Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[Sword_Of_Truth]

like i said, not a theoretical one.

You need to stop relying on 80 year old textbooks. Turning radioisotopes into other elements via proton or neutron bombardment has been done since the 1940s.

When (not "if") there are enough reactors in operation to make large scale processing of waste more economical than burying it, it will be done.

it was the main point of the protests in Germany.

How many people attending these protests were nuclear engineers and reactor physicists?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's not that simple, and it's subject to a lot of NIMBY. To test that, propose one gets built near a wealthy suburb.

I believe the argument over nuclear is already virtually over. When the deafening silence of blank plasma TVs and dormant X-Boxes becomes loud enough, nuclear will come roaring in on a landslide.

You make a good point about NIMBYism. But it too can be drowned out if the situation gets bad enough.

I would rather we not let it get that far. There was a premier of Alberta who once said "If you haven't suffered enough, it is your God given right to suffer some more". NIMBYism might raise peoples pain threshold, but people also like to be placated. AGW denial is successful because of of the desire to be placated, to be told that there is no crisis and they can feel free to keep driving SUVs and running AC's all summer and heaters all winter.

Since the science, and as a consequence the scientists, are all on the side of nuclear, as soon as the peoples desire to have the lights back on causes them to seek out the soothing voice of someone with a string of letters after their name to tell them what they want to hear, nuclear will win automatically.

 

[DC]

You need to stop relying on 80 year old textbooks. Turning radioisotopes into other elements via proton or neutron bombardment has been done since the 1940s.

When (not "if") there are enough reactors in operation to make large scale processing of waste more economical than burying it, it will be done.



How many people attending these protests were nuclear engineers and reactor physicists?

and why doesnt the industry offer your solution as a solution?

and it does not matter if they are nuclear engineers or not. They want a solution for the radioactive waste. and the industry is not offering one.
your appeal to authority is noted.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

and why doesnt the industry offer your solution as a solution?

Because it's currently cheaper to bury it. We need more reactors up and running to provide the the market for conversion of waste.

and it does not matter if they are nuclear engineers or not.

Yes it does.

It matters for the same reason that it matters that there are almost no structural engineers among the 9/11 twoofers.

your appeal to authority is noted.

If you are attempting to accuse me of appeal to false authority, you should look it up first and make sure you know what it is before you embarrass yourself.

Your concession that there aren't any nuclear engineers or reactor physicists at these protests is noted.

 

[tkmikkelsen]

tkmikkelsen, if you want to discuss the science of AGW then check out the moderated thread in these forums on the subject. Otherwise please stay on topic in here.

I will and I have, there is a lot of interesting reading there. Haven't posted yet as I have to read through the whole lot of posts.

Anyway on the original topic I can only agree with some of the posters here that advocates nuclear power, nuclear is cleanest form of energy we have available.

Also on the original post. I do believe some part of the environmental movement is simply anti progression, but the waste majority thinks they are doing good and don't have a wish to bring anyone back to the stone age.

 

[DC]

Because it's currently cheaper to bury it. We need more reactors up and running to provide the the market for conversion of waste.



Yes it does.

It matters for the same reason that it matters that there are almost no structural engineers among the 9/11 twoofers.



If you are attempting to accuse me of appeal to false authority, you should look it up first and make sure you know what it is before you embarrass yourself.

Your concession that there aren't any nuclear engineers or reactor physicists at these protests is noted.

LOL there you wanted to go, lump them in with conspiracy theorists.
what a childish and lame attempt.

come back when you have a practical solution that is accepted by the people.

your product is worthless if it only can convince nuclear scientists.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I believe the argument over nuclear is already virtually over. When the deafening silence of blank plasma TVs and dormant X-Boxes becomes loud enough, nuclear will come roaring in on a landslide.

You make a good point about NIMBYism. But it too can be drowned out if the situation gets bad enough.

I would rather we not let it get that far. There was a premier of Alberta who once said "If you haven't suffered enough, it is your God given right to suffer some more". NIMBYism might raise peoples pain threshold, but people also like to be placated. AGW denial is successful because of of the desire to be placated, to be told that there is no crisis and they can feel free to keep driving SUVs and running AC's all summer and heaters all winter.

Since the science, and as a consequence the scientists, are all on the side of nuclear, as soon as the peoples desire to have the lights back on causes them to seek out the soothing voice of someone with a string of letters after their name to tell them what they want to hear, nuclear will win automatically.

Amen, brother.

Germans are especially anti-nuclear. And I know, my wife is (half) German.
Probably due to the big scare they got when the Chernobyl cloud blew their way.

I seriously wonder at what point the population will feel the pain of energy contraction and rapidly change it's mind on the risk-benefit analysis regarding nuclear.

Probably when Russia has them by the balls and starts doubling the price of gas every six months.

That might be a tad late though. It takes a lot of time to build those things.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Amen, brother.

Germans are especially anti-nuclear. And I know, my wife is (half) German.
Probably due to the big scare they got when the Chernobyl cloud blew their way.

I seriously wonder at what point the population will feel the pain of energy contraction and rapidly change it's mind on the risk-benefit analysis regarding nuclear.

Probably when Russia has them by the balls and starts doubling the price of gas every six months.

Indeed. Nuclear energy gained a dozen points in the public opinion polls when oil hit 140 USD a barrel back in 2008. The more people hurt, the better previously unthinkable options look.

That might be a tad late though. It take a lot of time to build those things.

