If global warming is truly the threat that many claim, I would support the following.

1. Nothing will reduce CO2 emissions more than replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear. Spent fuel is a problem, but it’s miniscule compared to the hazards of power plant pollution.

2. Gradually increase the price of gasoline through taxation.

3. Quit giving China and India a free pass. You may think me hypocritical because the US rejected Kyoto, but in reality the US has reduced it's rate of CO2 increase more than most of Europe in the past few years.

There are a couple of other things that would drastically reduce CO2 emissions, especially in the US.

-create European-style public transportation and give whatever incentive it takes (positive or negative) to get people to use them.

-put a big national effort into alternative energy, renewable energy, the most important obviously being solar. There is something like the energy of 10 nuclear bombs per square mile per second in solar energy constantly striking the Earth's atmosphere. The small amount of that that humans could possibly want seems well attainable in the near future of technology.

But there's got to be a profit in it for somebody. The big electric and chemical energy companies have done a good job of preventing public acquisition of passive solar collectors for home use (to heat air and water) because it would cut too far into their sales. These things are so easy to build, maybe a grass-roots movement to make and install them would get the ball rolling. Forget nuclear. If most houses had significant passive collectors we would not even need all of the hydroelectric plants that we already have.

Stopping global warming is probably not possible. There is every reason to believe that human activity in producing greenhouse gases is at least contributing to the current warming, but there is no known human activity that could cause cooling. The idea is just to minimize the human part of the continuing temp increase.

quote:

Originally posted by elfuente:
-create European-style public transportation and give whatever incentive it takes (positive or negative) to get people to use them.

-put a big national effort into alternative energy, renewable energy, the most important obviously being solar. There is something like the energy of 10 nuclear bombs per square mile per second in solar energy constantly striking the Earth's atmosphere. The small amount of that that humans could possibly want seems well attainable in the near future of technology.

But there's got to be a profit in it for somebody. The big electric and chemical energy companies have done a good job of preventing public acquisition of passive solar collectors for home use (to heat air and water) because it would cut too far into their sales. These things are so easy to build, maybe a grass-roots movement to make and install them would get the ball rolling. Forget nuclear. If most houses had significant passive collectors we would not even need all of the hydroelectric plants that we already have.

So... an energy industry conspiracy suppressing solar. I beg to differ. Solar is ok for heating and we already have tax incentives to encourage it's use. Using solar for electricity is another matter. The tech isn't anywhere close to making it a viable option. Even if it was, there is no way we could cover the enough area with solar cells without totally freaking out the greens. Same for wind.

Replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear darwfs any other option to reduce CO2. What is it about nuclear power that overrides concerns for CO2 induced global warming.

One last thing, you seem to suggest that people must be forced to use public transportation. When was the last time you rode a bus. If you don't drive a car, my hats off to you. I'm just hoping you aren't like my wife who rented a car rather than drive her SUV to a Sierra Club gathering.

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said that to make use of solar energy feasible there has to be a profit in it for somebody. Big difference. Maybe a whole new industry of products to outfit passive solar homes.

Although it wouldn't surprise me at all if Dick Cheney and the Worldwide Crime Guild had a conspiracy going, I don't know if he does so I'm not saying.

"Solar is OK for heating..."

Yes, that's exactly what passive solar means. Making electricity directly from solar radiation is photovoltaics, and I know that the technology is not there to serve all of our needs, but its getting closer every day, and every little bit of help we can give it would be a big help (like a share of the money that the government now spends to subsidize oil exploration, oil that is usually not even used because it's still cheaper to buy it from the Saudis).

Besides, I haven't just read about passive solar houses. I've helped build a few of them, and they work. Electricity usage is not cut to zero, but it's cut way down.

Didn't we learn anything about using nuclear fuel to make electricity, or has it been so long since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that we just don't remember? There is the issue of danger from catastrophic tech failures, and there is the absolute absence of tech for storing wastes for the necessary time. (25,000 years, half-life of Pu, far more than all of recorded history) So it will continue to be like it is where wastes are stored now, which is far from satisfactory, unless, of course, you are far away from it.

I rode buses the last time I was in Europe, about 4 months ago. Here I do not have the option because I don't live in the city. I take what conservation measures that I can.

Quick points.

Sequestration is a dead horse. We have put so much CO2 into the oceans (they absorb it from the atmosphere), that they will outgas more than enough if sequestration were even to stabilise emissions. And we emit something like 7Gigatonnes p.a. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm so unless we can make it profitable, ploughing money into it is wasting resources best spent elsewhere.


Chernobyl: The same accident had been narrowly averted previously but due to obsessive soviet secrecy Chernobyl's engineers were not warned!

The major problem I have with nuclear is that at present it's expensive compared to fossil fuels so in a free market like the UKs de-regulated market investment in nuclear stalled.

As gas and oil costs increase post Hubbert's peak the likelihood seems to be that we'll move onto coal.

Nuclear needs to be driven and assisted by government. Perhaps Government funding waste handling would be enough? Is there an energy economist in the house?

Do we just have to dump waste? Can't we extract power from it? As Lovelock says, he'd happily have a mass of waste - he reckons he'd generate his domestic power from it!

Anyone know why Mixed Oxide generation using Pu as fuel isn't widely used?


China's and India's growth is currently fuelling stock market growth to a significant degree. Whatever we do in respect of both those countries is likely to be both politically and economcally difficult. How do you tell China to do anything anyway?


I agree that we can't stop emissions growth and this means I don't think we can stop significantly more warming.

However the idea of 'wedges' that Al Gore promotes in an Inconvenient Truth is IMHO our best bet. See the graphic here http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/06/co2-wedges-superheroes.html (I have not fully read the blog - and don't think emissions stabilisation is a realisitic option) But the graphic shows the point.

For every bit of emissions we 'slice' off we reduce future build up. This might either:

1) Keep us further from any potentially dangerous results.

2) Give us more time to find new solutions, or to allow new technology to intercede. I can't source but in London in the 18th Century projections of the growth of horse manure waste were (would have been?) alarming, then came the internal combustion engine.

Foster national and regional pride in food and goods. Generate a shift in culture back to buying locally from local suppliers. Increased growing seasons and warming in the UK may already be positively impacting yield and diversity of crop in UK agriculture. I say may because this is second hand from a climate scientist - I'll try to track down refs if asked.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:

However the idea of 'wedges' that Al Gore promotes in an Inconvenient Truth is IMHO our best bet.

Cobbly I have my doubts about the wedges solution. The link mentions massive CO2 savings if gas mileage was doubled. If mileage improves people will just drive more unless it's accompanied by a doubling of the price of gasoline. I think the idea of buying carbon credits to offset guilty liberals CO2 generation is the biggest scam associated with global warming. It's humorous and not surprising to see enviro-hypocrites try to rationalize their lifestyles like medieval lords buying indulgences to annul their sins.

Correction to an earlier post.
I said the Wall Street Journal reported that Gore buys his carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management, a company he founded and profits from. That was not quit accurate. WSJ reported today that it turns out GIM isn't a provider of carbon credits. GIM purchases credits to offset the emissions of Gore and its 23 employees from an offshore company.

Still smells.