EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 3:11 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 137
I got this from the premier nuclear forum site that I know. Their point is fairly simple, nuclear is the only hope. The alternatives to fossil fuel just don't meet the EROEI standard. That's Energy Return On Energy Input for those unfamiliar with that critical concept.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/c ... y-storage/

Since hydro is mainly played out, they might have a point from a strictly technological standpoint. However like all technofix gurus they leave out the only real solution - a population reduction accompanied by a considerably lower carbon gas footprint. As far as nuclear, no economic estimate I've seen makes it offer a serious challenge to fossil fuel. Even the Chinese who are about as gung ho for nuclear as any country in the world provide a 2050 estimate that shows it only having a marginal effect on their future total energy picture.

We can run but we can't hide. Without serious population reduction and a lower per capita carbon foot print no plausible solution seems to be out there. I know some folks think a massive migration to outer space is a safety valve but come on, I mean really!

More Trees, Less People!
Tools for Need, Not Greed!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:29 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2267
Location: Central Colorado
I have echoed Hansen's and BNC need to go to the successful Gen IV plans developed in 1994, and thrown away by Clinton. The problem is not just money but the fact that it takes too much time to get them on line.
With the development of graphene filters for removing salt, the crash could be delayed with worse consequences for future people and life in this biosphere.
Overpopulation has led to this near tipping point of ecological ruin from runaway methane releases, which are of enough quantity now to cause the Venus Effect. At a minimum, a Permian type extinction.
What is needed to save this from happening is an early population crash, so emissions are 90% of 1998 level within 8.4 years. This could happen with the financial meltdown as part of the overpopulation effects of lowering wages and rising prices. It could be also instigated by the LaPalma slide tsunami destruction of the US East Coast, or the destruction to the NW coast from the Cascadia Rip tsunami and some distance inland the R-9 earthquake with it. The Katla Volcano can produce a volcanic winter, and also is due.
If these events do not happen, in time, then it must be artificially produced to stop CAGW, overpopulation, and the thermageddon scenario. Or just let it happen and kill off ourselves and most or even all life on Earth.
If it is anything like it has been for me with fighting overpopulation since 1967, humanity will not quit growth and pollution in time. Too little too late. After 2024 and before 2030, then, one or even two super-volcanoes could be "blown" with pattern blast nukes drilled around the magma chamber sides, to near bottom.
Save the biosphere and ourselves, or make it so our existence is only known through space craft and EM signals propagating out . Everything on Earth burned, then hidden in a cloud of CO2, nitrogen, some oxygen, and water vapor enough to cloud the oven planet of 400+*F. Oceans boiled away so even extremophiles are no longer alive.
It would have been really nice if humanity had stopped over-breeding in the 1960s and went to all non-emission power in the 1990s. Trying to reduce emissions that much in that short a time is logistically impossible, except with an early population crash. Accounting for CAGW MOMENTUM, even with this emissions reduction in time, the world will get hotter for 50 years or so then cool back down over the next 350 years.
It could also very well be that the tipping point toward this scenario is already passed, and the deniers got their wish to destroy the world by their utter ignorance, greed, and stupidity.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:55 am 
Online
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 321
Oh boy we're back to "boiling the oceans away" again. :lol:

You need to appeal to your side of the political spectrum. Its the left that opposed nuclear power after Critical Mass was published. Since that time in 1973 all environmentalist groups oppose nuclear power. Its the left that opposes nuclear power today with everything they have until their last breath. Its the left that heaps tons of regulation on the industry. Its the left that imposes huge restrictions on underground repositories. Yes, it a much better idea to keep that stuff here on the surface. :crazy:

On this topic we agree. Much more nuclear power would be better for everyone. But, you don't need to convince me or my side of the political spectrum. The right already agrees with this premise.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:54 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2267
Location: Central Colorado
Milton, you assume wrong. I am a Teddy Roosevelt (the original environmental President) conservationist conservative.
The oceans boiling away will happen under circumstances of the worst case scenario of the methane turnover phenomenon. That is exactly where humanity is headed at this time.
I do not believe people will reduce emissions enough or in time to prevent this. However there are three geologic events due that could crash the population and reduce the emissions and/or give a volcanic winter. The collapse of the dollar could induce a worldwide deep depression which also initiates population collapse with its attendant emissions decrease.
God could come and set aside His Laws of Nature and Physics for our benefit. That would sure be easiest!
Or He, or a group of knowledgeable humans, could force a super-volcanic eruption which would kill two birds with one stone-----human overpopulation and stop the progression of Global Terminal Extinction and Runaway Global Warming (to oven temperatures).
With momentum in the system and its time to react, it would be more guaranteed to stop with Toba AND Yellowstone blowing within a decade of each other.
It is a terrible thing what humans have done to this world, mainly from skipping things like "Replenish the Earth", and ancient wisdom, while committing the deadly sins. I walk the talk, but I am only one out of about 4000, and in this deal, all must walk the talk, or we lose the biosphere forever with the Venus Effect. I don't believe those in any way responsible will get to Heaven. Like denialists such as Morton Fruit. I think you will meet a very angry Father.
The same is true of those who deny Gen IV nuclear is one of the necessary solutions and must be done at record speed. IMHO

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:53 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 137
Milton Banana wrote:
all environmentalist groups oppose nuclear power.

