Climate Change

[kwilco]

How to spot a fool... someone who says "there have been fluctuations in climate before" - and thinks that climate scientists  haven't considered that.

[zzaa09]

The end is near.....

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/25/2023 at 5:55 PM, Misab said:

 

Not 97% of the worlds scientist but 97 % of climate change scientist. If you don't understand it, I can't help you.

That's irrelevant if only, lets say 100 scientists are "climate change scientists". It might be significant if 97% of scientists agree with them.

 

NB I have no idea how many scientists are in fact "climate change scientists".

I've met more than a few scientists in my life and am frankly underwhelmed by most.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:41 AM, rose33 said:

Slightly unequal outcomes, though, as women would get paid out at proven menopause, whereas men could only receive posthumously (and, by definition, would have no offspring to inherit). Perhaps could roll over the income tax credits and donate to a charity organisation of their choice.

Simple really. Give a financial incentive for men to have a vasectomy. Way cheaper to the state than sterilizing women.

If I'd been allowed to have a vasectomy I'd have had one in my 20s, but drs won't if a guy hasn't had kids, or at least back then they didn't.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/29/2023 at 4:58 PM, JackGats said:

+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.

 

Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).

IMO it's a diversion so that the polluters can get away with not having to do anything about their waste going into the oceans.

[xylophone]

On 4/6/2023 at 10:29 AM, placeholder said:

I'm not sure what it is about nuclear power that right wingers find so attractive?

Now I'm nowhere the level that some posters appear to be with regards to their knowledge of climate change and associated science, but something came up just a few days ago when I was discussing nuclear power with a friend of mine who used to work in a power station in the UK.

 

For him it was cleaner, greener, safer and where the world should be going with regards to power generation, but I had some questions: –

 

– The fuel for nuclear reactors is uranium and this has to be mined, so both fossil fuels and uranium have to be mined, using all of the resources necessary – not necessarily clean and green (manpower, trucks, fuel etc)!

 

– The mining for both the uranium and fossil fuel products can present health problems.

 

– The uranium has to be processed, and carefully so, whereas fossil fuels not so much.

 

– The burning of fossil fuels gives off carbon dioxide which is a key driver in climate change, whereas nuclear reactors don't. And this seems to be the difference as regards polluting the atmosphere.

 

– Once fossil fuels are burnt that's about it for their life, however uranium etc has a life of 10,000 years plus and of course is radioactive, thereby presenting health problems if it's not handled properly. So burying it deep in the ground in concrete/glass casing seems to be the latest answer.

 

My friend seemed to think that this was safe to do, whereas I brought into the conversation the fact that movements in the Earth's crust and earthquakes could cause some damage to encased uranium and if this were to get into the water table, then that would be a catastrophe.

 

My thoughts were around the fact that if there was a way by which one could capture and even harness the outputs of fossil fuel burning, then that would make the whole process much safer, less expensive and provide a future which didn't rely on anything nuclear/radioactive.

 

Some thoughts around that would be most welcome, and if I remember correctly a few decades ago "wave power" was touted to be the next big thing for power generation – – whatever happened to that?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Now I'm nowhere the level that some posters appear to be with regards to their knowledge of climate change and associated science, but something came up just a few days ago when I was discussing nuclear power with a friend of mine who used to work in a power station in the UK.

 

For him it was cleaner, greener, safer and where the world should be going with regards to power generation, but I had some questions: –

 

– The fuel for nuclear reactors is uranium and this has to be mined, so both fossil fuels and uranium have to be mined, using all of the resources necessary – not necessarily clean and green (manpower, trucks, fuel etc)!

 

– The mining for both the uranium and fossil fuel products can present health problems.

 

– The uranium has to be processed, and carefully so, whereas fossil fuels not so much.

 

– The burning of fossil fuels gives off carbon dioxide which is a key driver in climate change, whereas nuclear reactors don't. And this seems to be the difference as regards polluting the atmosphere.

 

– Once fossil fuels are burnt that's about it for their life, however uranium etc has a life of 10,000 years plus and of course is radioactive, thereby presenting health problems if it's not handled properly. So burying it deep in the ground in concrete/glass casing seems to be the latest answer.

