Global Warming: Bad Science or Opportunity for Nuclear Energy or Both

John · Senior Member

Global Warming: Bad Science or Opportunity for Nuclear Energy or Both

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

C tax is bad policy

John · Senior Member

RE: Global Warming: Bad Science or Opportunity for Nuclear Energy or Both

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

John wrote:

Money gained by taxing oil is oil money; without oil money, there would be no antinuclear movement.
I'm not sure that I'm getting your point. Are you saying that the oil companies are funding the antinuclear moverment? Or, I'd guess you'd include fossil fuel industries in general...

Right, I was saving valuable electrons. I should have written, "Money gained by taxing fossil fuels is fossil fuel money".

Then your question becomes, "Are you saying that the fossil fuel companies are funding the antinuclear movement?".

To that, the answer is, not necessarily. They don't gain money by taxing fossil fuels. They make those gains possible, but don't share them, or share only a small fractional kickback (the much-touted industry subsidies).

The people who gain money by taxing fossil fuels are those who get tax money. It's public money; it's fossil fuel money; it's both.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

John · Senior Member

Most of the taxes on fossil fuels that I'm aware are gasoline taxes. They have been justified on the basis that those who use the road the most should pay for them. The more you drive or the more fuel you use the more you pay. As for incentives I don't see a direct relationship. One might think that they are more of an offset for the corporate income taxes paid my the oil companies usually to motivate them to do something that the government wants. (I'm not denying that some of them are just "sweet heart" deals.)

What Gore is taking about is draconian taxes on fossil fuels to discourage their use and to thereby relatively subsidize the "alternative energy" sources. What I was suggesting is that if such a program is put in place is it not likely that the "soft tech" alternatives will prove not so viable and it will ultimately lead the power industry back to nuclear in a big way. Once the lights start to dim and people are going to wanting power and once the government gets the money from the "C taxes" they won't want to give them up. See my point? Very unintended consequences.

GoogleNaut · Guru

I haven't seen Al Gore's movies yet, and I am a dedicated 'fence sitter' on the issues of Global Warming... :)

Even though we are at the tail end of a warming trend that started 12,000 years ago, I am will to accept that the rate of warming seems to be increasing, and has been increasing during the last two centuries. Whether this is definitively human related (the timing is suspiciously so..) or natural (the result of unknown factors in Earth's climate, or Solar Radiation variations) is really hartd to pin down. The one thing for sure is that: our dependence upon fossil petroleum energy is a national security issue--since most of the monies spent on our energy goes to mostly politically charged regions with frequently conflicting national interests; the energy we get from those regions is partially dependent upon 'their goodwill' which at times is questionable; and this resource will only be more in competition the more the demand increases. And further, regardless of the environmental effects, the economic necessity of the energy we get from petroleum has great prosperity for us, but has created a critical mass of sorts: Anyting that disrupts that supply, has immediate catastrophic effects on our global economy, especially the economy of the Western Nations.

So in that spirit, it is imperative that we develop substitute energy sources not reliant on fossile petroleum. Renewable energy resources is a start, but it can only be a part of the solution. It is not practical nor is it environmentally desirable to dam up every river, stream, etc. etc. We would have to literally pave the States of Arizona and New Mexico with Solar Photovoltaic cells to completely displace fossil energy production in the US.

So what do we do?

Well, an expanded modular nuclear power program is a good start. There are many good designs out there--we just have to pick one and try it out. Create a standard modular design, and then freeze it. Then use a 'cookie cutter' approach and build lots of power stations.

Another avenue is space derived power--although the economics of this is currently 'not favorable.' However, when combined with other space industries, and carefully analyzing material streams and energy (here kinetic energy, i.e., delta-v) balances for various mission trajectories, an economically viable path may be found. But this will be a huge project--the biggest tha humanity has ever attempted.

John · Senior Member

No. I haven't seen Al Gore's over the top movie. I have read some of the IPCC material on the web. I'm almost finished with "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery which inspite of the title is a very well documented and very thorough going refutation of the human caused climate change theory. Singer and Avery really poke a lot of holes in the so-called consensus view. In addition they point to an alternative theory based on Solar cycles that seems to by more predictive of recorded temperature cycles than the CO2 build up view.

