is offshore, so I somewhat doubt that this is a significant factor in the overall level of Carbon Dioxide.

Modern nuclear plants are also much better than the old ones
Cost remains a huge factor to just demoing all the old plants and building new ones, despite any reduction in pollutants or output efficiency

Perhaps... Though old plants are also more expensive to operate. A new plant that generates more megawatts per ton of fuel at lower maintenance costs than an older plant. Given even a slight incentive to do this, the power companies will jump at the opportunity.

The thing about nuclear is that we know about all its waste, what it does, and its all contained.
You can say CO2 is harmless, but what if it isnt?
We know nuclear waste is harmful and we treat it as such

I don't think it is possible to engineer adequate containment and protection for nuclear waste given how harmful it is and how long it must be stored. We may treat it as harmful, but our methods are not up to properly dealing with the potential danger the stuff poses.


I think I'm going to raise a new question: Where do our coal come from? Now, where do our nuclear fuels come from? I'm not sure if they still mine Uranium in Southern Utah, but I do know they mine coal there. If we have to import our nuclear fuel, it puts us at a bit of a strategic disadvantage.

[ohmyjapan16]

if youre interested...

the great global warming swindle

[Freenhult]

In laboratory conditions... In real life there are a number of other factors, including those that may be currently unknown to science. In which case, CO2 might have little overall impact.

Unknown to science? There is nothing in our air that is unknown to science. In fact, the science is very very clear. Long wave radiation being reflected off the surface is being reabsorbed by Green house gases such as CO2 and Methane and are not radiating back out to space.

Nothing special about that.

In other news, other previously uninhabitable places become livable.

Incorrect. There is no land for the North Pole, and the South pole is too cold still even with warming to live there. You'll have less area to live with in terms of total land surface area if we lose a good chuck on the polar ice. This is NOT a positive thing. Deserts expand, while deciduous and coniferous forest regions shirk rapidly.

The Earth is 75% water. Most "plant" life is offshore, so I somewhat doubt that this is a significant factor in the overall level of Carbon Dioxide.

... Is it now? There is plenty of water, but most plants can only grow in the water where there are certain conditions. The continental shelf is the cutoff point for most oceans and even then, most of the ocean floor is sand. Plant life is on the land. Currently, forests in the world make up the largest Carbon Sink in the ecosystem. We're cutting those down and putting up polluting factories.

I'll post the hardcore science if I have too, but I really don't wanna. I don't see how you can deny this with all the stuff I presented. In fact, if you Google the stuff you think, you'll see most of it is false now.

[Freenhult]

Alright. I watched the first 25 minutes of the video and I can see its freaking lies. Lemme break it down to what I know and understand.

I'm currently taking climatology right now. While we haven't hit the warming unit now, I can say that I've seen enough data on it to understand whats going on from a previous class.

The Earth's climate is constantly changing. That is a very good point. However, the real threat is the rate of change. The Earth can adjust for its fluctuations of climate change because it makes it happen over a very long period of time. Currently, if you analyse the data, you'll see that there are periods of ups and downs. This is normal due to the Earth's proximity to the sun, and other volcanic and geological events. However, every time there was an ice age, the amount of CO2 in the air was the greatest. This leads to the thought that more CO2 cools the planet, and less CO2 warms it. However, this is in fact a mistake.

The atmosphere is huge. Massively huge. 50% of the atmoshpere is within 5,000 meters of the surface. The overall comp of CO2 is around 0.04%. This doesn't seem like a lot, but in terms of sheer amount, this is a lot for our current temperature. Considering that the density of air, and also the amount of sheer volume of air most of the CO2 is within the troposphere. Thats the layer in which all of our weather happens. Ideally, when you have sunlight come in. A few things happen.

Sunlight radiation from the sun enters the atmosphere and turns into shortwave radiation through collisions and deflections. Some of it is absorbed into the air and some of it is reflected. The Earths albido is 40%. That means, we reflect 40% of all radiation (Light) back into space. The other 60% goes into plants, people, and the air. It eventually is re-radiated back into space on the dark side of the planet as longwave radiation. CO2 can't handle the shortwave stuff to well, only outgoing and incoming. Scatted stuff goes where ever it wants.

The problem with the increased CO2, is that less radiation is being emitted at our night time. I mean into space, not from the surface. This means that our air is getting warmer. Simple. More CO2 = more absorbent material. Its like throwing more and more sponges into a bucket. Soon the water is gone or really low. The water is still there due to Law of Conservation of Mass, its just hidden.

Water is a hidden thing too. Bjorn was party right. There is something hidden going on. The Earths air, is like that spounge. It holds water vapor. Not a lot either. Max of 4% at its peak. Water Vapor can hold more heat energy that CO2 can. However, Water Vapor itself can't really force the air to heat very much. Due its properties. What CO2 is doing, is upping the amount of water vapor that the air can hold. Using things like the idea gas law, increase the temp of the air by 1ºC and you do the math as to how much more capacity it has.

