Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
XJ Flyer said:
It doesn't matter what time it happens to be in the dangerous highly radioactive materials associated with nuclear power remain the same then or now.The only criterea that can be changed/modernised are the methods of containment and the controls used to stop runaway reactors etc etc.However the fact remains that anything which can be made by humans can go wrong in which case all of those 'issues',regarding the dangerous nature of highly radioactive pollution,getting loose into the environment for whatever reason,apply.
As for my argument my case is that CO2 is harmless unlike nuclear materials.Which is why I'm making the case for coal not expensive dangerous nuclear energy 'or' expensive pointless 'renewables'.
All the more reason to not burn coal and release Uranium, Thorium and other radionuclides into the environment, but have them safely locked up in a reactor generating safe and clean power. As for my argument my case is that CO2 is harmless unlike nuclear materials.Which is why I'm making the case for coal not expensive dangerous nuclear energy 'or' expensive pointless 'renewables'.
As i said, I am no expert on this, but only a true unbiased and holistic comparison will answer these questions.
Even clean hydro and geothermal generation will take many years to recover the 'build' cost, so this in itself, does not rule out solar.
The elephant in the room is always the standby capacity needed, as you point out.
as always, follow the money.
Even clean hydro and geothermal generation will take many years to recover the 'build' cost, so this in itself, does not rule out solar.
The elephant in the room is always the standby capacity needed, as you point out.
as always, follow the money.
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
It doesn't matter what time it happens to be in the dangerous highly radioactive materials associated with nuclear power remain the same then or now.The only criterea that can be changed/modernised are the methods of containment and the controls used to stop runaway reactors etc etc.However the fact remains that anything which can be made by humans can go wrong in which case all of those 'issues',regarding the dangerous nature of highly radioactive pollution,getting loose into the environment for whatever reason,apply.
As for my argument my case is that CO2 is harmless unlike nuclear materials.Which is why I'm making the case for coal not expensive dangerous nuclear energy 'or' expensive pointless 'renewables'.
All the more reason to not burn coal and release Uranium, Thorium and other radionuclides into the environment, but have them safely locked up in a reactor generating safe and clean power. As for my argument my case is that CO2 is harmless unlike nuclear materials.Which is why I'm making the case for coal not expensive dangerous nuclear energy 'or' expensive pointless 'renewables'.
However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
XJ Flyer said:
The flaw in that idea is that if/when things go wrong with a reactor or with the handling,storage of it's waste it releases much nastier long lasting highly radioactive stuff into the environment than whatever arguable low level pollutants are released by burning coal.At least that's how the Germans obviously ( rightly ) see it.
However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
Arguable? Power stations are obliged to issue reports detailing how much particulate they release into the air each year. Coal contains this stuff. When you burn it, some of it goes up the lum. There's no maybe or perhaps about it.However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
The flaw in that idea is that if/when things go wrong with a reactor or with the handling,storage of it's waste it releases much nastier long lasting highly radioactive stuff into the environment than whatever arguable low level pollutants are released by burning coal.At least that's how the Germans obviously ( rightly ) see it.
However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
Arguable? Power stations are obliged to issue reports detailing how much particulate they release into the air each year. Coal contains this stuff. When you burn it, some of it goes up the lum. There's no maybe or perhaps about it.However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
t case that CO2 is supposedly more of a threat to life than nuclear energy.www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-90
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
www.cejournal.net/?p=410
XJ Flyer said:
As I said the idea of trying to make the case that there's any comparison, between the risks of nuclear contamination from coal fired energy,as opposed to nuclear energy is just misinformation and propaganda.Mostly relied on by the global warmist religion to help the bullst case that CO2 is supposedly more of a threat to life than nuclear energy.
www.cejournal.net/?p=410
I'm glad you've provided a link that agrees with my assertion that coal-fired power stations put far more radioactivity into the environment that nuclear power stations, but I sense that wasn't your intent; did you have a point?t case that CO2 is supposedly more of a threat to life than nuclear energy.www.cejournal.net/?p=410
XJ Flyer said:
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
The flaw in that idea is that if/when things go wrong with a reactor or with the handling,storage of it's waste it releases much nastier long lasting highly radioactive stuff into the environment than whatever arguable low level pollutants are released by burning coal.At least that's how the Germans obviously ( rightly ) see it.