One point is that most of the recent warming that started around 1850 occured before 1940 but 80 percent of the human generated CO2 in the air was released after 1940. Another is that a lot of ground level tempature measurements are being biased upward because of increased urbanization but that measurement from space show a much flater curve. Another line of evidence that they present is that temperature were much warmer than now circa 1000 AD when the Norse were settling in Greenland and were able to raise cattle and sheep on pastures there. Then a cooling took place and the those area froze over eventually killing off the colony. This is backed up with achaeological evidence. There a lot more than this but its a start.

Another thing that keeps me very skeptical of the global warming people is there method of debate. I happed to a brief TV discussion between Avery and someone on the Al Gore side. The "pro-warming" guy start off by calling Avery the last of the dinosaurs and says the debate is over, etc. Avery presents his facts and the "pro-warming" guy just talks about number scientist and goverments that agree with him. Based on evidence presented the debate in this case clearly goes to the skeptic. This seems typical for this subject. I can really recall any real scientific debates on this where they really get away from the political barbs and discuss the science. It seems to me that the pro-human caused warming case is basically there has been a increase in average temperatures since the industrial age, there has been a 100 ppm increase in CO2 (plus some other gases), and they have cimate model that predict more CO2 will drive the temperature higher. Given the problems with the models its seem that is not very decisive when you consider the points above.

However, the likelihood that this CO2 driven theory is flawed doesn't mean the governments would act on it. It still seems to me that nuclear power is the best near term energy souce that released the least (zero) CO2. While the "greens" be think the carbon tax will bring us solar and wind power but it may actually change the economics to favor nuclear. Or, they may throw the world economy into a derpression leading to a backlash or both.

GoogleNaut · Guru

One thing is clear to me: Draconic Economics could destabilize our economy as assuradly as any ecological disaster could, and actually could cause a lot more damage than a steady, firm change would. I am all for shifting toward nuclear power and away from fossil petroleum as a prime mover power source--based solely on the World Political situation as it is and as it will likely be as other sources of oil becomes more scarce. Based solely on that fact--that are KNOWN--is enough to make me want to actively seek alternatives. Otherwise our economies and our livelihoods will be held hostage to regimes with conflicting ideologies--and that alone is unacceptable.

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

once the government gets the money from the "C taxes" they won't want to give them up. See my point?

I think so. How is it possible to imagine the anti-nuclear-power "movement" hasn't been an unofficial arm of government for all the years C has been highly taxed?

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

John · Senior Member

I don't know the tax structure in Canada but in the US I think only refined fuel like gasoline, diesel, etc. have large special taxes. Of course I forget the taxes the producing states put on oil extraced too. Is coal taxed?

It is interesting how governments tax things they claim to not like, e.g. tobacco products and then end up raising so much money on them that they can do with it. We'd have a real short fall if eveny one quit smoking. Also, while some complain about the disparity in incomes between rich and poor so much of the income taxes are extract from the rich that if we didn't have all of these rich we'd have to tax the majority of people a lot more!

I really doubt that the government is really behind the anti-nuclear movement...I've always though that it was the fossil fuel companies!

Andrew · Senior Member

I thought it was corrupt environmentalists.

In my country, we have a fission reactor. I don't know what type. Environmentalists heavily protested againts it, claiming high radiation levels.

And guess what turned out to be.

Yup, none of them had any tools to measure any kind of radiation at all. There was no papers or credible measurements done. When the experts arrived, they found out that radiation levels are HIGHER IN THE CAPITOL OF THE COUNTRY THEN NEXT TO THE FISSION POWER PLANT. :D (due to the fact that there are allot of radiotherapy treatments going on in hospitals).

