Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

I was ignoring this thread until I found out that it went nuclear. I have no respect for anyone who decries CO2 emissions and then refuses to consider nuclear power. It is the only currently available, reliable answer to the eventual energy shortage. Central and Northern Europe understands this, they use nuclear power a lot. The US needs to understand it. Even so, since we consider nuclear power safe enough for the men and women of our Navy, I suspect that no one in Washington really has concerns about nuclear power. I suspect that it has such ridiculous restrictions is because of big coal/natural gas lobbying. (That or wind/solar companies.)

 

The feel good measures in conservation and supporting efficient tech are the side benefits of using less energy and supporting an economy of scale for those technologies.

If we shift the focus upon building better engines, then we can use that energy to devote research into zero-net carbon biofuels, which currently doesn't have its bang for the buck compared to petroleum.

Why not? The US alone has an estimated wind power output to generate 3 times our current energy needs, and we have a lot of space to work with. Right now, it's as cheap as coal power and the technology will improve. There are 3 faults to wind. The aesthetics aren't popular (ugly and noisy). An efficient storage medium isn't cheap because the tech and materials needed are new. Finally, wind power generation doesn't mesh too well with our regional distribution systems which are focused on on-demand fuels. So the very reason people like it (not a fossil fuel) is the exact same reason people don't want it.

It can be one aspect of a multi-pronged solution, and we have the technology. At the very least, by reducing one major source of greenhouse gases (power plants), we'd be one step closer towards reaching Kyoto protocol targets (a feel good measure...). Even if Kyoto is a joke, it's certainly much better than what's going on right now.

 

If they can truly make them safe, build plants on time and within a budget, and figure out what to do with the waste, I have no problem with nuclear power plants. My experience as an Austin resident for 27 years (god, has it been that long??) makes me very skeptical. The South Texas Nuclear Project has been a financial disaster for Austin electric utility customers.



D&D. Glow in the Dark. The Latest Thing!!

 

OK so first you say global warming is an inexact science, then you say it isn't happening and now you spell out what we have to do to turn it back.

You're all over the place here.

 

Thank you. There is no single solution but a multi-pronged strategy. My own belief is we will eventually switch to a hydrogen based economy. Hydrogen won't be a power source itself but will be the storage medium for energy generated from renewables like solar, wind, geothermal and wave current power. Transitional technologies in the meantime should be bio-fuels along with a hefty dose of conservation.

I'm willing to consider nuclear too as part of the solution especially if those pebble bed reactors work as good as promised.

 

I'm waiting for the perpetual motion machine!



D&D. We're in Power... or Not!

 

^ I'm building one in basement.

 

Damn, it was cold last night!!! Record low in Houston!

 

Exactly, and the South Texas situation mirrors other situations. The promise of nuclear power is frequently overshadowed by the cost and you end up with nuclear plants that end up being more expensive and not much cleaner than taking a fossil fuel plant and applying costly emissions clean up masures.

 

The additional cost of nuclear has nothing to do with safety measures but rather red tape. When the government is the only one who can transport any nuclear material, and they charge outrageous prices to do it, it's not for our protection. It's for the protection of gas and coal.

 

Since there was already a big movement to nuclear power here it seems a little silly to claim the gas and coal lobby is blocking it. More likely it is the after effect of Three Mile Island and the efforts of the environmental/anti-nuclear lobby of the 70s. Personally I don't want corporations moving nuclear waste around. The phrase 'Mobile Chernobyl' comes to mind.

 

Great - let's go to hydrogen technology and bio-fuels - which by the way take more energy to produce then they yield. Yes, they will actually INCREASE the amount of CO2 produced since they require so much electrical energy to produce. Energy that comes from where?


And you want to talk about expensive energy...hydrogen might be the most expensive and explosive.

Nuclear reactors of today are far safer - we aren't living in the 60's.

 

i shouldn't respond, because you're kind of a tard, who besullies the name of the great magazine.

What you are repeating is oft-stated, but little supported. I used to think the same thing, but the Rocky Mountain Institute (and Amory Lovins) has put out a lot of research indicating that most of what you say "Hydrogen and biofuels increase Co2" is complete bullsh-t.

Do some reading.

 

Big on words, low on facts. Fact-free eh? How about some commen sense. The energy it takes to create H2 from Water - and the by product of H2 combustion is - water!

Guess what. All you are are doing in spending the same amount of energy to create something that can yield the same amount of energy. To create H2, you need to go through electrolysis - powered by guess what - electricity - powered by what? EIther nuclear power or fossil fuels.

Maybe you should learn a thing or two before waving the greenpeace flag in ignorance.

 

Global Warming sceience is circumstancial at best. But giving into your doomsday scenario, I offer you a solution that won't destroy human's standard of living. You reject that.

Look, you want to win an argument - that's great. But I'm not interested in that. You want to offer up a real solution - great then. Do it. I'd love to hear it. But thus far you have been talking about great ideals with little pragmatism. Anyone can preach utopia, it's much harder to deal with reality.

 

Except that you're claiming to know exactly what needs to be done when you have both rejected the idea that is happening and reiterate it is inexact and now circumstantial. Why is your solution valid at all when you don't even acknowledge the problem and say it is inexact.

You're not interested in winning argument?

To me this seems you're all about trying to win an argument by setting up dishonest straw men regarding that somehow non-nuclear solutions will destroy the economy when you don't even acknowledge a problem. Why should any of your comments be taken with any credibility when you continue to change your positions.

You've wondered why you rub people the wrong way well have you considered its because you have a record of doing things like this and come off as someone playing a game and willing to shift positions, even lie about your background, just to one up people.

 

Why do you continue on insisting to personalize this debate. You're like a politician. You can't come up with any solutions that are credible so you resort to attacking the messenger. I thought you were better than that.

Look, there's nothing inconsistent in what i'm saying:

Global Warming being attributed to industry is not proven - it's a theory based on circumstancial evidence. My point is that it may or may not be happening.

Now, that doesn't mean we should do nothing about it. BUt I think it's ridiculous to send the world into global recession on a THEORY. You have to understand that while your livelihood may not suffer, there are billions whose livlihood would. It's shocking and cruel to put ones fears about the future ahead of other people's current lives.

I say, use nuclear power. That way you don't wreak the economy of the world, and you still get benefits. But you seem to think that's double talk. I think you're having a hard time digging yoruself out, so you're coming after me in a personal way. Well that's your choice.

But you still haven't offered up anything.

 

I don't think anybody is ruling out nuclear power as ONE of the solutions to the problem of global warming (which does exist).

You have not responded to the point about using a muli-pronged approach.

 

Reread the thread.

And yes I'm personalizing this because it seems like you are being deliberately dense while also shifting positions to win an argument and that you have a history of doing so before and have admitted to doing so.

I told you awhile back that such strategy wouldn't earn you any credibility. As much as I try to remain respectful I will admit I find such strategy annoying.

Perhaps I should take your signature's advice.

 

Show me the numbers....

How much CO2 emission need to be reduced. What is the cost in energy that will be gone from that. And how will that energy shortfall be made up.

Do that, and I'll be convinced. Sashir Chang only wants to make things personal. So maybe you can stick to the debate and come up with a concrete solution using a "multi-tier" approach. But so far, all I hear are speculative ideas.