Global Warming News

[dave1949]

Well, Michael Mann, of the famous and discredited "hockey stick" of the climategate email scandal fame says it was only a northern hemisphere phenomena.

But then, we have this:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hockey-stick/mwp-global-studies-map-i-1500.jpg

That's all well and good, to be honest I saw no reference to joannenova.com. However, you are still talking about other people's data. Why not make it possible to collect your own? I don't mean that in a smart a** way. If you want to be as sure as is possible about facts, there is no substitute for your own data and studies. You will either largely validate previous works or find a new perspective.

Surely there are enough people who feel as you do and would gladly help fund basic research.
Dave.

 

[Pilot]

I am not qualified to design such a study and collect the data and I don't see why the challenge is relevant. And as is shown in the link, the data has already been collected and reported on in hundreds of studies.

The problems are that some has been misused, some has been discarded--by both sides because it didn't support preconceived notions-- and critical information is still unknown. The unknowns are generally not the kinds of things a forest scientist is qualified to study, but is information that baffles or is beyond reach of those who are the experts. Example: The effects of water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas has mostly been guessed at so far.

What we have here is a question of scientific integrity where the data is out there but has been cherry picked and a need for certain critical information that is heretofore unobtainable and has been covered by unproven assumptions.

 

[dave1949]

I am not qualified to design such a study and collect the data and I don't see why the challenge is relevant. And as is shown in the link, the data has already been collected and reported on in hundreds of studies.

The problems are that some has been misused, some has been discarded--by both sides because it didn't support preconceived notions-- and critical information is still unknown. The unknowns are generally not the kinds of things a forest scientist is qualified to study, but is information that baffles or is beyond reach of those who are the experts. Example: The effects of water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas has mostly been guessed at so far.

What we have here is a question of scientific integrity where the data is out there but has been cherry picked and a need for certain critical information that is heretofore unobtainable and has been covered by unproven assumptions.

I don't mean you yourself have to be qualified to design and perform a study. Of course people would have to be hired for that. But if you funded it through a foundation created for the purpose, you are writing the paychecks and can set and monitor your own standards for integrity. And focus on research areas you think have been ignored or cherry picked. You don't think folks would contribute to such an effort? I am not posing it as a challenge, it's a possible solution to the issues you feel strongly about.

If 40 some percent of the Amer. population say they identify with the Tea Party people, which I think is about correct, then there is more than sufficient interest to get such an effort off the ground.
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

Ken - here is some information I found on fast breeder reactors


Website
(Fast breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is a short piece of that information:

FBR generating plants

History

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

"FBRs have been built and operated in the USA, the UK, France, the former USSR, India and Japan.[4] An experimental FBR in Germany was built but never operated."


"USA

On December 20, 1951, the fast reactor EBR-I (Experimental Breeder Reactor-1) at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho produced enough electricity to power four light bulbs, and the next day produced enough power to run the entire EBR-I building. This was a milestone in the development of nuclear power reactors.
The next generation experimental breeder was EBR-II (Experimental Breeder Reactor-2), which went into service at the INEEL in 1964 and operated until 1994. It was designed to be an "integral" nuclear plant, equipped to handle fuel recycling onsite. It typically operated at 20 megawatts out of its 62.5 megawatt maximum design power, and provided the bulk of heat and electricity to the surrounding facilities."

Lots of other information about use is on the site (Japan appears to be the leader) and clearly the US has been involved. There appear to be concerns about this technology. It would be great is it works out.

It doesn't appear to me that the US has shunned an obvious winner. Remember that our citizens have been able to stop wind systems because they feel they hurt the view. How close would they want to be to a fast breeder reactor?

Loren

I have enjoyed reading the recent posts on subsidies and home solar installations.

 

[Loren49]

Just found this when I "googled" cost of construction


Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid Climate Progress

"Much of the dramatic price increase relates to the cost of labour and materials, which have skyrocketed over the past few years. Nuclear suppliers and their investors also have less tolerance for risk.

The bid from France痴 Areva NP also blew past expectations, sources said. Areva痴 bid came in at $23.6 billion, with two 1,600-megawatt reactors costing $7.8 billion and the rest of the plant costing $15.8 billion. It works out to $7,375 per kilowatt, and was based on a similar cost estimate Areva had submitted for a plant proposed in Maryland?"


Looks like nothing is inexpensive.

The sad part is that often the actual construction costs far exceed the original bid.

Loren

 

[IH3444]

I've always wondered why France can make this technology work for them, and we don't. I've been lead to believe that they generate 70-80% of their electricity this way, and have nuclear plants in some of their major cities. I need to read futher about this. Reprocessing fuel reduces the amount of waste which needs to be stored, almost indefinetly. Shame Yucca mountain storage has been defunded.

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France has also developed a glassification process for making the final product of nuclear waste less likely to leach into the ground.

I read about 5 years ago of a scientist who has developed a method of using spent nuclear waste in batteries. Don't think that would be too safe though.

 

[charlz]

Reprocessing fuel reduces the amount of waste which needs to be stored, almost indefinetly. Shame Yucca mountain storage has been defunded.

Well, I don't know that burying the stuff and putting up some 'Call Before You Dig' signs before walking away is really the best plan.

 

[keegs]

biobutenol seems to be getting some attention: Biobutanol Firm Aims to Compete With Ethanol in 4 Years - NYTimes.com

 

[dave1949]

Well, I don't know that burying the stuff and putting up some 'Call Before You Dig' signs before walking away is really the best plan.