The reason I mentioned corrupt environmentalists is because there is a tax on pollutants caused by standard coal and oil power plants. The tax, atleast some of it, goes to environmental protection agencies that spend the money of forest planting and whatnot to counter the effects caused by coal power plants. However, fission power plants DON'T give such emission, as the only thing regularly going out is water vapour, so there is no tax on them. Naturally, the environmentalists in question don't want a power plant from which they don't get money from.

John · Senior Member

I was always a little amazed back in the 1970s all of the protests that were directed at civilian nuclear power and hardly a peep about the thousand of nuclear warheads and bombs that were being produced. It just seem a stange focus for the fall left. When you learn that Enron was a big advocate of Kyoto you see a little of the same thing.

Andrew · Senior Member

What's funny is that those warhead's plutonium and uranium now powers civil fission plants.

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

Andrew wrote:

What's funny is that those warhead's plutonium and uranium now powers civil fission plants.

So far only uranium: the Pu MOX project has been delayed repeatedly, and its still not clear if it will succeed.

http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6464759p-5758301c.html

Despite costs, S.C. plutonium site will open, officials say
By JAMES ROSEN, McClatchy-Tribune News Services
Published Saturday, April 14, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Senior Energy Department officials insisted Friday that construction of a weapons-grade plutonium disposal facility in South Carolina will start as planned in August despite rising costs and skepticism from some lawmakers.William Tobey, non-proliferation chief in the National Nuclear Security Administration, said it is crucial to move ahead with the decade-long bid to convert plutonium from disassembled nuclear weapons to fuel for nuclear reactors at the Savannah River Site in Aiken County."This initiative shows U.S. leadership in terms of getting rid of dangerous material," Tobey said.Under a 2000 accord that took years to negotiate, the United States and Russia agreed that each country would convert 34 metric tons of plutonium to mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) for use in civilian nuclear reactors in the two countries.But the initiative has been delayed by Russian demands for U.S. economic aid to defray its costs, lawmakers' criticism of rising cost estimates and South Carolina leaders' fears the state will become a dumping ground for the highly radioactive plutonium.After federal courts rejected former Gov. Jim Hodge's lawsuit to block the project, Congress passed a law authorizing South Carolina to fine the federal government up to $100 million a year if plutonium brought into the state is not converted to MOX at scheduled intervals.For the first time, Energy Department officials disclosed Friday that about 10 percent of the nation's 34 metric tons of plutonium is currently stored at the Savannah River Site, one of a half-dozen major complexes for nuclear weapons production during the Cold War. Most of the remaining plutonium is at complexes in Texas, Washington state, California and New Mexico.The officials also disclosed new cost figures and projected operating details for the MOX program.President Bush is seeking $333 million in his fiscal 2008 budget to start building the plant in South Carolina. Construction is scheduled to be done by the end of 2015, with a total project cost of $4.7 billion for a facility -- up from a $550 million price tag in 1998.Plutonium conversion to MOX would begin in 2016, with the Savannah River plant processing an average of nearly 2.3 metric tons a year until all 34 metric tons were converted by 2031."We're doing everything we can to dispose of this material as soon as possible," Tobey said. "We're frustrated that it hasn't gone faster."In addition to the MOX plant, the plutonium disposal also will require construction of a separate facility at Savannah River Site to disassemble and process the plutonium cores -- called "pits" -- at the heart of the nuclear weapons.Tobey said the plutonium pit facility is only about 60 percent designed, and it is too early to project its cost. Energy Department officials said the overall plutonium-disposal effort's cost -- including the two plants and related needs -- could reach $10 billion.Lawmakers angered by the Russians' demands and the MOX program's rising costs held up its funding for this year, prompting lawmakers from South Carolina to intervene.Rep. Jim Clyburn, House majority whip, acted earlier this year to remove language to gut the MOX program from an omnibus appropriations bill funding most of the government. As it stands, construction cannot begin until Aug. 1, under earlier congressional limits.At a congressional hearing last month, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee that funds the MOX project tore into Tobey."From fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2008, the MOX plant construction cost estimates have gone from $550 million to $4.7 (billion), and a shovel hasn't touched the ground," said Rep. Peter Visclosky, an Indiana Democrat.Tobey stoutly defended the MOX project as essential to national security."The MOX program is expensive," Tobey said. "Producing this plutonium was very expensive; disposing of it will be very expensive. It was necessary to do because in part it helped to win the Cold War. This was a national security project, and producing it and ultimately disposing of it are national security-related matters."

