• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Energy Discussion

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Well, that's been a key counter-argument to climate change...we lack reliable models. Flip it around. We would not go flying through the mountains, below the peaks, in the goo, strictly off GPS without maps or some kind of terrain-seeing radar.
Fact is any attempt to help us navigate the peaks and goo of climate change has failed us. Near as I can tell every prediction of even near future temps and resultant affects have been wrong. Paging Al Gore. I wouldn't follow a TRF or GPS with that reliability. In any case, we aren't blasting though this problem like an Intruder through fog draped valleys. When your catastrophe is coming at you over decades and factions of a degree, you DO have time to determine the real threat and prevent the extinction of the human race, which is the battle cry.
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
Fact is any attempt to help us navigate the peaks and goo of climate change has failed us. Near as I can tell every prediction of even near future temps and resultant affects have been wrong.
Really? I think they’ve been tracking pretty good. Citation needed.

But you could throw out all of the predictive models and only have the past geological record, which would tell us that every time the atmosphere has had this much CO2 in it as of right now (and we are of course still increasing it) the equilibrium temperature has been a bunch of degrees hotter than it is now.

Every.single.time.

What would make you think that this time is special, that the temps won’t head off in that direction, following the rising CO2 levels? At what probability (and therefore risk)?

This is ultimately not that complicated to understand.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
But you could throw out all of the predictive models and only have the past geological record, which would tell us that every time the atmosphere has had this much CO2 in it as of right now (and we are of course still increasing it) the equilibrium temperature has been a bunch of degrees hotter than it is now.
In this paragraph alone, you are admitting that planetary CO2 levels have gone up and down repeatedly in times long before the modern industrial age. Ergo, proven to be not a manmade phenomena.
 

Mos

Well-Known Member
None
If you believe global warming is mainly caused by humans, then you therefore by default must believe in advanced antediluvian civilizations… bc global warming has been ongoing for thousands of years.
I haven't read up on climate change much or the science (or lack thereof) behind it, but this sounds like a "so you're saying..." rebuttal whose obvious answer is "no, not saying that." I suspect most climate change advocates would be reasonable enough to agree that past periods of climate change were likely a result of non-human causes while also finding enough correlation between the increased human activity of the past three centuries and the trends in climate change to say that it's causal in nature. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Apocalypse Never covers this pretty well.
Haven't read it. A lot of criticism for it, unsurprisingly given the subject matter. I'm thinking check it out of the library for free rather than buy it, after reading this:
Shellenberger’s discussion of nuclear energy and risk also misrepresents what scientists say. He states “mixing up reactors and bombs was, as we say, the go-to strategy for Malthusian environmentalists” (AN, p. 242), but to support this claim he offers the work of Drs. Paul and Anne Ehrlich and John Holdren in their 1977 book Ecoscience. Shellenberger quotes their factual statement that “A large reactor’s inventory of long-lived radioactivity is more than one thousand times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.” (Ecoscience, p. 445) But he then falsely says they are implying reactors can explode like bombs: “The implication was wrong. Nuclear reactors cannot detonate like bombs.” (AN, p. 242) Shellenberger was eager to set up the strawman that “Malthusian environmentalists” don’t know the difference between nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but in the paragraph right before the statement he quoted, Ehrlich, Ehrlich, and Holdren (the latter trained in part as a nuclear physicist, by the way) literally write: “It is physically impossible for an LWR [light-water reactor] or any thermal-neutron reactor to blow up like a nuclear bomb.” (Ecoscience, p. 444)
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
In this paragraph alone, you are admitting that planetary CO2 levels have gone up and down repeatedly in times long before the modern industrial age. Ergo, proven to be not a manmade phenomena.
Non sequitur

That’s like arguing that extinctions happened before humans, so we didn’t cause the extinction of passenger pigeons or dodo birds, even though we killed them all.
 

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
He is quite weak on the dangers of nuclear. He doesn't gloss over the engineering prowess required to reliably run a reactor, but he waves his hand at the risks and the costs and the determination required to make a large portion of a nation's power via the atom.

I think he misses an opportunity to prove how many people's lives nuclear adversely impacted vs how many people coal fired pollution affects every year. I'll bet the former number is far lower than the latter.
 

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
I think future reactors need to be like non-chargeable batteries. When done, you take the whole thing and bury it. They're working on small ones like that?
 

Notanaviator

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Couple of interesting things I’ve seen pop up on the innovation front working on ways of dramatically reducing cost and increasing safety of de’comming and disposing of spent nuclear fuel. That coupled with smaller reactors/distributed plants should cause an uptick in development.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I think future reactors need to be like non-chargeable batteries. When done, you take the whole thing and bury it. They're working on small ones like that?
Depending on your reactor type, the spent fuel is actually more “weapons grade” than what you start with. So it’s not ideal for burying and leaving unattended. WGP comes from uranium reactors, which constitute maybe 60% of the world’s reactors.
 

Doback

Well-Known Member
He is quite weak on the dangers of nuclear. He doesn't gloss over the engineering prowess required to reliably run a reactor, but he waves his hand at the risks and the costs and the determination required to make a large portion of a nation's power via the atom.

I think he misses an opportunity to prove how many people's lives nuclear adversely impacted vs how many people coal fired pollution affects every year. I'll bet the former number is far lower than the latter.
33309

Even compared to the number of people killed installing windmills, nuclear energy is surprisingly safe on a per TWh basis. When taking into account air pollution it’s a strikingly drastic difference to coal and oil.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
View attachment 33309

Even compared to the number of people killed installing windmills, nuclear energy is surprisingly safe on a per TWh basis. When taking into account air pollution it’s a strikingly drastic difference to coal and oil.
Interesting…I’m spitballing here but I imagine that more guys died building just the Hoover Dam (96) than every windmill accident in the world combined. What is the metric for a “death” in each production sector?
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
You got me looking with that energy source v. death post…I found this article to be a clearer, slightly more humorous, analysis of the data.

 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
View attachment 33309

Even compared to the number of people killed installing windmills, nuclear energy is surprisingly safe on a per TWh basis. When taking into account air pollution it’s a strikingly drastic difference to coal and oil.
I like how they include deaths due to mining and milling accidents for Nuclear, why don't they include the industrial accidents for wind, solar, etc as well?

How about the deaths in operation of Coal, Oil, Wind, Solar, NG, Biomass and hydro? if you include it for one you should include it for all.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Even compared to the number of people killed installing windmills, nuclear energy is surprisingly safe on a per TWh basis. When taking into account air pollution it’s a strikingly drastic difference to coal and oil.

As much as I am a fan of nuclear energy it has proven itself to be a fickle bitch when not handled properly, you can't even blame the commies alone for proving that, and the consequences to those mistakes last a really long time. While we have had a decent safety record in this country with nuclear power, even with Three Mile Island, we still have a significant nuclear waste problem that isn't going away for a very long time.
 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
As much as I am a fan of nuclear energy it has proven itself to be a fickle bitch when not handled properly, you can't even blame the commies alone for proving that, and the consequences to those mistakes last a really long time. While we have had a decent safety record in this country with nuclear power, even with Three Mile Island, we still have a significant nuclear waste problem that isn't going away for a very long time.

Quite a bit of that waste is due to manufacture of nuclear weapons, that creates a lot of waste. The waste from power generation is minimal and it is really only waste because the US has to be more careful than anyone else, even though you can find items in general public that could give you more exposure.

TMI wouldn't raise any eyebrows if people knew how little the exposure was and how much exposure we get from x-rays.

It is really an awareness and understanding problem more than anything.
 
Top