If the sign was made from engraved solid gold so it would be legible 5,000 years from now, I don't see the problem

What is the deal with Yucca Mtn? Just dead in the water?
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

biobutenol seems to be getting some attention: Biobutanol Firm Aims to Compete With Ethanol in 4 Years - NYTimes.com

That sounds interesting Keegs. Now what we need to know is, does it eat engines?

Where the ethanol makers really screwed up, they didn't co-produce their own brand of vodka as a refining by-product. Could have brand names like JDGreen, Diesel&Dirt, Round Down, Iowa Sunshine; there must be better ones.
Dave.

 

[charlz]

If the sign was made from engraved solid gold so it would be legible 5,000 years from now, I don't see the problem

What is the deal with Yucca Mtn? Just dead in the water?
Dave.

Actually the concern wasn't if the sign would be legible but if anyone would still speak the language. They were trying to figure out what symbols to use so that someone 10,000 years from now would know it as a dangerous place.

Currently 'unfunded' I believe, not totally dead.

 

[EddieWalker]

Jack Cafferty on CNN has been really surprising me lately. He went so far as to talk about the global cooling trend!!!

Jack Cafferty Tosses Idea That Earth Could Actually Be Cooling | NewsBusters.org

Shocking.

Eddie

 

[Ken45101]

Actually the concern wasn't if the sign would be legible but if anyone would still speak the language. They were trying to figure out what symbols to use so that someone 10,000 years from now would know it as a dangerous place.

<shaking head> Why can't we just let future generations replace the sign as language evolves? Why do we waste money worrying about the language 10,000 years from now? By then their science will probably be reprocessing the mountain! They will have better technology then, they won't be cavemen. Geesh,we have such idiots, sigh.

Ken

 

[aczlan]

Actually the concern wasn't if the sign would be legible but if anyone would still speak the language. They were trying to figure out what symbols to use so that someone 10,000 years from now would know it as a dangerous place.
Currently 'unfunded' I believe, not totally dead.

As I understand it, if we were to reprocess the fuel before "dumping it in a hole in the ground" we could get more usable fuel out of it (plutonium-239) and the "waste" would have a half life of 40 years. It would cost more to do, but I think that it would be easier to find someplace to store something for 40 years than 10,000 years.

See : Nuclear reprocessing for more info.

Aaron Z

 

[IH3444]

10,000 year sign.

 

[20 20]

The only problem with burying stuff is that it DOES come back to bite us in the butt, sometime. What seems to be safe today turns out to cause cancer/reproduction problems /disease's of tomorrow . We may be able to do things in a safe matter, BUT{BIG BUT} will money let that happen. Don't forget we live in a world where money talks, no matter how something looks on the blue prints, it is the pocket that'll be talking!!!!

 

[dmccarty]

I've always wondered why France can make this technology work for them, and we don't. I've been lead to believe that they generate 70-80% of their electricity this way, and have nuclear plants in some of their major cities. I need to read futher about this. Reprocessing fuel reduces the amount of waste which needs to be stored, almost indefinetly. Shame Yucca mountain storage has been defunded.

My understanding about the success of the French Nuke program was because they standardized on their plants. They have a limited number of plant sizes. I think it was three, small, medium and large, if you will. So they had commonality of parts, design and operation. What I have read is that a US plant operator is licensed, if that is the right word, to run a given reactor. They are very likely NOT licensed to run the reactor right next to "theirs" because it will be different.

US Nuke plants are custom built one offs. Which of course costs more money to design, get approved, build and run. And Nukes are so expensive due to the required safety systems required for the reactors that are being used.

The pebble bed reactors look like they would be MUCH safer, supposedly melt down is impossible, and much cheaper to build and run. I read a proposal to put one in Alaska somewhere. Their biggest operational expense was going to be security. In this case this is a smaller reactor to provide power for a small town in the middle of now where.

Pebble Bed Reactors aka PBRs, , no it is not a beer in this case, Pebble bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Later,
Dan

 

[Pilot]

Here goes my radical side on nuclear waste:

Consider all the technological advances that have occurred during your lifetime. Who among you had a personal computer at home or internet access even 30 years ago? Who among you predicted the PC? Cell phones? Air bags in cars to save your life? GPS? As I said in an earlier post, my wife's grandmother was born in horse & buggy days and lived to watch people walk on the moon. Although our time horizon seems to be day to day, the rate of change is actually amazing.

So, how long do we really need to store nuclear waste? Until it breaks down on it's own to become safe? Maybe not.

Why not have a little faith in the future? Put is somewhere where it will be safe for a few hundred years. In a hundred years from now, if they haven't found a way to make it safe virtually overnight by some sort of processing, by then they will know much better than we do about the geology and technology for storing waste in a safe manner for the long term. And if they haven't solved the problem by then, they will only need to render it safe for another few hundred years.

OK, I have my asbestos suit on, flame away!

 

[Ken45101]

Here goes my radical side on nuclear waste:

So, how long do we really need to store nuclear waste? Until it breaks down on it's own to become safe? Maybe not.

Why not have a little faith in the future? Put is somewhere where it will be safe for a few hundred years.

I partly agree with you. However, these are all political decisions and "long term" to a politician is the next election

There have been too many short term decisions made with zero regard for the medium or long term results.

50 or 100 years from now, they will still be moving it from one leaking site to another leaking site.

Our government's decisions about handling nuclear waste in the past has been abysmal (Handord, Fernald, etc.) I don't have any greater trust their current decisions.

You are right. We need intelligent decisions. Unfortunately, we cannot expect honest, intelligent decisions from our politicians or bureaucrats.

Ken
I want "none of the above" as an option on the ballot

 

[IH3444]

YouTube - Armageddon :No Nukes No Nukes