-- Edited by 10kBq Jaro at 23:42, 2007-04-16

John · Senior Member

Why not just buy Russia plutonium?

GoogleNaut · Guru

Interestingly enough, the Japanese have quitely amassed a substantial (tens of metric tons?) plutonium inventory. Curious!

I believe we currently or atleast we did buy Russian weapon's grade uranium as a part of the "Megatons to Megawatts" program, which I thought was a really neat program. We paid good money for Russian highly enriched uranium and weapons grade uranium for blending into fresh reactor fuel loads for our civillian power grid. This is a great way to turn something which is a political menace into something very useful.

Instead of seeing plutonium as 'evil' is it not better to blend it into fresh fuel loads and power our cities with this stuff? It would efficiently get rid of it and it could not be easily used for weapons once it was 'down blended.' Further processing of spent fuel to get rid of fission products and reblending allows recycling of the actinides as more fuel. We can thus get rid of the long lived 'problematic' isotopes, and seperate out the fission products which have comparitively much shorter half-lives.

We get the benefits of using a multi-throughput cycle that gets most of the energy producing potential out of the fuels, while at the same time converting the fission products into something more easily storable requiring much less time than originally concieved for the Yucca Mountain Repository. It's a win, win situation if you ask me!

john fraz · Veteran Member

GoogleNaut wrote:
The one thing for sure is that: our dependence upon fossil petroleum energy is a national security issue--since most of the monies spent on our energy goes to mostly politically charged regions with frequently conflicting national interests; the energy we get from those regions is partially dependent upon 'their goodwill' which at times is questionable; and this resource will only be more in competition the more the demand increases... Anything that disrupts that supply, has immediate catastrophic effects on our global economy, especially the economy of the Western Nations.

So in that spirit, it is imperative that we develop substitute energy sources not reliant on fossile petroleum. Renewable energy resources is a start, but it can only be a part of the solution.

So what do we do?

Well, an expanded modular nuclear power program is a good start...

Another avenue is space derived power--although the economics of this is currently 'not favorable.' However, when combined with other space industries, and carefully analyzing material streams and energy (here kinetic energy, i.e., delta-v) balances for various mission trajectories, an economically viable path may be found. But this will be a huge project--the biggest tha humanity has ever attempted.

So whee are we going to be in a thosand years? Still driving SUVs powered by engines based on patents from the 1890s-1920s, and scraping to get into space on expendable boosters derived from WWII long range artillery?
Who knows the particulars, but it is long past time we broke out of our dependence on oil from the Saudis.

Another point that's often overlooked is that greenhouse gasses is the least of the environmental problems from burning dead dinosaur food in IC engines. Has acid rain gotten less of a problem so that we don't even need to consider it anymore? Are modern cars so clean running that incomplete combustion products and insoluble lead salts are not a concern?

Forget about greenhouse global warming, and there are plenty of imperatives to push us away from oil, and running on as we have been, and waiting for market pressures to put in the fix isn't working -or not nearly fast enough. It's time for "top down" management by government, and a gasoline tax is a damn good place to start, whether or not it's tied to carbon emissions.

I couldn't care less if forcing industries or users to pay more for dirty harmful fuel sources is bad for immediate economic concerns. Darwin selection rules here too: evolve to better ways or die out. If industries can't manage to pay for cleaning up their waste streams, and if consumers addicted to the convenience of private cars on public roads can't afford to drive IC engine vehcles anymore, then too bad.
Forcing industries to pay more to build plants to eliminate wastes is called stewardship. It's government's job to make things like this happen.