So. Now, you have CO2, Methane (Which is WORSE than CO2, but even less of it is in the air now), and Water Vapor all absorbing energy. As long as we keep upping the amount of water vapor that we can put into the air, we won't know what will happen. And that is perhaps our only saving grace. One theory is that more water vapor will lead to increased cloud cover and thus a greater albedo. But, if that happens, look for a greater risk of deep severe convention all over the world. We'll get more storms, and hurricanes, but this will eventually cool the planet down. Assuming we can cut out emissions alot. We need to help the environment get its butt in gear. And well... what we're doing now isn't enough. Sadly, it will be our kids that have to deal with this if we don't. And I doubt they'll be able too because of the crappy policies today and then.

One last thing I'll say is that temps lag behind CO2. This is because it takes time for the Water vapor to get into the air, and to get warmed up. Once it gets going, its dynamically very hard/ if not impossible to stop.

Now... If anyone still wants to disagree, they can't and I'll kindly ignore them.

[bjornredtail]

... Is it now? There is plenty of water, but most plants can only grow in the water where there are certain conditions. The continental shelf is the cutoff point for most oceans and even then, most of the ocean floor is sand. Plant life is on the land. Currently, forests in the world make up the largest Carbon Sink in the ecosystem.

Who cares about the ocean floor? Ever hear of plankton? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
(Though, I really should put a citation needed tag right by the statement "oceans constitute the largest (active) pool of carbon on Earth." )

That being said, we should really watch our industrial runoff carefully. We kill that stuff off, and we would find ourselves without a fish as a viable food source.

Water is a hidden thing too. Bjorn was party right. There is something hidden going on. The Earths air, is like that spounge. It holds water vapor. Not a lot either. Max of 4% at its peak. Water Vapor can hold more heat energy that CO2 can. However, Water Vapor itself can't really force the air to heat very much. Due its properties. What CO2 is doing, is upping the amount of water vapor that the air can hold. Using things like the idea gas law, increase the temp of the air by 1ºC and you do the math as to how much more capacity it has.

Hummm... I'll bite.
PV = nRT
Pressure Remains constant, function of gravity.
n remains roughly constant, conservation of mass. Here I'm not so sure... an increase in surface temperature would also increase in the evaporation rate off a bunch of bodies of water. Plus with water vapor, not all of it follows the ideal gas law, as evidenced by the rain outside my window right now.
R is constant by definition.
T is assumed to be increasing.

Higher Temperature => Greater Volume.
Okay, assuming the mass of the air remains the same, this would mean a lower density. Which I would think would LOWER the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, the same energy would result in a greater increase in temperature.... Was this your point?

One last thing I'll say is that temps lag behind CO2. This is because it takes time for the Water vapor to get into the air, and to get warmed up. Once it gets going, its dynamically very hard/ if not impossible to stop.

About time someone explain that...

But I thought that CO₂ lagged behind temperature, which would suggest it is a trailing indicator not a cause of global warming.
An interesting, and relatively neutral article on the issue (which in part disagrees with me on this issue): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Now... If anyone still wants to disagree, they can't and I'll kindly ignore them.

Can anyone say logical fallacy?

The Earth's climate is constantly changing. That is a very good point. However, the real threat is the rate of change. The Earth can adjust for its fluctuations of climate change because it makes it happen over a very long period of time. Currently, if you analyse the data, you'll see that there are periods of ups and downs. This is normal due to the Earth's proximity to the sun, and other volcanic and geological events. However, every time there was an ice age, the amount of CO2 in the air was the greatest. This leads to the thought that more CO2 cools the planet, and less CO2 warms it. However, this is in fact a mistake.

A fair statement... And it also makes me consider other loaded statements I have heard in that video. On of the scientists stated that human Carbon Dioxide was not responsible for warming in recent times. That may, or may not be true, but it does not inherently mean that there will be no future effect... In either case, I think it is spot on describing the political climate of this issue.

[The Beatles]

I don't think it is possible to engineer adequate containment and protection for nuclear waste given how harmful it is and how long it must be stored. We may treat it as harmful, but our methods are not up to properly dealing with the potential danger the stuff poses.

Yes, we do. I'm tired of your questioning points that are accepted as basic results by most people working in the field of climatology (even if I can understand your skepticism as to the overall conclusion Freen and I are representing in this thread). So you back your claims up for a change with some research. I take exception to your claims that our methods are not up to the safe reprocessing or storage of nuclear waste. Countries that have been successfully reprocessing the stuff for decades would also take exception to your claims.

[bjornredtail]

Freenhault simply dismisses the opinion of a number of highly educated folks in the film "Treat Global Warming Swindle" (link previous in this thread) as lies, while only addressing one of their arguments. There are plenty of highly educated folks in the field who doubt the human released Carbon Dioxide directly causes global warming.

The thing is we don't have to store nuclear waste for decades. Or centuries. We have to store it for thousands of years.