Climate Change

[English]

He's right nuclear power does produce large amounts of CO2. Not directly obviously, however huge amounts of energy are required to mine the uranium and purify it. Then decomissioning nuclear power stations is a vastly expensive, time consuming business. Spent fuel for example is usually melted down and solidified in glass. This itself uses up extraordinary amounts of energy. Fission reactors are pretty much obsolete..

I ask again, can you provide a citation for this claim.  Mining and transporting coal takes energy as well, and given the high energy density of uranium, it takes a lot less effort to mine uranium than the equivalent amount of coal on a per unit of energy basis. Right now the only technology that could hope to replace coal-fired electric generators in the quantities needed to merely maintain current levels of power generation is nuclear fission.  Wind power, dams and tidal barrages are all low density power sources that require vast areas of terrain to be developed.  They can contribute to energy production, but they aren't a viable solution.

AG Ernest, nuclear fuel isn't the answer to the problem, since it requires huge amounts of time, money and energy to deal with the lethal by-products when the power station is decommissioned. Dams and tidal barrages are NOT low density power sources! The 3-gorges dam in China apparently will produce the same amount of electricity as 200 coal-fired power stations at full capacity!

[bejkuy]

I'm inclined to agree with Ford.

Regarding dams, I think they're a great, relatively cheap,  low-pollution power source.

Unfortunately, here in the northwest where we get the majority of our power from dams, the environmentalist want to see many of them dismantled to save the salmon.

The environmentalists ardently oppose any construction of nuclear or coal powerplants.  They scream conservation.

Conservation is an important element, but it is impractical to think that a growing country with a growing economy will have a decreasing need for energy.

More of us would jump on the conservation bandwagon if they offered real solutions and weren't so blindy opposed to all "progress"

[minionofmidas]

Do you know how the weather was 20,000 years ago? No. So how do you know this is not a normal cycle?

There's several things wrong with this post, States. (and, btw, I could have picked on just about any other instead, and not just on this board but throughout the literature - it's just typical of the level of debate)
What does it matter if this is a normal cycle? It still means Life on Earth as we know it won't go on as it used to...it was hotter than now in the age of Dinosaurs, we know that. But there were no men there, either.
What is the meaning of "normal" here? Where's the point in the distinction of "man-made" and "natural"? Are humans unnatural or what? Many millions of years ago, well before the dinosaurs, some species started pumping oxygen into the athmosphere. 90-odd% of the other species around died from that poison. Those who survived, almost all of them, became dependent on it. Those who started it are extinct, too, now. Was that natural? Yeah, sure.
I hope I'm getting the point across...

[??????????]

Do you know how the weather was 20,000 years ago? No. So how do you know this is not a normal cycle?

There's several things wrong with this post, States. (and, btw, I could have picked on just about any other instead, and not just on this board but throughout the literature - it's just typical of the level of debate)
What does it matter if this is a normal cycle? It still means Life on Earth as we know it won't go on as it used to...it was hotter than now in the age of Dinosaurs, we know that. But there were no men there, either.
What is the meaning of "normal" here? Where's the point in the distinction of "man-made" and "natural"? Are humans unnatural or what? Many millions of years ago, well before the dinosaurs, some species started pumping oxygen into the athmosphere. 90-odd% of the other species around died from that poison. Those who survived, almost all of them, became dependent on it. Those who started it are extinct, too, now. Was that natural? Yeah, sure.
I hope I'm getting the point across...

The whole situation is out of our hands. If its a normal cycle as I expect and it eliminates us...oh well..nothing we can do about it anyhow. Lets live for today and be done with it.

[Lunar]

There is so much evidence from both sides on why Global Warming does and does not exist that I don't know what to think about the issue.  I researched it last year and it's a mess.  I could spew facts supporting either side, but it'd be pointless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

AG Ernest, nuclear fuel isn't the answer to the problem, since it requires huge amounts of time, money and energy to deal with the lethal by-products when the power station is decommissioned. Dams and tidal barrages are NOT low density power sources! The 3-gorges dam in China apparently will produce the same amount of electricity as 200 coal-fired power stations at full capacity!

I see you either chose to decline or were unable to provide any evidence for the claimed CO2 impact of nuclear plants.  The 18.2 GW that Three Gorges is supposed produce at peak production is only 14 times (not 200 as you suggest, if you're going to compare the largest dam to coal, compare it the largest coal-fired plants as well) the output of the largest coal fired generating plants in the US (there are several rated at 1.3GW), but it's attached to a 600 km long lake, so Three Gorges has an energy density of around 30MW per km of lake which is certainly a lower energy denisty than the equivalent coal fired plants and their supporting mines.  (The energy ratio looks even worse for Three Gorges when you factor in the area of the surrounding watershed as well, but that doesn't affect the plant size directly, only where they can be built.  And how many Three Gorges can be built?  Over 1 million people have been forced to relocate in order to build Three Gorges and there aren't that many suitable sites for dams or tidal barrages, and their construction devestates the local ecology.  Hydropower is not the solution to our energy needs.  Hydropower is a nice benefit of flood control projects and we would be foolish to not take advantage of it, but it doesn't solve our energy needs and never will.