However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
Arguable? Power stations are obliged to issue reports detailing how much particulate they release into the air each year. Coal contains this stuff. When you burn it, some of it goes up the lum. There's no maybe or perhaps about it.However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
t case that CO2 is supposedly more of a threat to life than nuclear energy.www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-90
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
www.cejournal.net/?p=410
NicD said:
As i said, I am no expert on this, but only a true unbiased and holistic comparison will answer these questions.
Even clean hydro and geothermal generation will take many years to recover the 'build' cost, so this in itself, does not rule out solar.
The elephant in the room is always the standby capacity needed, as you point out.
as always, follow the money.
It's insane to try to replace safe stable cheap power supplies with periodic and variable highly expensive subsidized power that has at least as bad if not worse pollution footprint.Even clean hydro and geothermal generation will take many years to recover the 'build' cost, so this in itself, does not rule out solar.
The elephant in the room is always the standby capacity needed, as you point out.
as always, follow the money.
Yes the money.................... Would solar panels exist in a free market. No. QED.
XJ Flyer said:
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
The flaw in that idea is that if/when things go wrong with a reactor or with the handling,storage of it's waste it releases much nastier long lasting highly radioactive stuff into the environment than whatever arguable low level pollutants are released by burning coal.At least that's how the Germans obviously ( rightly ) see it.
However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
Arguable? Power stations are obliged to issue reports detailing how much particulate they release into the air each year. Coal contains this stuff. When you burn it, some of it goes up the lum. There's no maybe or perhaps about it.However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
t case that CO2 is supposedly more of a threat to life than nuclear energy.www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-90
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
www.cejournal.net/?p=410
Don't mean to be horrible, but this is the "Climate Change Political Debate thread". You guys fancy creating the "Nuclear Energy Science Debate" somwhere else, or adding to the CC Science thread?
Cheers!
How flipping supine are the media these days? I reproduce a part of an article in today's Metro newspaper. They let these guys get away with vacuous statments like the one I've highlighted in the last paragraph.
Did the reporter not even think to enquire why the dear professor was confident that the wind would be blowing with sufficient speed each December evening at 6 o'clock? And, why does he think fracking would raise gas prices?
"Wind turbines: A blight on Britain’s countryside or the future of energy?"
Did the reporter not even think to enquire why the dear professor was confident that the wind would be blowing with sufficient speed each December evening at 6 o'clock? And, why does he think fracking would raise gas prices?
"Wind turbines: A blight on Britain’s countryside or the future of energy?"
Metro article said:
But Roger Kemp, a professorial fellow in engineering at Lancaster University, who was also part of the RAEng working group, said the public will look at the impact the change could have on their finances.
‘That cost will get passed through on to consumers,’ he said. ‘Given the present backlash about energy costs, it seems completely bizarre to take a decision that is going to put up prices by quite a lot. That’s clearly a political decision that their core support is just so incensed about having onshore turbines as part of the view from their houses.’
Prof Kemp said wind power can take up to a fifth of the nation’s electricity demand without major change to the grid system, but anything over that will require more planning. He believes the government has been naïve about shale gas.
‘To assume fracking is going to bring down prices is probably mistaken,’ he said. ‘At present, we’re living in a rather unusual situation in that most of our electricity this last winter has been generated by coal, which was burnt in power stations mainly constructed in the 1960s and ‘70s. We’ve been using infrastructure that is 30 or 40 years old and will soon be pensioned off. What happens next? We can’t continue using coal-fired power stations forever. I can’t see that gas prices will come be coming down seriously and could probably go up quite fast.’