 

My friend seemed to think that this was safe to do, whereas I brought into the conversation the fact that movements in the Earth's crust and earthquakes could cause some damage to encased uranium and if this were to get into the water table, then that would be a catastrophe.

 

My thoughts were around the fact that if there was a way by which one could capture and even harness the outputs of fossil fuel burning, then that would make the whole process much safer, less expensive and provide a future which didn't rely on anything nuclear/radioactive.

 

Some thoughts around that would be most welcome, and if I remember correctly a few decades ago "wave power" was touted to be the next big thing for power generation – – whatever happened to that?

So far, no defunct nuclear plant has been dismantled and disposed of. And what proponents of nuclear plants don't disclose is that no private insurance will fully insure a nuclear plant. So it's up to the govt to subsidize nuclear power through indemnifying it.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, xylophone said:

– Once fossil fuels are burnt that's about it for their life, however uranium etc has a life of 10,000 years plus and of course is radioactive, thereby presenting health problems if it's not handled properly. So burying it deep in the ground in concrete/glass casing seems to be the latest answer.

 

My friend seemed to think that this was safe to do, whereas I brought into the conversation the fact that movements in the Earth's crust and earthquakes could cause some damage to encased uranium and if this were to get into the water table, then that would be a catastrophe.

 

 

There are probably many worked out deep mines that could be used to bury uranium waste, if in a geologically stable area, but I guess the companies think it's cheaper to not do that.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, xylophone said:

My thoughts were around the fact that if there was a way by which one could capture and even harness the outputs of fossil fuel burning, then that would make the whole process much safer, less expensive and provide a future which didn't rely on anything nuclear/radioactive.

Scrubbers on fossil fuel power stations have been used for ages.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, xylophone said:

I was discussing nuclear power with a friend of mine who used to work in a power station in the UK.

 

For him it was cleaner, greener, safer and where the world should be going with regards to power generation,

The new generation small nuclear power plants are probably the way to go. Apparently they don't have the problems of the large stations and are safe to use.

[Misab]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Simple really. Give a financial incentive for men to have a vasectomy. Way cheaper to the state than sterilizing women.

If I'd been allowed to have a vasectomy I'd have had one in my 20s, but drs won't if a guy hasn't had kids, or at least back then they didn't.

The agenda here is Climate Change

[xylophone]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Scrubbers on fossil fuel power stations have been used for ages.

Well obviously they don't work well enough to be able to stop the environmental/atmosphere contamination, or to appease the "climate change" brigade?

 

There has to be another way.........

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Scrubbers on fossil fuel power stations have been used for ages.

Scrubbers don't capture potential fuel for reuse. And they are far from 100% effective.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Misab said:

The agenda here is Climate Change

and the reduction of human population would be the best way to stop man made pollution, so discussion of ways to reduce human breeding is relevant to any discussion on climate change.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, xylophone said:

Well obviously they don't work well enough to be able to stop the environmental/atmosphere contamination, or to appease the "climate change" brigade?

 

There has to be another way.........

Perhaps they work, but not enough power stations use them.

[Yellowtail]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

Now I'm nowhere the level that some posters appear to be with regards to their knowledge of climate change and associated science, but something came up just a few days ago when I was discussing nuclear power with a friend of mine who used to work in a power station in the UK.

 

For him it was cleaner, greener, safer and where the world should be going with regards to power generation, but I had some questions: –

 

– The fuel for nuclear reactors is uranium and this has to be mined, so both fossil fuels and uranium have to be mined, using all of the resources necessary – not necessarily clean and green (manpower, trucks, fuel etc)!

Virtually everything to produce wind and solar has to be mined. 

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

 

– The mining for both the uranium and fossil fuel products can present health problems.

The mining for material to produce wind and solar can present health problems.  

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

- The uranium has to be processed, and carefully so, whereas fossil fuels not so much.

Fossil fuel has to be processed carefully. 

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

 

– The burning of fossil fuels gives off carbon dioxide which is a key driver in climate change, whereas nuclear reactors don't. And this seems to be the difference as regards polluting the atmosphere.