Having extra public moneys to pay for unorseen climactic change effects is also good stewardship. Only if your head is in the sand are you convinced that the climate our civilizxation's grown up under the past few thousand years, is the norm for this planet.
The climate is chaotic and inherently unstable. All the evidence that this is so is in the fossil reccord.
AFAIC, it's "conservative" science (not too much of a stretch of the data or the imagination) to say that we're heading for radically increasingly chaotic climate, and most likely an ice age.

GoogleNaut · Guru

i don't know--but it seems to me that if the fossil fuel companies would see the logic of staying in business they would get behind an expanded nuclear program. After all, once synthetic petroleum products were being produced directly from say a nuclear-thermal powered Fischer-Tropsch synthesis plant from carbon derived mostly from biomass and make-up coal--they might see the logic of supporting a more 'non-netconsumptative' approach to petro supply.

They way I see it, it is rational to keep the economy functional, and if we continue things as they are, the price of petroleum will steadily (or not so steadily) rise to the point where it will cost too much to transport the very goods that are needed to keep the economy going. Ergo, if the price of fuels becomes so high that nobody can afford to buy goods and services, then we no longer have a free market economy. Infact, we no longer have an economy. Thus, it seems logical to suppose that if the petroleum companies want to be doing business in 100 years, then they should be thinking about the health of the whole economy and not just their own part of industry. And that fact alone should send cold shivers up and down their investors spines--because if the economy fails there will be nothing but global chaos. And then all the gold, cash or liquidities in the bank will be nothing more than dust in the wind!

Regardless of whether one believes that we are accelerating Global Warming--the real issue from an economic point of view is both more immenent and dangerous in my view--because a global nuclear war will cause far more ecological damage than any 2.5 degree rise in global temperature...

John · Senior Member

I think the oil companies are happy with the current situation. They have formed a de facto unholy alliance with the greens. The way it works is the greens block any significant new energy sources and the oil companies just make money rationing what we have a higher and higher prices. After years of fighting the greens they began to is the logic of going along with the deal. No more gas wars!

The other aspect is that the greens like the impractical. Solar no real threat to big oil and the same for wind. The like bio fuel like ethanol. Its still a liquid fuel that you pump and usually mix it with some petroleum product and burn in an internal combustion engine. This is just what the oil doctor ordered. It sort of funny that the greens are really doing big oils bidding and dont even know it.

I heard some interesting statistic a couple of days ago that the Kyoto nations have actually increased their CO₂ emissions more than the U.S. wink

-- Edited by John at 14:36, 2007-12-21

GoogleNaut · Guru

Yeah I've heard some things like that--I don't know how much is true though.

Unfortuntately, what IS true is that if we continue to depend on foreign imports for oil, not only will we continue to finance a lot of nations who are not naturally inclined to think for our co-benefit, but also we will naturally compete for increasingly scarce resources. We run increasing risks of a global energy resource war with oil as the "Prize." We will all lose this contest if it comes to that.

So, we must begin to replace oil as an energy source by other energy sources--currently a nuclear energy based economy is about the most practical and ecologically cleanliest approach right now.

-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 01:44, 2007-12-22

Dusty · Veteran Member

I suspect we are getting close to the truth here. We all "Know" (Including the oil industry) that oil is likly to become a declining resource in the near future (even supposing it already hasnt) and that eventually an alternative will be required.

But

There is a lot of "Old Money" out there that relies on oil trading for its wealth. Were we to "suddenly" develop a new means to produce power these people would likly face an uncertain future. In the mean time, there is still a lot of oil in the ground and there is still a great deal of money to be made from it for the select few.

Now add to this the fact that in many parts of the world. this "Old Money" has a disproportionate influance on the political systems of the countries concerned (I am not really having a dig at the US am I biggrin ) so there is a powerful incentive to keep things as "Buisnes as useual" for as long as possible. (What is more, many governments use taxes on "Fuel" to provie treasury revenue. Mostly people accept this (well, most of the time anyway) a shift to alternatives would prove tricky. there would be a "Great deal" of public resistance to the idea of taxing, say rooftop PV instalations and so on. so although many governments huff and puff about switching from oil, it is not something that any of them are likly to do seriously any time soon.)