At the moment, wind remains one of the few viable alternatives, he said. ‘If we’re being serious about decarbonising the grid and doing the things the government says it’s committed to doing about climate change, then we’ve got to find some way of getting electricity without burning fossil fuels – coal, gas, oil and so on. The alternative to wind power is solar power, but our peak electricity requirement is at about six o’clock in the evening in December, and you don’t get much out of your solar panels in December at six o’clock.’
http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/14/wind-turbines-a-blight-on-britains-countryside-or-the-future-of-energy-4695963/‘That cost will get passed through on to consumers,’ he said. ‘Given the present backlash about energy costs, it seems completely bizarre to take a decision that is going to put up prices by quite a lot. That’s clearly a political decision that their core support is just so incensed about having onshore turbines as part of the view from their houses.’
Prof Kemp said wind power can take up to a fifth of the nation’s electricity demand without major change to the grid system, but anything over that will require more planning. He believes the government has been naïve about shale gas.
‘To assume fracking is going to bring down prices is probably mistaken,’ he said. ‘At present, we’re living in a rather unusual situation in that most of our electricity this last winter has been generated by coal, which was burnt in power stations mainly constructed in the 1960s and ‘70s. We’ve been using infrastructure that is 30 or 40 years old and will soon be pensioned off. What happens next? We can’t continue using coal-fired power stations forever. I can’t see that gas prices will come be coming down seriously and could probably go up quite fast.’
At the moment, wind remains one of the few viable alternatives, he said. ‘If we’re being serious about decarbonising the grid and doing the things the government says it’s committed to doing about climate change, then we’ve got to find some way of getting electricity without burning fossil fuels – coal, gas, oil and so on. The alternative to wind power is solar power, but our peak electricity requirement is at about six o’clock in the evening in December, and you don’t get much out of your solar panels in December at six o’clock.’
I know this to be somewhat true, as my step kids once told me that 'in order to pass the exams, we have to write what they want us to write whether we believe the bullst or not' - or words very similar to that effect.
"No A-level for 'climate change denier’
Brainwashing about global warming percolates throughout the education system"
Not often does a senior Cabinet minister declare that a policy long pursued by his own department is “against the law”. But that was the response of Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to a report exposing just how profoundly our education system has been hijacked by promoters of the official group-think on global warming.
Expanding on a theme touched on here more than once over the years, the report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Andrew Montford and John Shade shows how generations of schoolchildren have been taught to accept as gospel nothing but a propagandist, Greenpeace-type view of the global-warming scare, so one-sided that it makes a mockery of the requirement under the 1996 Education Act that pupils only be taught in a balanced way, allowing them to form their own view of the evidence.
So relentless is this brainwashing that it percolates throughout the curriculum, so that even exam papers in French, English or religious studies can ask students to explain why the world is dangerously warming up, or why we must build more wind turbines. In 2012, I described an A-level general studies paper set by our leading exam board, AQA, asking for comment on 11 pages of propagandist “source materials”, riddled with basic errors. A mother wrote to tell me how her intelligent son, after getting straight As on all his science papers, used his extensive knowledge of climate science to point out all their absurd distortions.
He was given the lowest possible mark, a fail. When his mother paid to have his paper independently assessed, the new examiner conceded that it was “articulate, well-structured” and well-informed. But because it did not parrot the party line, it was still given a fail. I fear this corruption of everything that education and science should stand for has become a much more serious scandal than Mr Gove yet realises. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...If this isn't attempted brainwashing, then I really don't know what is...
t or not' - or words very similar to that effect."No A-level for 'climate change denier’
Brainwashing about global warming percolates throughout the education system"
Christopher Booker in the DT said:
Not often does a senior Cabinet minister declare that a policy long pursued by his own department is “against the law”. But that was the response of Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to a report exposing just how profoundly our education system has been hijacked by promoters of the official group-think on global warming.
