Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

There are 62950 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34866 Apr 2, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me?
You think I'm anti-nuke? Guess again. I've only tried to get you to be realistic about politics & lead times.
Yes, we do need modern nuclear plants - but that will take time. In the meantime, conservation is faster.
Right now, the barriers to nuclear are financial. No utility wants to commit to building a plant if they can't predict the market 20 years from now. It'd require leadership. Also a carbon tax to get people to understand the TRUE cost of burning Ffs.
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.

The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.

How cheap is that?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#34867 Apr 2, 2013
TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll. Ignore.
"Helping ignore trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."
Thanks! Consider yourself ignored in future.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#34868 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It won't matter until it's too late, then scumbags like you will be crying your eyes out and blaming scientists and government for doing nothing.
That'll be the ONE funny thing about runaway global warming...
where can we plug in our electric cars?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34869 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
And the need to explain to people how Chernobyl and Fukushima were just flukey accidents and it 'can't happen here'.....:(
Well, they were flukey accidents. Fukushima was more disturbing, though, because the Japanese should have known better. "Tsunami" is a Japanese word, after all. The earthquake may have been their largest ever, but living next to a subduction zone, they should be prepared for very large quakes.

Remember, coal kills thousands of people annually between mining accidents, pollution, processing/transport, etc, etc. And that's not even considering its large carbon footprint, with all the future problems it will cause.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#34870 Apr 2, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
where can we plug in our electric cars?
Uranus

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#34871 Apr 2, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they were flukey accidents. Fukushima was more disturbing, though, because the Japanese should have known better. "Tsunami" is a Japanese word, after all. The earthquake may have been their largest ever, but living next to a subduction zone, they should be prepared for very large quakes.
Remember, coal kills thousands of people annually between mining accidents, pollution, processing/transport, etc, etc. And that's not even considering its large carbon footprint, with all the future problems it will cause.
The problem is that ONE "flukey accident" in the nuclear industry terrifies, kills rapidly, kills slowly, and contaminates for long periods of time. I'm not defending coal, but the fact that coal pollutes doesn't justify the vastly expensive and dangerous technology involved in nuclear power, IMO.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34872 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that ONE "flukey accident" in the nuclear industry terrifies, kills rapidly, kills slowly, and contaminates for long periods of time. I'm not defending coal, but the fact that coal pollutes doesn't justify the vastly expensive and dangerous technology involved in nuclear power, IMO.
Yes, nuclear technology is expensive & dangerous, & what you say is exactly right. It's also carbon-free once you get past construction, mining & transportation, however.

Newer generation plants, whether fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium, have much less waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter period of time, so at least that problem is more manageable now.

I've always recommended conservation & green power 1st, as much as possible, but when the sun doesn't shine & the wind doesn't blow, for some areas nuclear might be the best carbon-free option to take up the slack. That's just reality.

If reliable carbon sequestration technology could be developed, perhaps fossil fuels could be burned safely, & nuclear might not be necessary.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34873 Apr 2, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.
The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.
How cheap is that?
How cheap is that? It's a LOT cheaper than having New York City inundated by the sea. How much is Boston worth? Providence? Washington DC? How about the entire Florida peninsula?

The consequences & costs of emitting carbon into the atmosphere will be almost incaluculably expensive. They dwarf EVERYTHING else.

Like I said, nuclear would not be my 1st option, but it's certainly preferable to continuing to burn fossil fuels without restraint or carbon sequestration. If we could develop fuels that aren't from FFs, that would be another reasonable alternative.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#34874 Apr 2, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, nuclear technology is expensive & dangerous, & what you say is exactly right. It's also carbon-free once you get past construction, mining & transportation, however.
Newer generation plants, whether fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium, have much less waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter period of time, so at least that problem is more manageable now.
I've always recommended conservation & green power 1st, as much as possible, but when the sun doesn't shine & the wind doesn't blow, for some areas nuclear might be the best carbon-free option to take up the slack. That's just reality.
If reliable carbon sequestration technology could be developed, perhaps fossil fuels could be burned safely, & nuclear might not be necessary.
I agree that nuclear power has some advantages when talking about gases, particulates, C02, etc. It seems wonderfully clean...until you go to dispose of the waste, or have an accident.

It's like a jet-pack....wonderfully fun and enjoyable until it runs out of propellant when you're 500 feet in the air...:)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34875 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
... it runs out of propellant when you're 500 feet in the air...:)
OOPS... ka-BOOM!
LOL
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34876 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
..... nuclear power has some advantages when talking about gases, particulates, C02, etc. It seems wonderfully clean...until you go to dispose of the waste, or have an accident.......
........ or consider them as terrorist targets or thefts.
cricket

Orlando, FL

#34877 Apr 2, 2013
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...

No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34878 Apr 2, 2013
cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study .. deleted
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
He's 72 yo.