If one cares about CO2 emission, nuclear is the only thing that will stop/significantly reduce it. 

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

– Once fossil fuels are burnt that's about it for their life, however uranium etc has a life of 10,000 years plus and of course is radioactive, thereby presenting health problems if it's not handled properly. So burying it deep in the ground in concrete/glass casing seems to be the latest answer.

Which works quite well. 

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

 

My friend seemed to think that this was safe to do, whereas I brought into the conversation the fact that movements in the Earth's crust and earthquakes could cause some damage to encased uranium and if this were to get into the water table, then that would be a catastrophe.

Store in stable areas away from ground water 

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

My thoughts were around the fact that if there was a way by which one could capture and even harness the outputs of fossil fuel burning, then that would make the whole process much safer, less expensive and provide a future which didn't rely on anything nuclear/radioactive.

One would think

On 4/12/2023 at 3:54 PM, xylophone said:

Some thoughts around that would be most welcome, and if I remember correctly a few decades ago "wave power" was touted to be the next big thing for power generation – – whatever happened to that?

Yes, but they spent all the money with little to show for it. 

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Virtually everything to produce wind and solar has to be mined. 

The mining for material to produce wind and solar can present health problems.  

Fossil fuel has to be processed carefully. 

If one cares about CO2 emission, nuclear is the only thing that will stop/significantly reduce it. 

Which works quite well. 

Store in stable areas away from ground water 

One would think

Yes, but they spent all the money with little to show for it. 

Obviously a nuclear power supporter, and your "answers" gloss over too much.......e.g. mining for uranium far more dangerous and as for spent nuclear fuel, then it doesn't become "safe" for thousands of years Burying it is still the option taken, so is unsafe in that environment due to circumstances beyond our control, water table or not.

[Yellowtail]

39 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Obviously a nuclear power supporter, and your "answers" gloss over too much.......e.g. mining for uranium far more dangerous and as for spent nuclear fuel, then it doesn't become "safe" for thousands of years Burying it is still the option taken, so is unsafe in that environment due to circumstances beyond our control, water table or not.

No, I am more a fan of fossil fuel, but if CO2 is going to cause the end of the world as we know it, nothing but nuclear can generate the electricity we need without CO2 emissions with any level of certainty for the foreseeable future. 

 

Because wind and solar are not reliable, every wind and solar generating facility has to be backed up 100% with a conventional (generally fossil fuel) generating facility. Wind is fading away and solar ONLY works during the day. 

 

How many people do you think have been killed by leaks from nuclear plants in the US? I'll give you a hint, it's something less than one. 

 

France gets about 80% off their electricity from nuclear.  Do you ever hear of deaths related to nuclear power in France? 

 

Yes, the left and the press (redundant) hate it, that's why we can't have it, even though it would (according to them) save the world. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I am more a fan of fossil fuel, but if CO2 is going to cause the end of the world as we know it, nothing but nuclear can generate the electricity we need without CO2 emissions with any level of certainty for the foreseeable future. 

 

Because wind and solar are not reliable, every wind and solar generating facility has to be backed up 100% with a conventional (generally fossil fuel) generating facility. Wind is fading away and solar ONLY works during the day. 

 

How many people do you think have been killed by leaks from nuclear plants in the US? I'll give you a hint, it's something less than one. 

 

France gets about 80% off their electricity from nuclear.  Do you ever hear of deaths related to nuclear power in France? 

 

Yes, the left and the press (redundant) hate it, that's why we can't have it, even though it would (according to them) save the world. 

 

 

I did hear of deaths from nuclear power plant accidents in Japan and Ukraine. Don't they count?

 

There's also no go areas in my home state because of uranium mining.

 

https://theconversation.com/the-story-of-rum-jungle-a-cold-war-era-uranium-mine-thats-spewed-acid-into-the-environment-for-decades-160871

 

Uranium is chemically toxic to the proximal tubules of the kidney, although the damage is reversible, at least in the early stages.8 Increased glucose levels in the urine and high blood pressure have been reported.9 One study concluded that “uranium exposure is weakly associated with altered proximal tubulus function without a clear threshold, which suggests that even low uranium concentrations in drinking water can cause nephrotoxic effects.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653646/

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I did hear of deaths from nuclear power plant accidents in Japan and Ukraine. Don't they count?