Positivly the absolutely last thing the "Old Money" wants is a workable viable alternative to fossil fuel (at least not in the near future anyway) And in particular they dont want Fusion!

(How else can you explain how a project of such potential importance is progressing with such a lack of apparrent official enthusiasim!)

D

John · Senior Member

The point on fusion is well taken. Back in the early 1990s there was a bit of stir as the Princeton fusion research center was approaching breakeven (I know its not a practical engineering breakeven...we've had that battle) and what was the Congressional reaction? They cut fusion funding by about 40% and shut down the Princeton effort. Granted that there is a long way to go before a practical reactor but the political reaction doesn't seem appropriate to the news. The U.S. is so uninterested that we are letting the French take the lead on on this!

Another point is that there is little real effort to expand oil production in the U.S. One would think that $90+ crude oil would spur more drilling in Alaska and off shore. At these levels oil shale and liquid fuels converted from coal should be viable but I see no move in that direction either. One would think that an effective politcal campaign could be make based on anger at gas prices but it isn't happening.

I think that the greens and big oil have come to a de facto "agreement" which is unspoken. The point that new cheap oil source are limited makes sense in this context, i.e. to extend the current situation as long as possible. It's even possible that the relationship is closer than I think. BP's ads are very green in tone. Most of the global warming "solutions" that greens advocate will mostly benefit big oil (but not big coal) as least as far as they are practical. For example making electricity fueled by natural gas rather than coal. Nuclear is the "800 pound gorilla in the room" that just gets pased over in this quest to reduce CO2! In addition many of the green concepts are now being seized upon by industry as they lead to greater capital intensity in energy production and more business for companies like GE.

Given the tightness of world oil and the possibility of disruption do to conflicts this is a very dangerous policy.

GoogleNaut · Guru

Yeah, oil is a big 'ol noose around our collective necks. I used to post quite often on a petroleum investment and marketing research board called "Downstream Ventures" and the thickness of the 'alarm' over there was a little startling. These folks make money by investing in petroleum resources and buying and selling "units" of gasoline and diesel fuel (about 400,000 US gallons.) These folks were the first to spot some anomolous supply issues regarding US imports a few years ago--not by analyzing any data supplied by the DOE or the petroleum industry in the US or abroad, but by simply analyzing the actual number of tanker charters to transport the stuff...they found that even if foreign supply was totally sufficient there simply weren't enough tankers to transport the stuff over here--thus the domestic price of fuels rose sharply...

A very smart, independent analysis...

Anyways, you are right---there is a lot of "Old Money" tied to petroleum trading and a lot of folks are probably not willing to jeopordize their meal tickets--and why should they? They've got a really good going, right?

Well, this is where their personal interests must change. The "Old Money" croud should be very concerned because if the average Joe-citizen can't afford to buy groceries at the store because the price of diesel fuel is $25 US per gallon, and there isn't any corn available for flour (which is $20 for a 5lb bag!) because it is all going into ethanol production for motor fuels then the whole house of cards will collapse.

What happens in the Game of Monopoly when one player ends up with all the properties, all the cash, and no oponents? Game Over. Well, what happens when the average citizen can't afford to buy anything, is starving, desperate, scared, and has absolutely nothing else to lose?

Revolution.

And all the money in the world won't mean a thing because too many people won't have access to any of it...

If things continue as they are, this scenario will play out probably in the next fifty years--I hate to be that alarmist but I call it as I see it...

And a lot of it (perhaps the worst) can be avoided by realizing that we cannot allow the world to overcompete for a useful but shrinking resource--we need to think about shifting our primary energy supplies away from fossil fuel sources--it is just as simple as that...

A nuclear powered synthetic transportation fuels economy can give us some measure of stability and sustainability--it buys us the time we need to come up with something better...

Dusty · Veteran Member

Furthermore, why do the greens (and I mean the intellectual ones, not the foot soldiers here) oppose nuclear power in any form?

Is it about radioactive waste and the possibility of nasty accidents??

No, not really.

They oppose nuclear power because they are afraid it will work!

