Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[Ziggurat]

I'm not aware of major increase in population in Canada.

Did you look? Because I see a 23% increase from 1990 to 2009. Seems pretty damn significant to me.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You can't actually support your position in argument so you're reduced to spamming the board with pictures?

You're a real piece of work, a liar and a hypocrite.

I post a two hour presentation by a NASA engineer with a self-contained 5 minute intro and you refuse to look at it.

I post "My First Picture Book of Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactors" and you refuse to look at that.

You refuse to look at anything that falls outside what you've already decided you want to believe and yet you... call me... a fanatic?

Go look in a mirror before you say that again.

And then you lie.

Not just once, but again and again and again.

No... The NNL document does not... in any way, shape or form... say anything... about LIQUID FLOURIDE THORIUM REACTORS.

Yet you insist on claiming otherwise.

I know you've lied. You know you've lied. Eddie Dane knows you've lied, as does anyone who does as I suggested and search the document for terms directly associated with LFTRs.

Not only did a search of the NNL report for "LFTR" turn up zero results but searches for the phrases:

"Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactors"
"Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors"
"Molten Salt"

...each turned up zero results. Searches for the following words alone by themselves:

"flouride"
"liquid"
"molten"
"salt"

...also came up empty.

Deal with it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You're a real piece of work, a liar and a hypocrite.

I would love to chime in here and support this viewpoint, however I have just received two yellow cards for stating similar obvious conclusions and sadly consider it unwise to do so.

Subsequently I will not provide a qft or any other validation (or otherwise) of this post.

 

[stilicho]

Did you look? Because I see a 23% increase from 1990 to 2009. Seems pretty damn significant to me.

It's tough to tell exactly what bit_pattern's point is. Both the USA and Canada have reduced energy consumption per capita since 1990 while China surges at an incredible rate. Russia has scuttled any possibility of renewing Kyoto:

“[…] the Kyoto Protocol in its current form – i.e. without the participation of key emitters – neither resolves the problems of global warming, nor ensures meeting the global two-degree target, nor provides for environmental integrity. For this reason, Russia is not committing to quantitative obligations in the second period of the Kyoto Protocol,” Bedritsky said in his speech.

http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2011/kyotono_russia

This is indicative of the facts that people like bikerdruid and bit_pattern need to confront. Nobody in their right mind is going to continue to promote a regime where developed nations literally hand over their fossil fuel development to China, Bolivia, and Namibia. China itself is obviously not serious about any of this anyhow as American-based multinationals are finding it hard to compete with the Chinese government energy monopoly over development of the Alberta oil sands.

Again, maybe thorium reactors are a solution or maybe not. I don't know and nobody here really does until the technology is developed and rolled out on a commercial level. We do know that nuclear technology is here and has been producing clean energy now for decades. That's the immediate future and it will be implemented whether bikerdruid or bit_pattern like it or not.

 

[WildCat]

nvm

 

[WildCat]

Energy use per capita in Canada has decreased by about 2% since 1990. Energy use per capita in China (bit_pattern's example) has increased by about 110% since 1990. Energy use per capita in Australia (your example) has increased by about 18% since 1990. In the US the decrease has been about 8%.

It looks like Canada and the US are forging the vanguard in energy consumption reduction while Australia and China watch from the sidelines.

(Source: Google Public Data Explorer).

Looks like Australia has some 'splainin to do!

 

[Roboramma]

Did you look? Because I see a 23% increase from 1990 to 2009. Seems pretty damn significant to me.

I didn't, thanks.

Was in a bit of a lazy mood last night.

ETA: So, in light of that it seems to me that the valid point is not "It's cold in canada, therefore energy use needs to increase beyond 1990 levels", but rather, "Canada's population is increasing, so in spite of per capita decreases in energy use, its much more difficult to see a drop, or even control the rise, in total energy use".
I can agree with the latter. The former (which seemed to be Wildcat's point) doesn't make much sense to me.
Do you agree?