 

There's also no go areas in my home state because of uranium mining.

 

https://theconversation.com/the-story-of-rum-jungle-a-cold-war-era-uranium-mine-thats-spewed-acid-into-the-environment-for-decades-160871

 

Uranium is chemically toxic to the proximal tubules of the kidney, although the damage is reversible, at least in the early stages.8 Increased glucose levels in the urine and high blood pressure have been reported.9 One study concluded that “uranium exposure is weakly associated with altered proximal tubulus function without a clear threshold, which suggests that even low uranium concentrations in drinking water can cause nephrotoxic effects.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653646/

I think the deaths in Japan were a result of the earthquake and tsunami, not the radiation.

 

So why all that nuclear power and no deaths reported in France? 

 

Sixty-five years of nuclear power in the US and not a single death from a radiation leak. 

[JustAnotherHun]

LoL.

The death count due to the NPP-catastrophy in Fukushima was exactly ONE (in 2018 through cancer).

The other 22000 people  were victims of the tsunami.

But I guess, without the NPP the tsunami would not have happened....

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think the deaths in Japan were a result of the earthquake and tsunami, not the radiation.

 

So why all that nuclear power and no deaths reported in France? 

 

Sixty-five years of nuclear power in the US and not a single death from a radiation leak. 

At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 175 (0.7%) have received significant radiation doses. Workers involved in mitigating the effects of the accident do face minimally higher risks for some cancers.[28] According to Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the government awarded workers’ compensation to a man who developed leukemia while working on the Fukushima cleanup in 2015 and has acknowledged that three other Fukushima workers developed leukemia and thyroid cancer after working on the plant cleanup.[29] As of 2020, the total number of cancer and leukemia instances has risen to six cases according to the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).[5] In 2018 one worker died from lung cancer as a result from radiation exposure

 

wiki

 

One person has been killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule nuclear site in France.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14883521

Edited April 19, 2023 by ozimoron

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 175 (0.7%) have received significant radiation doses. Workers involved in mitigating the effects of the accident do face minimally higher risks for some cancers.[28] According to Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the government awarded workers’ compensation to a man who developed leukemia while working on the Fukushima cleanup in 2015 and has acknowledged that three other Fukushima workers developed leukemia and thyroid cancer after working on the plant cleanup.[29] As of 2020, the total number of cancer and leukemia instances has risen to six cases according to the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).[5] In 2018 one worker died from lung cancer as a result from radiation exposure

 

wiki

 

One person has been killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule nuclear site in France.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14883521

Okay, one in Japan and none from radiation in France in their 66 years of operation. 

 

From your link: 

"There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials."

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Okay, one in Japan and none from radiation in France in their 66 years of operation. 

 

From your link: 

"There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials."

Nevertheless, Chernobyl and Fushima will be forever, repeat, forever, no go zones. To say no5hing of the risk to Zaphorista by the Russian army. And nuclear waste must be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years. And nuclear power is by far the most expensive. Last time I checked, solar panels didn't explode very often.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, xylophone said:

Obviously a nuclear power supporter, and your "answers" gloss over too much.......e.g. mining for uranium far more dangerous and as for spent nuclear fuel, then it doesn't become "safe" for thousands of years Burying it is still the option taken, so is unsafe in that environment due to circumstances beyond our control, water table or not.

Volcanoes are dangerous but we still choose to live near them.

 

Just because there is a problem with disposal now does not mean solutions will not be found.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I am more a fan of fossil fuel, but if CO2 is going to cause the end of the world as we know it, nothing but nuclear can generate the electricity we need without CO2 emissions with any level of certainty for the foreseeable future. 

 

Because wind and solar are not reliable, every wind and solar generating facility has to be backed up 100% with a conventional (generally fossil fuel) generating facility. Wind is fading away and solar ONLY works during the day. 

 

How many people do you think have been killed by leaks from nuclear plants in the US? I'll give you a hint, it's something less than one. 