Expanding on a theme touched on here more than once over the years, the report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Andrew Montford and John Shade shows how generations of schoolchildren have been taught to accept as gospel nothing but a propagandist, Greenpeace-type view of the global-warming scare, so one-sided that it makes a mockery of the requirement under the 1996 Education Act that pupils only be taught in a balanced way, allowing them to form their own view of the evidence.
So relentless is this brainwashing that it percolates throughout the curriculum, so that even exam papers in French, English or religious studies can ask students to explain why the world is dangerously warming up, or why we must build more wind turbines. In 2012, I described an A-level general studies paper set by our leading exam board, AQA, asking for comment on 11 pages of propagandist “source materials”, riddled with basic errors. A mother wrote to tell me how her intelligent son, after getting straight As on all his science papers, used his extensive knowledge of climate science to point out all their absurd distortions.
He was given the lowest possible mark, a fail. When his mother paid to have his paper independently assessed, the new examiner conceded that it was “articulate, well-structured” and well-informed. But because it did not parrot the party line, it was still given a fail. I fear this corruption of everything that education and science should stand for has become a much more serious scandal than Mr Gove yet realises. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
jshell said:
Hi!
Don't mean to be horrible, but this is the "Climate Change Political Debate thread". You guys fancy creating the "Nuclear Energy Science Debate" somwhere else, or adding to the CC Science thread?
Cheers!
I agree with YOUDon't mean to be horrible, but this is the "Climate Change Political Debate thread". You guys fancy creating the "Nuclear Energy Science Debate" somwhere else, or adding to the CC Science thread?
Cheers!
If I have to read much more crap, unwanted, from a man who wants more people to die like my dad.
Suffered from emphysema caused by working underground in Lanarkshire Coalfield then the lovely nice clean Hamstead Colliery in Brum.
He was unable to climb stairs and spent hours every day spitting his poor raddled lungs out into a little polystyrene cup, while lying on his bed in the living room of his council owned palace.
It's all very well worrying about a 'possible' fear of dangerous atoms...
It's a b
h when it concerns real people paying the price for their whole lives.Not just my dad either, Mrs Ps dad was down the pit in Aberdare before he broke free. Oh yes he loved it too.
I wouldn't send a bloody robot down the hell that is a coal mine.
jshell said:
XJ Flyer said:
hidetheelephants said:
XJ Flyer said:
The flaw in that idea is that if/when things go wrong with a reactor or with the handling,storage of it's waste it releases much nastier long lasting highly radioactive stuff into the environment than whatever arguable low level pollutants are released by burning coal.At least that's how the Germans obviously ( rightly ) see it.
However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
Arguable? Power stations are obliged to issue reports detailing how much particulate they release into the air each year. Coal contains this stuff. When you burn it, some of it goes up the lum. There's no maybe or perhaps about it.However it's obvious that the case against coal and for nuclear is mostly all about CO2 being seen as more harmful than the potential release of highly radioactive materials if/when nuclear goes wrong for whatever reason.
t case that CO2 is supposedly more of a threat to life than nuclear energy.www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-90
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
www.cejournal.net/?p=410
Don't mean to be horrible, but this is the "Climate Change Political Debate thread". You guys fancy creating the "Nuclear Energy Science Debate" somwhere else, or adding to the CC Science thread?
Cheers!
perdu said:
jshell said:
Hi!
Don't mean to be horrible, but this is the "Climate Change Political Debate thread". You guys fancy creating the "Nuclear Energy Science Debate" somwhere else, or adding to the CC Science thread?
Cheers!
I agree with YOUDon't mean to be horrible, but this is the "Climate Change Political Debate thread". You guys fancy creating the "Nuclear Energy Science Debate" somwhere else, or adding to the CC Science thread?
Cheers!
If I have to read much more crap, unwanted, from a man who wants more people to die like my dad.
Suffered from emphysema caused by working underground in Lanarkshire Coalfield then the lovely nice clean Hamstead Colliery in Brum.
He was unable to climb stairs and spent hours every day spitting his poor raddled lungs out into a little polystyrene cup, while lying on his bed in the living room of his council owned palace.