I apologize for posting without checking my assumptions.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Again, maybe thorium reactors are a solution or maybe not.

Before we were subjected to this ignorant, stupid and asinine derail over a report that makes the brilliant suggestion that using diesel fuel in a regular gasoline engine is not a great idea without saying anything about using it in diesel engines (the NNL report doesn't address thorium reactors, but thorium fuel cycles in conventional reactors) I said that despite LFTRs potential, we would likely see a mix of Generation IV+ reactors deployed.

We will likely see a future running on LFTRs, IFRs, pebble beds, HTGRs, Supercritical Reactors, TWRs and whatever else we can come up with in the next few decades.

I don't know and nobody here really does until the technology is developed and rolled out on a commercial level.

BP, apparently allergic to truth, insists it is untested and unproven. But this is another blatant falsehood. As the information I've already provided shows, LFTRs have been built at least twice before and run for extended periods.

We do know that nuclear technology is here and has been producing clean energy now for decades. That's the immediate future and it will be implemented whether bikerdruid or bit_pattern like it or not.

I've always said that nuclear energy is a mathematical inevitability. The breaking of electron bonds in a hydrocarbon molecule (the current basis of most of our energy production) typically releases 3 or 4 electron volts of energy. The fissioning of an U-233/U-235/Pu-239 nucleus releases 200 million+ electron volts. With the exception of computer development over the last 40 years, there has never been a comparable leap in technology.

Nuclear energy is to fossil fuels what the modern Intel i7 Quad Core processor is to counting on your fingers.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would love to chime in here and support this viewpoint, however I have just received two yellow cards for stating similar obvious conclusions and sadly consider it unwise to do so.

Subsequently I will not provide a qft or any other validation (or otherwise) of this post.

I invite you to watch the Thorium video I posted earlier. After what we've been through in this thread, I can promise it will not be the worst way you have spent two hours this week.

 

[bit_pattern]

BP, apparently allergic to truth, insists it is untested and unproven. But this is another blatant falsehood. As the information I've already provided shows, LFTRs have been built at least twice before and run for extended periods.

You obviously don't understand the concept of commercial viability. You're a complete zealot and are incapable of a having a rational or reasonable discussion on the issue and, as such, I bid you adieu. If I wanted to have yelling matched with teenagers I' make my sons clean their room.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You obviously don't understand the concept of commercial viability.

Something that's always on is always making money.

You're a complete zealot

Hypocrite who refuses to look at new information says what?

and are incapable of a having a rational or reasonable discussion

Care to remind me again who started this with "@#$% Canada"?

And don't lie again... it's way past the window for you to go back and edit.

 

[bit_pattern]

Something that's always on is always making money.

Yup. And that is the ONLY reason why thorium doesn't yet exist on a commercial scale - it has nothing to do with your paranoid conspiracy theories about the eco-lobby.

There is no magic tap to just turn thorium on over night, China and India's programme won't go online until 2030 (and yes, this is your LFTR). 20 years. And they don't have a problem with the eco-lobby standing in the way of development in India and China.

The People’s Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology. It was formally announced at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference in January 2011. Its ultimate target is to investigate and develop a thorium based molten salt nuclear system in about 20 years.

Thorium is not, and will not be in the forseeable future, be a commercially viable alternative. Nor will it be online in time to reduce emissions in te time frame we have left to start reducing emissions and avoiding catastrophic warming. The only feasible means for achieving that is through an international agreement where countries like Canada and Australia work together to put a cap on their emissions and start making cuts through efficiency gamins and investment into reneweables.


Hence, the ridiculous claim that Canada can justify leaving the UNFCC on the basis that one day, in the not too distant but very murky future thorium technology might exist on a commercial scale is ridiculous.

End argument as far as I'm concerned. Two pages of this kind of 'debate' is more than enough.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yup. And that is the ONLY reason why thorium doesn't yet exist on a commercial scale

Actually, it has more to do with the weapons industry. The first LFTRs were made in the 60's (you lied about them being untested and unproven), back when the US was looking for bombs. And LFTRs are poor bomb factories.