 

France gets about 80% off their electricity from nuclear.  Do you ever hear of deaths related to nuclear power in France? 

 

Yes, the left and the press (redundant) hate it, that's why we can't have it, even though it would (according to them) save the world. 

 

 

To read the anti nuclear posts one would think that the many years of safe operation of nuclear powered vessels by the US military never happened.

 

Fukushima disaster was caused by man made mistakes with the backup generator system, and IMO had it not failed there would not have been any catastrophe. Stopping use of nuclear power generation because of it is IMO knee jerk response not based on reality.

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Volcanoes are dangerous but we still choose to live near them.

 

Just because there is a problem with disposal now does not mean solutions will not be found.

But we don't actually build volcanoes, do we?

[Misab]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How many people do you think have been killed by leaks from nuclear plants in the US? I'll give you a hint, it's something less than one. 

 

France gets about 80% off their electricity from nuclear.  Do you ever hear of deaths related to nuclear power in France? 

 

 

 

I consider the nuclear plants built today as much more safe than the one built 30 - 40 years ago.  Japan is located in the ring of fire, and one one can discuss whether it is safe to build nuclear power plants in an earthquake zone. But the accident in Japan was used in Germany as a reason to shut down their nuclear power plants, even though Germany itself is not in a major risk earthquake zone, and at a time when Russia has cut off gas to, among others, Germany, one can ask the question: Was it a wise decision by Germany to close their nuclear power plants with zero Co2 emissions and go back to coal, at a time when Europe has already reached the limit of 1.5 degree increase in the average temperature, or was it simple stupidity?

[xylophone]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I am more a fan of fossil fuel, but if CO2 is going to cause the end of the world as we know it, nothing but nuclear can generate the electricity we need without CO2 emissions with any level of certainty for the foreseeable future. 

 

Because wind and solar are not reliable, every wind and solar generating facility has to be backed up 100% with a conventional (generally fossil fuel) generating facility. Wind is fading away and solar ONLY works during the day. 

 

How many people do you think have been killed by leaks from nuclear plants in the US? I'll give you a hint, it's something less than one. 

 

France gets about 80% off their electricity from nuclear.  Do you ever hear of deaths related to nuclear power in France? 

 

Yes, the left and the press (redundant) hate it, that's why we can't have it, even though it would (according to them) save the world. 

 

 

So, what we seem to have, according to you, is a safe method of generating electricity, which may well be the case, however that doesn't take into consideration the dangers to the miners and those who die from cancer is alarming, in fact..... "They reported that a miners' life expectancy was twenty years after entering the mine, and about 75 percent of the miners died of lung cancer".

 

Not a good look for the miners, and also of course there's the problem with the tailings which destroy surrounding wildlife and pollute rivers, along with killing people.

 

Then of course is the fact that the nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this, just kicks the can down the road, so Earth is being seeded with a contaminant so powerful that it could destroy mankind, and we doesn't know what to do with it (safely).

 

That to me is the reason we must seek out other ways to generate electricity.

 

Not much point in my continuing this, as you have your view and I have mine, and as the saying goes "ne'er the twain shall meet".

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

So, what we seem to have, according to you, is a safe method of generating electricity, which may well be the case, however that doesn't take into consideration the dangers to the miners and those who die from cancer is alarming, in fact..... "They reported that a miners' life expectancy was twenty years after entering the mine, and about 75 percent of the miners died of lung cancer".

 

Not a good look for the miners, and also of course there's the problem with the tailings which destroy surrounding wildlife and pollute rivers, along with killing people.

 

Then of course is the fact that the nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this, just kicks the can down the road, so Earth is being seeded with a contaminant so powerful that it could destroy mankind, and we doesn't know what to do with it (safely).

 

That to me is the reason we must seek out other ways to generate electricity.

 

Not much point in my continuing this, as you have your view and I have mine, and as the saying goes "ne'er the twain shall meet".

Hmmmm. If we continue polluting our environment ( not talking about climate change  ) it's likely to be irrelevant as the oceans will probably die.

 

and mankind hasn't found a safe way to deal with this

I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with it safely, but don't want to pay for it.