That's of course ridiculous. It has been debated by environmentalists from way back. As a member of the Sierra Club I should know. In large part it has been retarded because businesses don't want to take the risk. It is considered a costly and risky solution.

But you confirm a point of mine. Underneath a conservative republican lives a nanny state acolyte. Nuclear power is nothing if it is not about more and more government. China the model of big government management is nuclear's biggest booster presently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:51 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2267
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Milton, you assume wrong. I am a Teddy Roosevelt (the original environmental President) conservationist conservative.
The oceans boiling away will happen under circumstances of the worst case scenario of the methane turnover phenomenon. That is exactly where humanity is headed at this time.
I do not believe people will reduce emissions enough or in time to prevent this. However there are three geologic events due that could crash the population and reduce the emissions and/or give a volcanic winter. The collapse of the dollar could induce a worldwide deep depression which also initiates population collapse with its attendant emissions decrease.
God could come and set aside His Laws of Nature and Physics for our benefit. That would sure be easiest!
Or He, or a group of knowledgeable humans, could force a super-volcanic eruption which would kill two birds with one stone-----human overpopulation and stop the progression of Global Terminal Extinction and Runaway Global Warming (to oven temperatures).
With momentum in the system and its time to react, it would be more guaranteed to stop with Toba AND Yellowstone blowing within a decade of each other.
It is a terrible thing what humans have done to this world, mainly from skipping things like "Replenish the Earth", and ancient wisdom, while committing the deadly sins. I walk the talk, but I am only one out of about 4000, and in this deal, all must walk the talk, or we lose the biosphere forever with the Venus Effect. I don't believe those in any way responsible will get to Heaven. Like denialists such as Morton Fruit. I think you will meet a very angry Father.
The same is true of those who deny Gen IV nuclear is one of the necessary solutions and must be done at record speed. IMHO

No, not all conservative republicans are "nanny state acolytes" underneath. That is what many democrats are for sure. "Do it for me" instead of do it yourself.
Notice Milton can not respond to the above because it(miltie) is an ignorant blowhard. Only even allowed for unnecessary arguments' sake for Wayne. It is totally certain the progression is from HGHGs, and the oceans contain a dangerous amount of heat getting warmer toward clathrate bombs, blowholes, and incredibly fast change. It seems some people just can not see ahead. Get an instrument rating or get out of the cockpit is what I say, miltskin. Low IQ rear echelon MF.
Deniers are the killers of the world, or at least the cause of inaction resulting in the death of all species and the biosphere, unless there is some intervention or awakening.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:08 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 137
Johhny Electriglide wrote:

It is a terrible thing what humans have done to this world, mainly from skipping things like "Replenish the Earth", and ancient wisdom, while committing the deadly sins. I walk the talk, but I am only one out of about 4000, and in this deal, all must walk the talk, or we lose the biosphere forever with the Venus Effect. I don't believe those in any way responsible will get to Heaven. Like denialists such as Morton Fruit. I think you will meet a very angry Father.
The same is true of those who deny Gen IV nuclear is one of the necessary solutions and must be done at record speed. IMHO

At one time time I posted on BNC's forum and asked if they could come up with a scenario that built nuclear power plants at a rate that would keep up with the 200,000 new people being added to the planet each day much less substitute for existing fossil fuel plants, their stated goal. They couldn't come up with a plausible answer nor could they find any narrative that would supply a nuclear solution to low tech high growth population countries as in Africa. I even acquainted them with their own nuclear favorite China's 2050 energy projection which continued to show fossil fuel as being dominant

As bright and knowledgeable as those folks are, they seem to have settled into being one more true believer religion that have come to believe nuclear offers an unlimited cornucopia of expansion at little or no environmental cost and can be ramped up at some unbelievable rate. They are certainly better at finding fault with other solutions than recognizing any fault with their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:28 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2267
Location: Central Colorado
I agree, because Gen IV time frame is over that for the tipping point of tundra methane positive feedback loop completion.
Less population will only happen with catastrophe, at least enough to affect emissions in time.
Solar is faster, but still limited to manufacturing and installation abilities. Hydro, and wind take a little longer with more expense. Geothermal is even more expensive in a rapidly poorer world.
This catastrophic lessening of population, enough in time to prevent thermageddon, can only be done with something initiating the crash before it happens from lack of food.
This could be from due geologic events or economic failure, or one then the other. If that does not happen in time, then artificial means could do it. A nuclear war could do it and also poison the biosphere to death, unless limited too much, then it will fail with not enough population decline.
Another way is artificially causing a super volcanic eruption by the pressure wave of a geometric pattern underground multi-device explosion.
That has the advantage of lowering population enough AND a long enough cooling period to account for momentum.
In that case, maybe by next interglacial people will have learned to live sustainably, and most of the pollution will be absorbed. Somewhere around 70% of species will still be extant instead of a Permian style or worse extinction. :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Milton Banana, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group