Right. Science is based on what is observable and testable. Predictions about future climate conditions may be based on scientific findings, but they are hardly scientific in themselves.
While the politicans can use anything to rationalize taxation it really has nothing to do with AGW which can be addressed without any taxation whatsoever. For example, according to CleanCoal.org, the CO2 and toxic emissions from coal fired electrical power plants can be reduced by 40% without any significant cost increase in the cost of electrical production. The problem is that the technology is "off the shelf" and even advocated by the coal industry but not a single coal-fired electrical power plant has been modified to use the technology. There is no logical reason why Congress shouldn't pass a law forcing the cost effective transition to "clean coal technology" which would reduce atmospheric pollution dramatically. Always remember that no one (or entity) has a "Right to Pollute" so why do we continue to allow unnecessary pollution by industry in the United States?
AGW has BECOME political. That's the problem. Coal has radioactive isotopes in it which get diffused into the air every day. Nuclear plants emit little or no radiation. In fact you most likely could isolate isotopes from coal to make nuclear fuel. There is no such thing as 'clean coal.' "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste" "Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste We need to embark on the building of nuclear power plants and phase out coal fired electricity generation altogether. One would think that environmentalists would get off the 'clean coal' bandwagon.
The NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) one of the most powerful political lobbying groups, which supports GW, receives government grants. If that is so, then 'Climate Science' has a black eye.
Which is yet another reason why we should wean the industrialised nations off of coal and onto renewables
There is much misinformation here on several counts. Yes, in addition to the science of AGW there are the politics of AGW but each is separate. A person cannot deny the science based upon the politics which is what many attempt to do. The burning of coal does not create radioactive materials but instead releases them from their natural containment in the coal. The actual radioactive components in "fly ash" are basically thorium, uranium, and radon gas that are inherent in the coal and released by the burning of the coal. They are also in very small concentrations that don't represent a threat to human life. While the radon gas does escape directly into the atmosphere the thorium and uranium are components of the solid waste and 99.5% of those solid wastes can be recovered. Basically the radioactive materials from coal are just a slightly higher concentation than the normal radiation we experience on a daily basis and it's measured in ppm. Even granite rock and the wood in your house has a very small radioactive signature. There is radioactivity all around us every day and just walking out into the sunlight exposes us to far more radioactivity than the burning of coal representes. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html It is true that there is no such thing as "clean coal" as the burning of coal is always a "dirty" business but we can reduce the amount of pollution from the burning coal by 40% cost effectively by mandating "clean coal" technology. Why have we not mandated the conversion to "clean coal" technology to eliminate unnecessary pollution which can be done cost effectively according to the coal industry itself? There is no reason for this excessive pollution nor is there even a logical political argument preventing us from eliminating it. The harmful pollution is the CO2 emission and not the radioactive emission from burning coal. Our current nuclear fission reactors create huge amount of radioactive materials although, for the most part, they are not released into the atmosphere. This radioactive "waste" is not measured in ppm but instead is measured in thousands of tons and it is highly toxic to life with half-lifes in the tens of thousands of years. Nuclear fission is "dirty" nuclear energy and is inherently problematic due to the extreme dangers that are associated with it. It has certainly been a viable energy source but only on an interim basis. In reality we're waiting on nuclear fusion technology to replace nuclear fission. The first operationaly nuclear fusion reactor is scheduled to be completed in 2019. Investing in fundamentally obsolete nuclear energy technology (i.e. nuclear fission) reduces our ability to invest in state-of-the-art nuclear energy technology (i.e. nuclear fusion) and basically we'd be investing in "dirty nuclear" as opposed to "clean nuclear" energy and that makes little sense. If we really wanted to invest we should do so related to nuclear fusion that produces very clean energy with many times the energy being produced and that has virtually no potential risk factors (e.g. a nuclear fusion plant can't have a "meltdown" like a fission plant). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Safety_and_the_environment Nuclear fusion is the "magic bullet" when it comes to the energy needs of mankind and it is being developed. In the meantime we should be taking effective measures to reduce AGW by eliminating as much unnecessary atmospheric pollution as well as addressing the deforestation that removes the natural ability of the ecosystem to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. There is nothing really political about taking cost effective measures to do both.
