Climate Change & Global Warming

[Skunnered]

^^Problem solved!!

[paulb]

looks promising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

i like the bit about burning nuclar waste. and the word cheap is good to.

[Skunnered]

^^If thorium has all the benefits described in Wikipedia, I wonder why it hasn't been widely used for power generation a long time ago. It would be interesting to know the scientific / technical reasons for its use being abandoned away back in the sixties. I would have thought that this is something that the governments would jump at.

[paulb]

maybe the technology has improved. plus we don't need the stuff to go bang anymore.

if it does work and it is cleaner and cheaper then we must look at it.

[Colin]

maybe the technology has improved. plus we don't need the stuff to go bang anymore.

if it does work and it is cleaner and cheaper then we must look at it.

 

Thorium can not start a reaction without being seeded by Uranium or Plutonium. Plutonium does not occur in nature and Uranium has to be refined quite a bit to get the corect isotope.

(There are other ways as well but the technology was just not available at the time)

Anyway, the Allies needed a bomb or two and you can't do that with Thorium.

 

I suspect that the main reason that it has been ignored for so long is that it produces very low levels of fissile materials and, the stuff it does produce is to difficicult to handle. ie; no easy way for the military to use it.

 

Having said that, it appears that India and China (and some others) are taking a very close look at it.

[ArabiaTerra]

On the windfarm thread, while explaining why I think nuclear power in not the answer to Climate Change, I mentioned that we have less than 10 years to "save the planet". I was asked to explain this.

 

Remember the Copenhagen climate conference? One of the few positive things to come out of that was a commitment to keep future temperature rise to within 2 degrees C of pre-industrial levels. This was not just a convenient figure that everybody could agree on, there were genuine scientific reasons for choosing it.

 

To explain these, I need to take you back to the end of the last ice age. The commonly accepted theory behind the ice-age/interglacial cycle is that it is caused by Milankovich cycles, periodic changes in the Earth's orbit. One problem with this hypothesis is that the cycles can only explain part of the warming we see, 2 degrees C out of 6-8 total.

 

There is good evidence to suggest that the rest of the warming comes from feedback processes, in particular, a rise in CO2, triggered by the initial rise in temperatures.

 

Specifically, the 2 degree warming caused by the orbital variations leads to a release of CO2 from natural carbon sinks (principally the warming oceans) which then goes on to cause the additional 4-6 degrees of warming. (This is where the CO2 lags temperature meme the deniers keep repeating comes from.)

 

Coming back to the present, the forcing agent causing the initial temperature rise is not changes to orbital cycles, but man-made CO2 emissions, but the implications are the same, if we go too close to or beyond 2 degrees of increase, then the natural carbon sinks will begin releasing their stores of carbon, causing further runaway warming over which we will have no control. Therefore it seems prudent to avoid going over 2 degrees if we can possibly avoid it.

 

Scientists have worked out that to stand a reasonable chance of avoiding breaching the 2 degree mark, we have to keep the global concentration of CO2 below 450ppm. We are currently at around 392ppm.

 

Going by past and present CO2 emissions, Scientists have calculated that to avoid breaching the 450ppm mark, we have to have at least stabilised emissions by the middle to the end of this current decade, and be reducing emissions by early next decade.

 

That's where the 10 years comes from.

[Guest Anonymous]

Going by past and present CO2 emissions, Scientists have calculated that to avoid breaching the 450ppm mark, we have to have at least stabilised emissions by the middle to the end of this current decade, and be reducing emissions by early next decade.

 

That's where the 10 years comes from.

 

considering that the chinese, indians, etc are going to carry on increasing their carbon output with out restriction then any reduction we make is totally pointless. unless of course your objective is to destroy our economy at a time when the countries mentioned above are going to be going flat out growing their economies. As you are a (should be) committed socialist then it is easy to see why you are so taken with this AGW bull.

considering your departure from your job at SVT then it is understandable that you have such an aversion to the oil industry.

 

and it does make your quote all the more amusing

 

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.~John F Kennedy

 

very apt for the crap you spout on here and in the Shetland news

[shetlandpeat]

China has achieved some improvements in environmental protection during the recent years. According to the World Bank, 'China is one of a few countries in the world that have been rapidly increasing their forest cover. It is managing to reduce air and water pollution

 

According to Mr Wang, last year Beijing had 274 of what are called "blue sky days", which is when the pollution level is under the maximum level considered acceptable by the WHO. In 2007, they had 246 days of blue sky days while in 1998 they only had 100.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7972125.stm

 

 

The report notes that in poor countries some deforestation is driven by the use of biomass as fuel. It cites Africa, where 56 percent of total energy use comes from traditional biomass, as a leading example. Ironically demand for energy crops from rich countries may now be worsening the situation, with hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest in the Amazon and southeast Asia being converting annually for biofuels production.

 

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0508-world_bank.html

 

It appears that it is folk who have too much cash are to blame.

 

 

Although we were part of the initial surge in CO2 during the Industrial revolution, we are now ourselves able to advise and help other countries who want to expand their manufacturing base, as we are their customers.

 

We have instigated this by a need for profit.

 

But, it shows that China are having a look at this and the Indian Gov are taking it seriously with a partnership with a German company with regards recording the CO2 Base and trying to offset on markets.

