Politics and Global Warming

[bit_pattern]

[X] Accept, and nothing should be done.

It is ludicrous to economically hobble ourselves when tech advancement over this time period, 100-300 years, will effortlessly swamp the problem.

Imagine the murderous idiocy of people in the year 1800 hobbling themselves.. Would they have helped anything?

Would living today, thanks to their kind hearts and forward-thinking awesomeness, with, say, 1900 or 1950 (or 1850) technology today with a pristine environment be anything short of genocidal w.r.t. actual length and quality of life, and on a scale Hitler and Stalin together couldn't have hoped for?



Stop desiring rationales for massive government controls, you mass-murdering "useful idiots".

Hey! I think you might be on to something here. I am going to keep smoking because with medical advancements the way they are they'll surely have cured cancer by the time I get it. You're a genius! That's completely changed my view of smoking and the Stalinist Doctors who keep telling me to quit.

 

[a_unique_person]

Interesting. LeFevre has voted in the poll, but has not posted for two and a half years. Hello LeFevre.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

[X] Accept, and nothing should be done.

It is ludicrous to economically hobble ourselves when tech advancement over this time period, 100-300 years, will effortlessly swamp the problem.

Hey! I think you might be on to something here. I am going to keep smoking because with medical advancements the way they are they'll surely have cured cancer by the time I get it. You're a genius! That's completely changed my view of smoking and the Stalinist Doctors who keep telling me to quit.

There is no need to wait. The technology to produce every watt of energy we could ever want with zero carbon emissions was invented 70 years ago.

 

[DC]

There is no need to wait. The technology to produce every watt of energy we could ever want with zero carbon emissions was invented 70 years ago.

when you ignore the CO2 from building them and removing them, yes.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

when you ignore the CO2 from building them and removing them, yes.

Until all fossil fuels are replaced, everything will have a CO₂ build cost.

Solar power has more than 10 times the carbon emissions of nuclear. Wind has more than twice the carbon footprint of nuclear. If you want to engage in mindless nitpicking and hair-splitting to hide the weakness of your own position against the alternatives, then yes... no possible energy source can ever be truly carbon free (humans running the system have to breathe). But of all the options that exist, only one comes out at the bottom of the carbon scale.

 

[DC]

Until all fossil fuels are replaced, everything will have a CO₂ build cost.

Solar power has more than 10 times the carbon emissions of nuclear. Wind has more than twice the carbon footprint of nuclear. If you want to engage in mindless nitpicking and hair-splitting to hide the weakness of your own position against the alternatives, then yes... no possible energy source can ever be truly carbon free (humans running the system have to breathe). But of all the options that exist, only one comes out at the bottom of the carbon scale.

can i see your sources pls?

here is mine

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

Nuclear comes not even near Solar and wind.
as i said so often, you have lost all objectivity when it comes to nuclear.

Nuclear is the best because of the baseload, the huge amount of energy on small space and no need for storage of electricity. and not mainly from the CO2 emissions from the life cycle.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

can i see your sources pls?

here is mine

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

you have lost all objectivity when it comes to nuclear.

That's hysterical coming from someone who is relying on Ben Sovacool.

Benjamin K. Sovacool is an anti-nuclear lawyer at the Vermont Law School. He specializes in publishing analyses which are honest enough to pass peer review in journals focusing on "soft" fields such as public policy or area studies, and have conclusions that make good soundbites for the anti-nuclear movement. Upon closer examination they often turn out to contain serious methodological errors. He is also a Huffington Post blogger, though as of February 2012 he published only one post.​

Here's a small example, A4W reactor (USS Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier Powerplant) one of the smallest power reactors in service, ~180 MW output (24/7, regardless of weather), ~200 tons.

Enercon E-126, worlds largest wind turbine, less than 8 MW output (25% of the time) more than six thousand tons.

To match the A4W's output with E-126's, you would need a little less than six hundred thousand tons of raw materials compared to the A4W's 200ish tons.

This would be one of the "serious methodological errors" referred to above.

 

[DC]

That's hysterical coming from someone who is relying on Ben Sovacool.

Benjamin K. Sovacool is an anti-nuclear lawyer at the Vermont Law School. He specializes in publishing analyses which are honest enough to pass peer review in journals focusing on "soft" fields such as public policy or area studies, and have conclusions that make good soundbites for the anti-nuclear movement. Upon closer examination they often turn out to contain serious methodological errors. He is also a Huffington Post blogger, though as of February 2012 he published only one post.​

Here's a small example, A4W reactor (USS Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier Powerplant) one of the smallest power reactors in service, ~180 MW output (24/7, regardless of weather), ~200 tons.