The "renewables" are basically energy derived from food sources such as ethonal produced from sugar or corn and with the world population expansion we can't logically burn our food which is basically what we're doing. Solar and wind energy are extremely expensive forms of energy production and are just not cost effective overall. For the most part we're wasting financial resources related to promoting the use of solar or wind energy although both have very limited applications where they are financial beneticial (e.g. heating a swimming pool with solar energy is superior to using natural gas to heat the water and is very cost effective). As I noted in a previous post the key to our future enegy needs really rests with nuclear fusion that produces virtually nothing "harmful" (and what is produced is in very, very small quantities) and is completely safe (e.g. it only uses a few grams of fuel and the nuclear reaction automatically stops itself in the event of any problems with the reactor). In the meantime we need to pragmatically eliminate all unnecessary atmospheric pollution (e.g. CO2 gases) as well as addressing the problem of deforestation which reduces the ecosystem's ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
Self-sustaining nuclear fusion may be one step closer to reality after scientists in the U.S. have, for the first time, created more fusion energy than that consumed by the fuel to drive the process. Nuclear fusion, the same process that the sun uses to create energy, could provide the world with much-needed cheap energy. Scientists estimate that one kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. Nuclear fusion Self-sustaining nuclear fusion may be one step closer to reality after scientists in the U.S. have, for the first time, created more fusion energy than fuel for the process consumed WHAT IS NUCLEAR FUSION? Fusion is the process that heats the Sun and all other stars. It occurs when atomic nuclei collide together and release energy in the form of neutron. Fusion scientists and engineers are developing the technology to use this process in tomorrow's power stations Scientists estimate that one kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. . But up until now, the main problem has been that nuclear fusion experiments always required more energy than they were able to create. According to the BBC, researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Livermore in California have now been able to shift that balance. Using 192 of the world’s most powerful lasers, the NIF heated a small pellet of hydrogen to millions of degrees. In the nanoseconds that followed, the capsule imploded releasing more energy than fuel for the process consumed. Nuclear fusion Using 192 of the world's most powerful lasers, the NIF heated a small pellet of hydrogen to millions of degrees Researchers have been working towards this kind of breakthrough since the facility began construction in 1997. The facility is the brainchild of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. It holds a 130 tonne target chamber where the neutrons are fired by the 192 lasers stimulate the fusion reaction. The holes in the chamber, which is 10 metres in diameter and covered in 30 cm thick concrete, permits the 192 laser beams to enter the chamber. The temperatures inside the chamber are more than 100 million degrees and create pressures more than 100 billion times Earth's atmospheric pressure. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-nuclear-fusion-break-time.html#ixzz2pFJQjp00
The whole deal of converting rain forest, grassland biome or any other ecosystem to an ethanol-for-cars factory is hardly very 'green". In John McPhee's book "The curve of binding energy" he quotes one of the Los Alamos people saying that nuclear reactors are inherently unsafe and do not belong anywhere on the surface of the earth. But then, I dont much want to use a horse or a dog team. Or a whale oil lamp.
Well, nuclear plants have been 'on the surface of the earth' for decades now, most with excellent safety records.
most. your good fortune includes not living near fukushima or chernobyl those are the worst so far. of course, you keep building more, keep running them for more decades, and that will change. the tens of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste being produced... whats the plan with that?
talk to the people in Japan about that one Trouble is we have no hedge against human stupidity - and THAT is the downfall.
Not a downfall at all, in fact. You'll find it to be the central premise in all forms of American politics.
yup...and there is the clean up when something goes wrong...how many decades will Chernobyl be uninhabitable? how many thousand treated for cancer due to contamination?...the cost of nuclear accidents are very very high....
The general manager of Fukushima when the accident occured died July, 2013 by esophageal cancer, even though both of the general manager and TEPCO(the firm running Fukushima nuclear plant) denied direct concern of Fukushima accident to the cancer.
There have been more than 20 nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities. These involved nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, radiotherapy accidents and other mishaps. Contents 1 Chernobyl disaster 2 Fukushima disaster 3 Kyshtym disaster 4 Windscale fire 5 Other accidents 6 See also 7 References 8 External links Chernobyl disaster 4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3] Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[4] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8] Fukushima disaster As of June 2012, the exact chain of events which included the explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant are still not known. The total amount of radiation released is also not known for certain and the impacts on human health and the environment, and hence the likely number of deaths, cannot be determined with the information available. Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, has suggested, as "a very preliminary order-of-magnitude guesstimate," that "one might expect around 1,000 extra cancer deaths related to the Fukushima Daiichi accident."[9] Kyshtym disaster The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[10] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been found for residents of the Tech riverside between 1950 and 1982 from all causes of death,[11] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.[11] This would include the effects of all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the airborne plume that was carried north-east.[12] The area closest to the accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[13] Windscale fire 33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[14][15] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. Fire ignites plutonium piles and contaminates surrounding dairy farms.[14][15] Windscale was an air-cooled graphite-moderated reactor with no containment structure. A significant contributing factor was that the graphite caught fire. Other accidents 17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[16][17] 13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a Cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[18] 11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[19] 10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[20] 10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from Cobalt-60 source.[17][21] 9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[17] wiki
The Wikipedia page of the chief of Fukushima nuclear plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masao_Yoshida_(nuclear_engineer)
The radiation is contained. There is a small leak however it's really no more than the radiation spewing from coal plants every day 24/7, 365 days every year. The nuclear plants in operation around the world do not emit any significant radiation and have been in operation for decades now. New technology will make new plants even safer. You receive more radiation eating a banana or sleeping next to your significant other. If you really care about radiation, then products of burning coal should be your main target. Nuclear is cheaper per KW to produce as well.
Nuke disasters are like asteroid impacts...not very likely statistically (as far as death)...but when it does happen, it is very bad.
The effects of radiation poisoning can take decades. For example John Wayne is believed to have died from the radioactive contamination in Nevada where above ground testing was conducted as he was involved in movie productions on the contaminated land. The death rate from the cast and crew that were on location from cancer was way above the normal cancer rates.