It's all very well worrying about a 'possible' fear of dangerous atoms...
It's a b
h when it concerns real people paying the price for their whole lives.Not just my dad either, Mrs Ps dad was down the pit in Aberdare before he broke free. Oh yes he loved it too.
I wouldn't send a bloody robot down the hell that is a coal mine.
Shale Gas Can Help To Tackle Climate Change Says IPCC
Shale gas can help the world to avoid dangerous climate change if it replaces coal in power stations, according to a United Nations report. The IPCC was silent, however, on how much investment there should be in each source of energy. It said it was up to each country to decide on the mix of energy sources it needed to meet its share of the global emissions target
Ben Webster, The Times, 14 April 2014
The United Nations (UN) has delivered its latest verdict on the measures necessary to save the world from global warming and the news is as grim as it is predictable and wearisomely familiar. This action will set back economic growth, involve significant "behavioural change" and "devalue fossil fuel assets", the report admits. But only with "major institutional and technological changes" can the world avert an even greater threat. If no action is taken, it warns, temperatures may rise by as much as 4.8 degrees C by 2100.
Breitbart London, 14 April 2014
Climate Pushed To The Margins Of Energy Policy Around The World
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: “This is the first IPCC report that will be largely ignored by most policymakers. It will have no influence on governments’ energy policies that are now almost completely dominated by energy security and economic considerations. Around the world the climate issue is being pushed to the margins of decision making.”
Ben Webster, The Times, 14 April 2014
The report is written in extreme language, of course it is, because that is what the IPCC does. But what is unusual about this one is its support for nuclear energy and shale gas - for which the greens will hate it. Not that any of this matters. The IPCC is no longer taken seriously by governments around the world and decarbonization has ceased to be one of their major priorities. Thanks to the crisis in the Ukraine and the state of the global economy, they are now much more interested in energy security and economic competitiveness than they are in 'combating climate change'.
Dr Benny Peiser, London, 14 April 2014
Shale gas can help the world to avoid dangerous climate change if it replaces coal in power stations, according to a United Nations report. The IPCC was silent, however, on how much investment there should be in each source of energy. It said it was up to each country to decide on the mix of energy sources it needed to meet its share of the global emissions target
Ben Webster, The Times, 14 April 2014
The United Nations (UN) has delivered its latest verdict on the measures necessary to save the world from global warming and the news is as grim as it is predictable and wearisomely familiar. This action will set back economic growth, involve significant "behavioural change" and "devalue fossil fuel assets", the report admits. But only with "major institutional and technological changes" can the world avert an even greater threat. If no action is taken, it warns, temperatures may rise by as much as 4.8 degrees C by 2100.
Breitbart London, 14 April 2014
Climate Pushed To The Margins Of Energy Policy Around The World
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: “This is the first IPCC report that will be largely ignored by most policymakers. It will have no influence on governments’ energy policies that are now almost completely dominated by energy security and economic considerations. Around the world the climate issue is being pushed to the margins of decision making.”
Ben Webster, The Times, 14 April 2014
The report is written in extreme language, of course it is, because that is what the IPCC does. But what is unusual about this one is its support for nuclear energy and shale gas - for which the greens will hate it. Not that any of this matters. The IPCC is no longer taken seriously by governments around the world and decarbonization has ceased to be one of their major priorities. Thanks to the crisis in the Ukraine and the state of the global economy, they are now much more interested in energy security and economic competitiveness than they are in 'combating climate change'.
Dr Benny Peiser, London, 14 April 2014
XJ Flyer said:
So exactly what was the 1984 miners strike all about in that case.As far as I remember it was all about saving the industry not scrapping it.Although it would be no surprise if the global warmist believing cause tried to re write history by saying it was all about the miners striking for pit closures and early retirement on the grounds of health and safety and ill health and cutting CO2 emissions.
It was all about one man's hubris; he believed he had single-handedly brought down Heath's government and fancied his chances against Thatcher.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff