Why don't Climatologists Support Nuclear Power?
I am open-minded but skeptical about human-induced climate change. WDonway's - recent post got me thinking again.
If CO2 is really the culprit, and one really believes it, why then are these same people not clamoring for the only presently viable solution to resolve it, Nuclear Power?
Renewables are clearly too far off, and far too ineffective. If one really believes human-induced global warming is a looming disaster, why are they not pushing to solve it. This seems a simple question to pose to any climate-religious-zealot. I suspect a majority would think for a moment where the funding originates, and decide to take a evasive political stance.
If CO2 is really the culprit, and one really believes it, why then are these same people not clamoring for the only presently viable solution to resolve it, Nuclear Power?
Renewables are clearly too far off, and far too ineffective. If one really believes human-induced global warming is a looming disaster, why are they not pushing to solve it. This seems a simple question to pose to any climate-religious-zealot. I suspect a majority would think for a moment where the funding originates, and decide to take a evasive political stance.
The Ecomodernist Manifesto that I linked to (yesterday?) has quotes such as, "Urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species. Suburbanization, low-yield farming, and many forms of renewable energy production, in contrast, generally require more land and resources and leave less room for nature. " and "Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy. However, a variety of social, economic, and institutional challenges make deployment of present-day nuclear technologies at scales necessary to achieve significant climate mitigation unlikely. A new generation of nuclear technologies that are safer and cheaper will likely be necessary for nuclear energy to meet its full potential as a critical climate mitigation technology...In the long run, next-generation solar, advanced nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion represent the most plausible pathways toward the joint goals of climate stabilization and radical decoupling of humans from nature. "
Here is a link to that document. http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto
I think this is a definite 'things are looking up' moment.
Jan
Anyone care to translate all that?
it out for you plebes. . Hide and watch." -- j
p.s. even Christians believe in the "dominion" principle --
decoupling humans from nature is insane.
.
So many benefits - all 'they' (gov) have to do is go away and let us achieve for a while.
Thanks for starting this thread.
Jan
Gotta keep reading on Thorium reactors.
- - - nameless con-gresscritter 2015
No wonder the military despises civilians. You vote for people who willingly send them out to die for nothing and when they win vote again for the same people to play footsie with the other side while those who bled and died are cast aside.
Like ethanol...cui bono? Agricorps not family farmers and Senators/CEO's are interchangeable parts who serve themselves for the people have no will.
{PS) I see no evidence in the USA of any nuclear power catastrophes including the much hyped Three Mile Island but plenty of evidence all power producing systems are under attack. Let them burn ethanol or some of Al Bores bituminous coal. A little acid rain never hurt anyone - right? I see more evidence of unfettered offshore drilling caused by politicians and industrialists who are major contributors to the Government party but now that's been swept under the rug.
Japan is betting it's life by building reactors on top of major fault lines just as we did in California so that one is iffy.But meanwhile Boardman coal fire plant concerted to bituminous from anthracite due to the lockup of that sort of coal by Al Bore and friends and is now after 35 years being shut down. Last one leaving won't need to turn out the lights.
I never did consider those of us in the combat arms as part of the complex. The pay certainly didn't support that conclusion.
I read that article when you posted it yesterday, and it's always good to hear someone (besides me) who realizes the benefits of nuclear power.
Today's regulatory environment (partly spurred on by the incident at Fukishima) drives up the cost of nuclear plants almost to the point of economic non-viability. I still remember (barely) when the advent of nuclear plants was going to drive the cost of electricity to be "too cheap to meter". If the regulators and some members of the public could put aside their irrational fears, it still could be ... and still be one of the safest energy sources around!
Oh, and by the way, no CO2 emissions...
More realistically, I do not see why the space industry has totally disregarded these nuclear units with which we have a lot of experience. I rarely see this possibility mentioned any more: Is it just because of the weight? Is it politically forbidden?
Jan
Thank you. I always read my father's Analog's...sometimes when he was still reading them. We would quarrel happily over who got it next, and then discuss the stories.
Jan
System for converting rotary motion into unidirectional motion
www.google.com/patents/US2886976
N. L. DEAN 2,. mo UNIDIRECTIONAL MOTION May 19, 1959 v SYSTEM FOR CONVERTING ROTARY MOTION Filed July 15, 1956 4 Sheets-Sheet 1 Norman L.
Patent US3653269 - Converting rotary motion into ... - Google
www.google.com.mx/patents/US3653269
Unidirectional thrust and consequent unidirectional motion are achieved by rotating thrust producing units in a circular orbit. The thrust producing units involve ...
The Dean System Drive « DeanSpaceDrive.Org ...
deanspacedrive.org/?page_id=34
Newton's laws of motion, needed some “amplification” as he was latter on quoted. ... N. L. Dean: System for converting rotary motion into Unidirectional motion
Polarization Shaping for Unidirectional Rotational Motion of ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.103001
by G Karras - 2015 - Related articles
Mar 10, 2015 - Polarization Shaping for Unidirectional Rotational Motion of Molecules. G. Karras, M. Ndong, E. Hertz, D. Sugny, F. Billard, B. Lavorel, and O.
Motion, Control, and Geometry:: Proceedings of a Symposium
https://books.google.com.mx/books?isbn=0...
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, Board on Mathematical Sciences, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences - 1997 - Mathematics
VIBRATIONAL, ROTARY, AND LINEAR MOTION It is a familiar story that Hero of ... systems convert oscillatory inputs into steady unidirectional motion. Recently ...
Unidirectional rotary motion in a liquid crystalline ...
www.pnas.org/content/99/8/4945.abstract
by RA van Delden - 2002 - Cited by 106 - Related articles
Apr 16, 2002 - Irradiation of the film results in unidirectional rotary motion of the molecular motor, which induces a motion of the mesogenic molecules leading ...
Converting unidirectional linear motion into rotary motion ...
www.physicsforums.com › Physics › Classical Physics
Feb 6, 2012 - 17 posts - 6 authors
The linear motion of the pistons is converted into circular motion of the axles .... The device I need would require a unidirectional linear force.
Unidirectional rotary motion in a molecular system ...
www.researchgate.net/.../12810237_Unidir......
ABSTRACT The conversion of energy into controlled motion plays an important role in both man-made devices and biological systems. The principles of ...
Searches related to rotary motion to unidirectional motion
rotary motion examples
rotary motion wikipedia
rotary motion physics
science definition rotary motion
rotary motion to reciprocating motion
rotary motion is the output of which electrical output device
rotary motion calibre remix
rotary motion sensor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next
I have read speculation that if not for the anti-technology movement of the late 1960's, we might already be living in an enclave that is what we consider our dream-future. I am glad that we saved the whales; I am not glad that it was at the expense of our dreams
Jan
Environmentalism has nothing to do with science, logic, or economics. It is the religion of Gaia worship, considered a useful tool, filled with useful idiots by promoters of Communist ideology.
Thorium research was stopped in the late 50's because the military had need for uranium, and breeder reactors were needed - and that's why we went down that path which was halted in the 70's.
Had that not happened, electric cars would have happened in the 70's-80's, battery technology would have improved in the 90's, and we wouldn't have been dependent upon furin oil. the Middle East wouldn't have had their wealth, Bin Laden wouldn't have come to power, we'd still have two towers standing in Manhattan, and we wouldn't be worrying about the Middle East melt down.
When politicians complain about the rich they should be required to disclose their net worth. When Obama talks about "Fair Share" he should be required to explain his share and how he acquired his fair share. Etc., etc., etc.
I think I might actually listen more to someone that practices what they preach and sets the example for others to follow, rather than than the blowhards. Especially someone like Obama or Hillary. Both of them have to be laughing their asses off at the stupidity of the people. I actually appreciated it when that Gruber guy needed to smart off and tell the world the truth behind getting Obamacare passed (but no one listened anyway). And now no one listen to the facts about the new Libyan/Benghazi documents that surfaced. You know, some other documents that Hillary `forgot' to turn over from her server. After all `she' didn't delete her copies, `someone else' did.
The truth is meaningless anymore in this country. The only thing we can do is Vote, and Vote Smart, and often.
In order to have nuclear power plants a government agency has to ALLOW them to be built but as we know that is not about to happen anytime soon.
As for the population being reduced; the way governments are doing things it is taking place.
War; starvation to name a couple.
If they were really sincere in their fear, they would not dare call an annual conference at one ritzy city after another, and fly in on 1200 business jets and rent out every chauffeured limousine on the continent of the venue. As they did for COP-15. I remember. That was the Climate-gate year.
What did you do in the nuclear industry? I've worked on submarines one way or another pretty much my entire career.
They hadn't a clue
Jan
A few years ago I interviewed a well-meaning activist who thought the ISM-band signals from wireless water meters posed a health risk.
http://www.element14.com/community/commu...
It opened my eyes to how scary the world can be to well-meaning people who don't understand science.
I think of Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". That's been the norm for human history, and I think we're slowly coming out of it b/c science and reason help modern people get the things they want.
Jan
* (second word is "Magic")
Any thoughts on how can the ignorant be FM-educated to support the right answers?
I remembered this article when we started Schuyler House - I was the chief trainer back then. If I had trouble relating how to work the software, I would try to find some relation to an everyday task. Once, the trainee was so...uh...challenging, that I finally made up a little song, "Three letters of the last name. Comma. Three letters of the first name. Enter...."
If I recall correctly, Kimball Kennison also taught an heiress about space travel in a similar fashion.
The problem is that change is happening so quickly that you can barely find a metaphor before the user interface changes again.
Jan
operators of the "calutrons" at y12 where I worked.
of course, there were more women available for work
during ww2, yet the scientists wanted to operate the
controls of these u235-separating contraptions
themselves. . they used very heavy magnetic fields
to bend the flight of uranium atoms boiled from a
tiny source and collected after their flight through
the magnetic field. . constant adjustment was
needed, as the boiling rate and field strength were
varying all the time.
someone suggested that they ask some of the
available laboratory women to operate the controls.
they did much better than the scientists. . they took
over the job for the rest of the war. . back then, they
were called the calutron girls. -- j
p.s. see the last paragraph in "Scaling Up..." ::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron
.
Jan
and that you brought us tales of exciting travels!!! -- j
.
The original Orion project in the late fifties through the early seventies is still a great idea. There is still ongoing argument that NASA had the concept first or the scientists and engineers at General Atomics. The experimentation on using small nuclear explosions against a large ablative pusher plate to propel a large spacecraft into space was a part time project at GA. The actual technology was fully engineered but was halted due to the nuclear test ban treaty. The engineering even worked out to mitigate the radiation from the small nuclear blasts behind the craft. Today, it could be built in the space probably at a lagrange point then thrusted out well away from Earth to start the continuous explosion process. We could be on the way of colonizing the solar system and beyond. In reference to Analog Magazine, a number of years back a well known scifi writer wrote an article that had a design of magnetic field generators to protect the astronauts from cosmic rays.
4,000 tons/40 meter Dia. Pusher
Plate.
60km/sec impulse
Using Atomic Explosives w/urea
for radiation mitigation.
Super Orion: 300 million tons, 10,000 - 60,000
km/sec impulse.
400 meter Pusher Plate.
1000 Hydrogen bomblets @ 2-3
megatons payload to reach 1/30th-
plus the sppeed of light.
Ref : "Project Orion" by George Dyson (son of Physicist Freeman Dyson); Pub: Henry Holt & Co.,N.Y.; first ed.-2002; ISBN: 0-8050-5985-7.