 

As we all know, oil/gas/coal burning stations are cheap. We restrict nuclear for the privileged few nations, so they have no choice but to build fossil fuel stations

 

I think it may be wrong to make such sweeping stations without first noting that

 

 

considering that the chinese, indians, etc are going to carry on increasing their carbon output with out restriction then any reduction we make is totally pointless. unless of course your objective is to destroy our economy at a time when the countries mentioned above are going to be going flat out growing their economies.

 

now seem s a little inaccurate.

[Guest Anonymous]

Absolutely no idea what the heck you are waffling about SP

[jz]

Absolutely no idea what the heck you are waffling about SP

 

No surprise there.

 

 

 

 

Bobdahog, proud as ever to proclaim his ignorance.

[JGHR]

Absolutely no idea what the heck you are waffling about SP

 

No surprise there.

 

 

 

 

Bobdahog, proud as ever to proclaim his ignorance.

 

In Bobs defence, I doubt if that particular post would have earned the crystal mark.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

I agree with Bobdahog, waffle from Shetland Peat.

 

Hundreds of millions of Chinese have increased the wealth to the point of moving up from bicycle or moped to Motor car.

Car numbers have increased x 90 times in China in the last few decades.

Thay are busy building vast new motorways.

The same can be said of India with regard to the number of people who are becoming consumers the same as we in the West.

Austalia have declared they are increasing coal production by 80% over the next 10 years.

Russia have declared they will maintain oil production at 500 million barrels per year for the next 10 years.

100 more offshore oil drilling rigs will enter the global fleet in coming years.

Vast swathes of virgin hard wood rain forest continues to get cut down.

There is know noticible change of our consumerist lifestyle here in the west.

I am pointing out that Arabia Terra's time schedule of 10 years to save the planet by reducing fossil fuel use is not going to happen , not in the slightest.

So if anybody believes this prophecies of doom, you better stockpile as much tinned foods as you can and get yourselves some good quality fire arms.

The game is up if you really believe this.

 

It is the fact that this prophecy of doom is being peddled to promote the building of the Viking Energy industrial wind farm that I dont agree with.

 

The V.E. wind farm will reduce global co 2 output as much as farting in the bressay gut factory would freshen that atmosphere.

 

As I said before it would most probably take +20 years and vast quantities of the remaining oil reserves to build the utopian green energy infrastructure that is dreamt of, so to late (if you believe it).

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-chinamotorwaysystem.pdf

 

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/01/04/idINIndia-53909820110104

[shetlandpeat]

The post was with regards to bobs sweeping statement, which is incorrect, as is some of yours

 

It's no secret that hundreds of millions of Chinese people are still mired in poverty despite the country's unprecedented economic boom over the last thirty years.

 

 

Where do your figures come from?

 

poverty in China isn't confined to a lower-class minority; rather, the majority (70 percent) of Chinese people are poor.

 

 

Car ownership

 

The number of car owners in China was nearly 50 million in 2008 and then 63 million in 2009. By the end of 2010 and no later than 2011, the number of cars is expected to reach 75 million.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/7006415.html

 

I wonder how many that is per head of population?

 

Meanwhile.....

 

Car ownership went up by 30% to 29.6m, while the UK population rose by 4%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007798.stm

 

As usual, blame others so as we can sit back and feel vindicated with our dozen or so tin cans in a bag waiting for a 22 tonne truck to pick em up.

 

With the evidence to show that there is progression, we may have to stop accusing blindly.

 

The UK owns nearly half the amount of cars than folk in China.

 

I cannot believe that there were only 833,000 odd cars in China 20/30 years ago.

 

The population of China is about 1,331,460,000 which gives the Chinese 0.06 of a car each, terrible are they not .

Yet here 61,838,154 of us in the UK own 0.48 of a car.

 

Oh the links to road building, who said they were not??

 

They are quite behind with their road building and are catching up, yet we have huge road network yet we make these plans

 

* A5 to M1 Link (Dunstable Northern Bypass): £160-218 million

* A6 - Bedford Western Bypass: £27.5 million

* A11 Fiveways to Thetford: £106-147 million

* A13/A130 Sadlers Farm Junction Improvement: £66.7 million

* A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton: £865 million -1.3 billion

* Luton Town Centre Transport Scheme: £23.7 million

* M1 J10 to J13: £503-326 million

 

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/climate_change/roads/east-of-england

 

It is a bit off that you want to stop other countries progressing.

 

If you stopped buying foreign products, who knows, cos that is where the cash is coming from.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Fair comment that some of my figures are not 100% accurate.

 

The point of the post was to demonstrate that reduction of global fossil fuel use is not going to reduce within 10 years and those points I expressed completely back that up,

it might reduce in 20 or 30 years if reserves become depleted or the mass extinction of the human species takes place as Arabia Terra Predicts.

 

 

You jump to the conclusion that I am blaming others for resource consumption and dont want them to enjoy the lifestyles we have.

 

At no point did I say any such thing.

 

It is a fact though that these 2 nations of over 2 billion people are developing their economies to enjoy the lifestyle that we have had for many years now.

 

You have arrived at that opinion with no evidence to back it up, an apology will be accepted.