This is the part that scares me. The deliberate willful ignorance shown by one of the above posters isn't helping.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

LOL there you wanted to go, lump them in with conspiracy theorists.
what a childish and lame attempt.

Why do you feel that one type of fearful ignorance is somehow superior to another kind of ignorance?

come back when you have a practical solution that is accepted by the people.

Easily done. We'll just get the scientific community to rename neutrons to "Happy fun thoughts" and plutonium to "Unicorn Farts".

your product is worthless if it only can convince nuclear scientists.

I don't know what else to say to that except "quoted so you can't go back and change it".

 

[DC]

Why do you feel that one type of fearful ignorance is somehow superior to another kind of ignorance?



Easily done. We'll just get the scientific community to rename neutrons to "Happy fun thoughts" and plutonium to "Unicorn Farts".



I don't know what else to say to that except "quoted so you can't go back and change it".

yeah sure, the germans are ignorants for protesting the creation of nuclear waste as long there is no solution for the waste.

bring a solution instead of calling opponents ignorant.

 

[Furcifer]

Your assumption that the sun is a constant is not correct, sun activity greatly varies, but if you think that the CO2 theory is more sound then that is fine with me. As long as you remember it is only a theory and other people can have other well founded theories as well, something the CO2 movement often forget.

This isn't an assumption, it's a fact when we're talking about historically and in comparison to CO2 and the climate.

CO2 isn't a theory, there's a well defined science behind what it does in the atmosphere.

I believe what you're getting to in a round about way is feedback. Feedback is another story all together, and something that isn't as well understood as CO2 in the atmosphere or solar output.

 

[tyr_13]

like i said, not a theoretical one.

it was the main point of the protests in Germany. They don't want to produce more nuclear waste as long there is no solution for the waste.

Store it in a secure facility in a place like a desert.

Seriously, the storage issue is so overblown it's funny. It's like saying we're running out of landfill space. The actual amount of space needed isn't huge, the long term risk is smaller than popularly perceived, and most of the waste has already been created.

 

[elbe]

No need to get mean, but just so that we will not argue about what a theory is. I have provided the definition from Merriam-Webster.

I'm glad you agree with me that gravity is merely speculation. Everyone else just laughs when I try to fly.

On the other hand, to quote wiktionary:

In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”. This is particularly found with reference to the “theory of evolution”, which opponents disparage with “it’s just a theory [conjecture]”, while proponents retort that in this context, theory means instead “well-developed, well-established”.

 

[Chaos]

Store it in a secure facility in a place like a desert.

Please do me a favor... take a good look at a map, and tell me exactly which of Germany´s many deserts we should use for that purpose.

Seriously, the storage issue is so overblown it's funny. It's like saying we're running out of landfill space. The actual amount of space needed isn't huge, the long term risk is smaller than popularly perceived, and most of the waste has already been created.

The issue is most definitely NOT overblown. A small risk over a long period equals a big risk, and the potential consequences are disastrous. Add to this that the responsible people in the industry are lying through their teeth about the alleged safety of the storage site... the only ones who love nuclear power are those who don´t live in a place whose groundwater is at risk from a "perfectly safe" long term storage site which has already started filling with groundwater.

 

[Trakar]

Please do me a favor... take a good look at a map, and tell me exactly which of Germany´s many deserts we should use for that purpose.

So you believe that every nation that has a nuclear power facility should have its own long-term storage facility?

 

[Trakar]

Store it in a secure facility in a place like a desert.

Seriously, the storage issue is so overblown it's funny. It's like saying we're running out of landfill space. The actual amount of space needed isn't huge, the long term risk is smaller than popularly perceived, and most of the waste has already been created.

Fully agreed

with a better seperation of the different types of wastes, the amount that actually requires any significantly rigorous isolation for considerable periods of time is quite small.

 

[tyr_13]

Please do me a favor... take a good look at a map, and tell me exactly which of Germany´s many deserts we should use for that purpose.



The issue is most definitely NOT overblown. A small risk over a long period equals a big risk, and the potential consequences are disastrous. Add to this that the responsible people in the industry are lying through their teeth about the alleged safety of the storage site... the only ones who love nuclear power are those who don´t live in a place whose groundwater is at risk from a "perfectly safe" long term storage site which has already started filling with groundwater.

There are already threads on this, so I won't reply here after this one. However, why would it have to be in Germany? Even if the fears are as bad as doomsays say, it's still less dangerous than coal and actually doable on a reasonable timescale (perfect solution fallacy). But the risk if stored where there aren't a lot of people, lots of ground to filter out the particles before spreading out through ground water, and little rain so that the chances of it even getting that far are absurd, all add up to fairly freaking safe. Especially compared to where the waste already is in local temporary storage. Even all this assumes that we don't develop any better ways of dealing with the waste in the next couple of hundred years.

I think there is a thread in the science section if you really want to resurrect the storage issues and have people with a lot more time and knowledge than myself sort it out for you.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm actually very open to a nuclear solution except for one niggling issue. What sanctions exist for a nuclear power provider who willingly poisons or harms people? Look at Halliburton and the BP spill. They knowingly used bad cement and it killed 11 people and caused untold financial and environmental harm. If we saw actual prosecutions and jail time (we don't even have to kill them like they would in China), then I'd feel better about the issue of safety.

 

[lomiller]

Your assumption that the sun is a constant is not correct, sun activity greatly varies,

The Suns variation are measured in tenths of a percent. The amount of CO2 we have added to the atmosphere is equivalent to 10X that amount of forcing

 

[Xephyr]

Is uranium a finite resource ?