- it has nothing to do with your paranoid conspiracy theories

You were the one proposing conspiracy theories.

Thorium is not, and will not be in the forseeable future, be a commercially viable alternative.

You have no way of knowing this. You've never read anything on LFTR or molten salt reactor technology. You're making this up purely out of thin air.

End argument as far as I'm concerned. Two pages of this kind of 'debate' is more than enough.

This is your idea of mature reasoned debate on energy policy and climate change:



Your unending hypocrisy on this issue is hysterical.

 

[applecorped]

End argument as far as I'm concerned.

As a casual observer of this discussion I have been more swayed by Sword of Truth.

 

[bit_pattern]

As a casual observer of this discussion I have been more swayed by Sword of Truth.

Oh, great, Mr Impartiality over here cheerleading from the sidelines. Care to explain why you find it more convincing?

Do you agree that we could abandon all emission reduction schemes and get a thorium industry online - globally - tomorrow if only the eco-fascists would let us?

Have you got anything to say about the fact that even in China they don't expect to have developed viable technology for another twenty years?

And what sort of time frame do you personally feel that emissions need to be reduced within to avoid a catastrophic warming of the planet?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I invite you to watch the Thorium video I posted earlier. After what we've been through in this thread, I can promise it will not be the worst way you have spent two hours this week.

Even if I'm bored senseless it will be time better served than engaging with any unnamed hypocrite and coward.

You're a complete zealot and are incapable of a having a rational or reasonable discussion on the issue and, as such, I bid you adieu.

Reflecting much.

Your unending hypocrisy on this issue is hysterical.

qft

As a casual observer of this discussion I have been more swayed by Sword of Truth.

In soo many ways.

 

[bit_pattern]

And what sort of time frame do you personally feel that emissions need to be reduced within to avoid a catastrophic warming of the planet?

I put this question to all the cheerleaders in the peanut-galleries:

A. How long do you think we have to act on emissions reduction?

B. If thorium is a magic bullet that can justify leaving Kyoto by bringing down our emissions within the above time frame, then why is even China estimating it will take them twenty years to develop viable LFR's?

Two questions. Not complicated.

 

[stilicho]

....

And what sort of time frame do you personally feel that emissions need to be reduced within to avoid a catastrophic warming of the planet?

Several decades. Fossil fuels will be all but a memory by the time your ZOMGWTF scenario emerges.

Incidentally, how do China's aggressive capital outlays for Alberta oil sands production mesh with your assertions about clean energy?

 

[Stout]

As a casual observer of this discussion I have been more swayed by Sword of Truth.

Yes, he's got some good stuff.

These conferences and protocols are really just a band aid on a brain tumor approach to a solution anyway. Nuclear power and tons of it, globally because those people living in countries with a low carbon footprint sure want to up their lifestyles to match those of Canadians and Australians.

That guy living in a hut under a banana tree in Nicaragua, he want's a 50 inch plasma and a four wheel drive just as much as any of us do, more so even., he's got some catching up to do.

So, the president of the Maldives is complaining about AGW wiping his country off the map and is considering moving everyone to Australia. How is he going to pay for this you ask? Why from tourism revenues of course, all those planes burning all that furl, producing all that CO2

Are you ready for the influx, Australia ?

Source

 

[stilicho]

I put this question to all the cheerleaders in the peanut-galleries:

A. How long do you think we have to act on emissions reduction?

B. If thorium is a magic bullet that can justify leaving Kyoto by bringing down our emissions within the above time frame, then why is even China estimating it will take them twenty years to develop viable LFR's?

Two questions. Not complicated.

Whoa there, cowboy. You have an almost endless list of questions you have to answer here first. This is not the AGW thread so stop trying to derail it. The agenda is not set by you or anyone else but by adhering to the topic we're discussing.

If you need them listed again in point form just ask but you have a scroll bar too.