Enercon E-126, worlds largest wind turbine, less than 8 MW output (25% of the time) more than six thousand tons.

To match the A4W's output with E-126's, you would need a little less than six hundred thousand tons of raw materials compared to the A4W's 200ish tons.

This would be one of the "serious methodological errors" referred to above.

so you got nothing to backup your claim? what was your source for your claims?

and i see you had nothing to bring up against the paper beside atacks on the author, very telling.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

so you got nothing to backup your claim?

What do you think the carbon footprint of constructing a 200 ton reactor is compared to 600,000 tons of wind turbines?

 

[DC]

What do you think the carbon footprint of constructing a 200 ton reactor is compared to 600,000 tons of wind turbines?

lets see research. im fed up with your made up fantasy numbers.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

lets see research. im fed up with your made up fantasy numbers.

Your failure refusal to respond to the question is very telling.

 

[DC]

Your failure refusal to respond to the question is very telling.

yeah im more interested in research into it rather than slogans and made up numbers, i already asked you what your source is for your first claims, but your refusal to deliver anything is very telling.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

yeah im more interested in research

Yet you never do any. You look for whatever supports your anti-nuclear bias and come to a complete stop.

 

[DC]

Yet you never do any. You look for whatever supports your anti-nuclear bias and come to a complete stop.

you are a liar, im not anti nuclear, when will you finally learn it? but you make up claims that are not rootet in reality.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

you are a liar, im not anti nuclear, when will you finally learn it?

When you stop recycling Ben Sovacools garbage (like "nuclear kills more birds than wind").

I'm surprised you haven't gone with Suzuki or Caldicott yet.

How about you answer the question... a 200 ton reactor vs. 600,000 tons of wind turbines, which is the bigger carbon footprint?

 

[DC]

When you stop recycling Ben Sovacools garbage (like "nuclear kills more birds than wind").

I'm surprised you haven't gone with Suzuki or Caldicott yet.

How about you answer the question... a 200 ton reactor vs. 600,000 tons of wind turbines, which is the bigger carbon footprint?

you have research disputing the bird research? lets see it, you didnt show anything the last time, but maybe meanwhile there is newer research? lets see wath you got?

and still with the birds killed, i would support building a new reactor in my country that will replace the oldest ones we have.

what do you want me to do? must i repeat your false claims in order to be pro nuclear?

what does it even have to do with the research? you still got nothing to present? how about showing evidence for your first claim in this thread?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

At the risk of steering this thread back on topic; My position isn't represented in the poll.

I'm a conservative who has graduated from not believing in AGW to not caring about AGW. AGW is but one symptom of our pushing fossil fuels to the absolute limits of what they can do. There are several problems with excessive fossil fuel use and only one real solution to all of them.

 

[uke2se]

At the risk of steering this thread back on topic; My position isn't represented in the poll.

I'm a conservative who has graduated from not believing in AGW to not caring about AGW. AGW is but one symptom of our pushing fossil fuels to the absolute limits of what they can do. There are several problems with excessive fossil fuel use and only one real solution to all of them.

You don't care that we're changing the environment? Do you care about the projected effects of that change? Does it not affect anyone you care about?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You don't care that we're changing the environment? Do you care about the projected effects of that change? Does it not affect anyone you care about?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than about the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year due to fossil fuel polution?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than the wars over oil like the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than about hostile anti-democratic regimes like Iran, Venzuela and Russia using their oil wealth to fund terrorism, WMD programs and turning our own money against us?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than about non-climate related ecological disasters like the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf oil spill?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than the untold economic damage that would result from running away from the obvious solution while not solving the problem?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than the misery and privation in the third world and where the energy is going to come from to lift them out of it?

As I said, AGW is just one symptom. There is a solution to all of these problems and I am a staunch advocate of it. Why should my feelings about one symptom compared to all the rest be an issue?

 

[stokes234]

When you stop recycling Ben Sovacools garbage (like "nuclear kills more birds than wind").

I'm surprised you haven't gone with Suzuki or Caldicott yet.

How about you answer the question... a 200 ton reactor vs. 600,000 tons of wind turbines, which is the bigger carbon footprint?

Wind turbines versus birds might not be so big an issue, according to this guardian article.

Obviously in your example, if the nuclear reactor does actually perform as advertised, it has a much lower carbon footprint. But what is the footprint of the 600,000 tons of wind turbine compared to the footprint they avoid us leaving from using coal power? The numbers need a bit more context. And there are valid arguments against nuclear power that need to be considered. In a hundred years time you can just dismantle a wind turbine and it'l look like it was never there, but nuclear power and its waste could leave a mark for centuries or even millenia if we can't figure out how to burn it up.

I'm in favour of using a mix of both, as well as solar and hydro depending on the environment.