No reason you are happy, lol.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34879 Apr 2, 2013
cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
More equine excrement from a deniers' organization.

There's a LOT of oil money available, folks! Grab some! All you have to do is lie thru your teeth & forget about how much your progeny, should you have any, will DESPISE you. Sweet.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34880 Apr 2, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
How cheap is that? It's a LOT cheaper than having New York City inundated by the sea. How much is Boston worth? Providence? Washington DC? How about the entire Florida peninsula?
The consequences & costs of emitting carbon into the atmosphere will be almost incaluculably expensive. They dwarf EVERYTHING else.
Like I said, nuclear would not be my 1st option, but it's certainly preferable to continuing to burn fossil fuels without restraint or carbon sequestration. If we could develop fuels that aren't from FFs, that would be another reasonable alternative.
I wasn't comparing the cost of a city to the cost of a nuclear power plant. I was being sarcastic about all the claims that have been made about nuclear from the beginning, from "too cheap to meter" to cheaper than converting to wind and solar.

But if you wish, let's discuss how expensive nuclear can really be.

1. Nuclear has already missed the boat. In the time it would take to build the 100 or so more plants that we might need, you will already have lost NOLA, Norfolk, NYC, LA, Boston, and Miami. When's the last time one was licensed? When was construction started? What is the completion date? Solar, wind, natural gas, and some other technological breakthrough have already or may soon establish a foothold for energy production that nuclear might never be able to defeat.

2. The nuclear industry has assured us that reactors are so safe that there would only be one major accident every 100 years. So far, we've had three in 60 years. Nuclear power may be safe, but as long as humans are involved...no. All three of the major accidents THAT WE KNOW OF were caused by humans, from poor planning to paper clips holding switches open.

3. The waste problem still hasn't been addressed. And (refer to my original post), decommissioning and dismantling each site will be the equivalent of finding somewhere to put a small town's worth of radioactive construction debris for each one.

4. Looking at the prevailing winds and what has happened at Fukashima and Chernobyl, you could just as easily lose NYC, Boston, or Chicago in one nuclear accident. Maybe the chances ARE small, but the CONSEQUENCES of that very small chance are monumental.

5. Like solar and wind, nuclear does not address the automobile and aviation industries at the present time. A total switch to electric of all ground transportation immediately would be very compatible with nuclear, but that ain't happening either, right now.

6. Then there's the other very, very rare possibilities associated with a major malfunction, like terrorists, earthquakes, floods, and even meteorites.

So, I agree, nuclear is an alternative, but not a very good one. It's cheap until it isn't. THEN, it's very expensive, in lives, land, and money.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34881 Apr 2, 2013
cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
rolling on the floor laughing your ass off at what? The original NASA article said nothing like what you said it does.

And of three citations at the end, one is from 1951.

Grab a little harder. And go for bigger straws. Maybe you'll finally get something.
Common sense

United States

#34882 Apr 2, 2013
Anyone that thinks climate change is man made is an idiot
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34883 Apr 2, 2013
cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere....
'cricket...... even Watts showed how extreme AGW deniers have misinterpreted the NASA report.

CO2 in the high atmosphere sends much of the sporadic, low percentage, but hi energy Short wave energy from solar flare activity radiation back to space.

AGW refers to Long Wave infra-red energy radiated to the atmosphere from the Earth's surface, half which is re-radiated back toward Earth, as warming.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#34884 Apr 2, 2013
"We must be guided by the word of the great scientists for only the scientists know the truth and if we do as they say our children's future will be saved and we must do our part as Nature is tender and fragile and delicate and needs our constant help so it can .........ah cough....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH Can't fu*&in do it! I need a shower!! How do you believers spew this crap and not throw up?
Reddy Kilowatt

San Francisco, CA

#34885 Apr 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.
The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.
How cheap is that?
A classic irrational antinuke argument. You don't "decommission" perfectly serviceable & licensed carbon-free generation capacity - that's stupid. You refurbish & re-commission them with SGRs and reactor replacement programs - INDEFINITELY.

The extremely rare outlier like Fukushima is all included in the economics, via insurance, self-insurance, and capital renewal/replaceent reserves, and still advanced nuclear costs out FAR less costly than Solar and competitive with other modes. However impressive the cost figures might appear for the isolated rare once-a-generation event like Fukushima (or the BP well blowout), in the grand scheme of things, as a % of total capital maintenance & renewal costs, they're close to immaterial.

"Not connected to the nuclear idustry" too often = half-informed, ideologically biased, and unqualified to comment on technical matters. Caveat emptor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Teaman 1,481,671
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 57 min Merry Moosmas 20,769
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 20 hr truth 7,994
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 20 hr TRD 71,313
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) Thu Steph 72
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Thu Sammy Davis Junior 313,199
How DEPRESSING is it living in The State Of Con... (May '16) Jan 17 Hoody Hoodpecker 4

Hartford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hartford Mortgages