As for costs, even the cheapest estimate I have seen for the cost of building Three Gorges is well over $1 billion per GW of capacity.  Plus I easily found several reputable sites via Google that show that nuclear power, even considering its waste-management costs, is competive with coal on a cost per KWh produced.  (BTW, the only info I found concering Uranium and CO2 emissions is that we are can't build enough nuclear power plants so as to be able to reduce CO2 emissions by only doing that.  That's because oil not coal is the primary source of CO2 and while nuclear can replace coal-fired electric plants, it can't replace internal combustion engines.  Nuclear has a part to play in lowering CO2 emmiisions, and only anti-nuclear Luddites seem to think that because it can't solve the problem by itself, we should get rid of nuclear entirely.  Remember Chernobyl, they scream.  Chernobyl was an unsafe plant without a proper containment facility that was operated in a reckless manner.  Had Chernobyl had a reinforced containment dome, it would have been only slightly worse than Three Mile Island.  Worse, in the sense that TMI was repairable had it been politicaly possible to do so, while Chernobyl was a total loss as far as the plant itself was concerned.  With proper containment, something that is and should be a requirement for every new nuclear power plant, the number of deaths attributable to Chernobyl would be the same as for TMI, ZERO.

So what have I shown?  Nuclear can be operated for roughly the same cost as coal.  Only excessive and ill-founded fears are keeping nuclear from being used to its full potential.

[The Duke]

English,

To build 3 Gorges, the geography of the earth in that area had to be permanently atlered and a million people displaced.  if this is supposed to prove that hydroelectric dams are more convenient or more environmentally friendly that nuclear, you'd best find a new example.

[2952-0-0]

I can read this stuff about the Three Gorges? Can you imagine what happens if the dam breaks? China's biggest cities are downstream. Not pretty, you know.

[muon2]

He's right nuclear power does produce large amounts of CO2. Not directly obviously, however huge amounts of energy are required to mine the uranium and purify it. Then decomissioning nuclear power stations is a vastly expensive, time consuming business. Spent fuel for example is usually melted down and solidified in glass. This itself uses up extraordinary amounts of energy. Fission reactors are pretty much obsolete.

Until we can develop fusion reactors (perhaps 20 years time?), wind power, dams and tidal barrages are the way to go.

Unfortunately, the science behind fusion reactors is such that they are still more than 20 years away. BTW, when I was a child 40 years ago, fusion was 20 years away. Now I understand the science, and have a pretty good idea of why it's so hard to regulate the rate of a fusion reaction.

Here in IL, dams and tides aren't going to do much for electricity. We do have the heaviest reliance on nuclear energy, and over half the electricity comes from nuclear plants.

Wind is a good option here, and a large wind farm just started out in the rural area. Wind farms are land-intensive and it was a strongly debated option. When all the land is excellent for farming, any construction that uses a lot of it gets a lot of public debate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Three Gorges Project is one of the greatest acts of evil for a while.
And one of the most pointless (other than to show that the Chinese Communist Party has a good deal more testosterone than is good for them...)
John: the number of people displaced is probably closer to 3 million (naturally, this being China, there are no accurate stats) but what's worse than that is the destruction of a unique landscape and of countless archeaological sites... and ecological destruction on a monsterous scale...
Oh, and if (some say "when"...) the dam bursts (and it happens to be a shining example of incompetent engineering) millions will die in a few minutes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As for the actual question...

Climatic Changes happen. It's a fact. There is no use argueing about it.
How much we are all to blame for it is debatable... my guestimate is that it's mostly natural with a little bit of man-made influence on top... "little" being a relative term (maybe 1 degree?) and most of the damage was done years ago.
Not to say we shouldn't crack down on polluters though, and it's worth saying that the biggest culprit in the West nowadays is petrochemicals.
It's easy to blame Coal (and I'm of the opinion that vast open mines should be banned, for other enviromental reasons though.
Coal companies should be encouraged (no... forced) to use Deep and Drift mines wherever possible) but stuff *does* get done about that.
But a big crackdown on the petrochemical industry is needed...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh and we're still in an inter-glacial period (and an unusually cold one at that).
Within a geological timescale all the current climate changes are little details, as in a few thousand years the Ice will return.
And that's also a fact.

[??????????]

Oh and we're still in an inter-glacial period (and an unusually cold one at that).
Within a geological timescale all the current climate changes are little details, as in a few thousand years the Ice will return.
And that's also a fact.

We are still in the Ice Age actually. The very end of it but still in it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh and we're still in an inter-glacial period (and an unusually cold one at that).
Within a geological timescale all the current climate changes are little details, as in a few thousand years the Ice will return.
And that's also a fact.

We are still in the Ice Age actually. The very end of it but still in it.

Sort of... the Ice Ages (there have been more than one) are still the defining climatic feature of the Earth.
We're currently in an inter-glacial period (ie: in between two fullblown ice ages) and have been for thousands of years (less than a second of geological time).
The high point of the current inter-glacial phase was the Early Mediaeval period (much of Greenland *was* green, there were large vineyards in England etc) and from then things have been edging (slowly) towards another icy invasion.
The current climatic changes (as serious as they are) are a little blip, and even if the changes are as bad as some people suggest, the climate won't be as hot as in an average inter-glacial.
Geologists expect the ice to return in about 5000 years... Whether the next glacial phase will be bigger than the previous or smaller is uncertain, though I'm of the opinion that the Ice Sheets will advance quicker than before, due to the lakes created by the last invasion (none of which existed back then).

[??????????]

Oh and we're still in an inter-glacial period (and an unusually cold one at that).
Within a geological timescale all the current climate changes are little details, as in a few thousand years the Ice will return.
And that's also a fact.

We are still in the Ice Age actually. The very end of it but still in it.

Sort of... the Ice Ages (there have been more than one) are still the defining climatic feature of the Earth.
We're currently in an inter-glacial period (ie: in between two fullblown ice ages) and have been for thousands of years (less than a second of geological time).
The high point of the current inter-glacial phase was the Early Mediaeval period (much of Greenland *was* green, there were large vineyards in England etc) and from then things have been edging (slowly) towards another icy invasion.
The current climatic changes (as serious as they are) are a little blip, and even if the changes are as bad as some people suggest, the climate won't be as hot as in an average inter-glacial.
Geologists expect the ice to return in about 5000 years... Whether the next glacial phase will be bigger than the previous or smaller is uncertain, though I'm of the opinion that the Ice Sheets will advance quicker than before, due to the lakes created by the last invasion (none of which existed back then).

Did you ever read about the "Summer that never came" in the 19th Century? It never warmed up for an entire summer.

[The Duke]

John: the number of people displaced is probably closer to 3 million (naturally, this being China, there are no accurate stats) but what's worse than that is the destruction of a unique landscape and of countless archeaological sites... and ecological destruction on a monsterous scale...

I intentionaly low balled my number so no one could say, "You overstated the damage, thats not fair."

I agree on the environmental impact, its atrocious.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you ever read about the "Summer that never came" in the 19th Century? It never warmed up for an entire summer.

There was a (very, very) big volcanic eruption in 1815 (Tambora) which caused the famous "Year with no Summer" (1816 IIRC).

[English]

Oh and we're still in an inter-glacial period (and an unusually cold one at that).
Within a geological timescale all the current climate changes are little details, as in a few thousand years the Ice will return.
And that's also a fact.

True. It's thought that most ice ages are caused by temporary decreases in the sun's radiation, co-inciding with a increase in sun spots. It happens every few thousand years. Massive volcanic eruptions also cause mini ice ages. This is thought to have been the reason for the 1300-1800 'cold episode'.

[??????????]

Did you ever read about the "Summer that never came" in the 19th Century? It never warmed up for an entire summer.

There was a (very, very) big volcanic eruption in 1815 (Tambora) which caused the famous "Year with no Summer" (1816 IIRC).

You are right Al. I forgot about that!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you ever read about the "Summer that never came" in the 19th Century? It never warmed up for an entire summer.

There was a (very, very) big volcanic eruption in 1815 (Tambora) which caused the famous "Year with no Summer" (1816 IIRC).

You are right Al. I forgot about that!

Glad to be helpfull

[??????????]

I wonder if all these back to back hurricanes have anything to do with climate change. My suspiscion however is that conditions have been just[/b] right. Little sheering, very very warm water.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, if you believe Pat Robertson, who has said that God wants Bush to win this election, perhaps he's sending all those hurricanes to wash away the Democrats of southern Florida so that Republicans of northern Flordia can elect Bush.  Unfortunately, it looks like he hasn't gotten Bush enough of a margin yet, so it looks like you'll get to enjoy Ivan as well unless he changes course.

[??????????]

I predict that Ivan has a 75% chance of hitting Florida. I predict landfall will occur between Tampa and Sarasota. You read it here first.

[??????????]

I predict that Ivan has a 75% chance of hitting Florida. I predict landfall will occur between Tampa and Sarasota. You read it here first.

Thank God! Florida is safe!! You also said Hillary would be the VP nominee!!!

The latest track has almost 5-6 prediction lines landing between Tampa Bay and Sarasota.  The conditions are almost exactly the same as they were when Charley hit.

[??????????]

I predict that Ivan has a 75% chance of hitting Florida. I predict landfall will occur between Tampa and Sarasota. You read it here first.

Thank God! Florida is safe!! You also said Hillary would be the VP nominee!!!

The latest track has almost 5-6 prediction lines landing between Tampa Bay and Sarasota.  The conditions are almost exactly the same as they were when Charley hit.

Except that it is much farther south and will pummel Jamaica and Cuba first.

Like Charley did.