EH! I hear you say. Well, here's why

Green fundamental reasoning considers that both current population levels and current developed countries lifestyles are unsustainable (and certainly the two combined are unsustainable. Ghandi put it quite well) I might add that I am not entirely unsympathetic to this view BTW!

Now, though they aint going to state this publicly, The intellectual greens actually want an energy crunch in order to halt (and even reverse) economic development. What is more, they also want a major (Like 80% reduction or more!) decline in global population as soon as possible in order to minimise further damage to the biosphere. A great depression triggered by an energy supply collapse throughout the developed world would likely trigger global famine (and warfare) on an unimaginable scale.

Large-scale deployment of nuclear power would blow a hole in these objectives. Now (wearing my green hat!) such a deployment may not prevent catastrophe. But it may well stave it off for a century or two during which time the remainder of the earths natural resources will be totally stripped bare and the eventual collapse will be even more devastating.

As I said, I am not unsympathetic to the argument. I just wish the greens would ditch the "Political correctness" and be honest about it! It's a Numbers game not a technology one!

We (the earth) currently face a crisis the scale of which has not been seen since the "Great dying" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dying) I really believe that this is no exaggeration. I think it is entirely feasible that, if things go on as they have been, within the next century or two we will end up in a world that has no "Wild" animals massing over 5 Kg and no "wild" plants bigger than a gooseberry bush! And yet the greens rabbit on about the evils of Nuclear power and greenhouse gasses as if nothing else matters. If we could solve the numbers problem, neither of these things would be an issue!

If we do not solve the numbers problem. Nature will solve it for us! And in 50 million years it will be like we were never here!

John · Senior Member

I doubt things will go that far. Definitely there is going to be a change. So far we have had bad energy policies because of the great political stalemate and the fact that nothing has really hurt that much yet. I notice that something happen when the lights went out in California.

The real problem with numbers isnt in the currently developed countries U.S., E.U., and Japan but in the fact the rapidly growing (in population) rest of the world is trying to achieve massive economic growth as well. My guess is that population growth will slow with economic development just because women get more assertive under these conditions. So populations can stabilize without greens and their de facto old money allies starving the U.S. of energy.

Its interesting that it is the hard green approach that really will lead to the ecological meltdown that troubles you (Dusty). Certainly wild animals over 5 kg are not becoming extinct in the U.S. in fact they are growing in numbers. In Africa things could well go the other way.

My concern is that radical greens are just becoming obstacles to progress (along with the defective U.S. judicial system) to a balanced view of wise use of resources. Opposition to nuclear power is one part of this but in general their opposition to good forest management is leading to wild fires in the forests that could be avoided of example.

-- Edited by John at 14:44, 2007-12-24

-- Edited by John at 14:45, 2007-12-24

GoogleNaut · Guru

...and I would add that global warfare over remaining resources will certainly escalate to global nuclear conflict once the stakes become high enough. And no amount of industrial pollution will come close to a full up nuclear exchange--burning cities will release more dioxin and nitrogen oxides in one global pulse than has ever been released by industrialization. And I am for population reduction too--however, it must be done in an orderly manner or things will get very messy, very quickly for all of us. Globabl education, unviersal healthcare, and intelligent economic development will steadily raise the standards of living for all. Only a clean, cheap, and plentiful energy source can make this happen...

Ty Moore

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

To me the argument of 'good climate, bad climate' is a tool of monopolized big media to line up a population into believing it needs a reduction in living standards to comply with government rules or suffer penalty (tax).

The turnkey nuclear operation to become energy independent from hydrocarbon energy is not in the formula toward mass control of population.

U.S. government control of U.S. citizen is made far easier if 'unnecessary' public be allowed only limited access to travel within the U.S.
Freedom of movement is restricted for any number of reasons: Bad roads conditions (dis-repair), high cost of fuel/vehicle/fare, security, and besides why would any self respecting American want to travel across the USA-you're just adding to pollution.

Nuclear power is to be demonized, over-regulated and overpriced out of existence.

C-tax is just another layer of taxation on citizens.

America: Freedom to Fascism