These folks never bring up nuclear power, as it might work. They never question if the US government or the Russian government is heating the ionosphere and causing some changes, why is that? Not once have I heard an environmentalist confront DC on that. Why, because they do not think. The Sierra is one of the NGOs helping put Agenda 21 in place.
There is a relatively small amount of waste. The idea that we have to plan for thousands of years with today's technology is incredible hubris. Captain Kirk will be along in a couple hundred years. Don't you think we'll have better tools then?
I have no idea what percentage of climatologists support AGW, based on the reports I've read. Somewhere between 36% and 97%, depending on the survey.
They surveyed all the papers that had key phrases such as "climate change" and "global warming" in the abstract -- a selection biased in favor of AGW.
Next they reviewed the 11,000 papers for indications whether the paper made a statement on whether humans caused global warming. Approximately 34% of the selected papers did.
Of those papers, 97% indicated that humans were causing global warming.
And they put out that 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming.
Of course it's also legitimate to say that if you select papers based on warming related phrases such as "global warming" and "climate change" 33% of the papers indicate human causation.
I'm sure if we polled alchemists in 1400 AD and asked if it was likely they would ever convert lead into gold, 97% of them would have given a hardy YES!, and as proof they would trot out convoluted arguments that no one could understand.
Hopefully, this time around, we we look at history, we don't see the scientists that were right burned at the stake or arrested like Bruno and Galileo.
Who's "them"?
"climate change" has nothing to do with what is going on. If that was not the thing they would find something else. So, one must always keep a few things in mind about the "environmentalists" or whatever they are currently calling themselves.
They are not interested in winning, what they want to see is other people lose.
They don't not love life, not even their own. They hate life and see placing artificial regulations in the way of living as a good thing.
Especially since we must keep in mind that there is a bottom number for the number of BTUs of energy available per capita below which civilization goes away because it is no longer possible. Human life consistently gets better because we use energy to do what would otherwise be very boring time consuming work. The washing machine was probably among the greatest most liberating inventions in human history. Right up there with refrigeration and electric light. We got those because we had enough of an energy surplus after staying warm and getting fed to start devoting that surplus to inventing and manufacturing things to make life easier. Amazingly enough those very things make it possible to use more energy even more efficiently.
Which leads to the next point. There is a wild difference between efficiency and denial. The "environmentalists" claim to want efficiency. But what they actually preach is denial. Freezing your ass off might use less energy, but it does not use it more efficiently. The only way we get increases in efficiency is by people using brain power to find a better way. The best way to encourage that is to allow the very inventors of that efficiency to reap the rewards of their work. Anything less is an attempt to pretend that A=%
In the meantime..
I am kind of with the "environmentalists" on light water reactors. Those things are what you get when you let physicists and mechanical engineers do chemistry. But we are in luck.. Folks are starting to do real work towards building a better reactor.
http://www.transatomicpower.com/
CO2, far from being harmful, is a basis for life on earth : plants and plancton use it to grow, animals in turn consume plants, and living matter is litteraly made from CO2 (in order of importance, the 4 elements entering living organisms composition are Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen).
Not only it is the basis for life, but it is also an avoidable byproduct of the activity of every living thing, as well as every technological process.
Climate alarmists, by pointing finger at CO2 for some imaginary ill (actually there is no such thing as global warming, we are in fact in a coolong period), found the perfect target, because of its omnipresence and also its unavoidability.
Their next problem is to maintain the illusion until it has become undisputable, they are really busy "adjusting" temperature records every year to make it look like they are right. Their goal is the extinction of the technological advances of our civilization.
The fact that nuclear power does not incur a significant release of CO2 (which is totally irrelevant anyway, like the ozone "problem" before) and is in fact so much cleaner and safer is a problem for them, which they prefer to push under the rug, but which shows their total hypocrisy.
political quandary -- it is their lifeline;;; they own stock
in Solyndra, or whatever it is this week. -- j
p.s. it's directly parallel to the "race industry."
.
we could do nuclear in a snap and thumb our noses
at the OPEC nations, plus many others -- and use
North Dakota oil for our classic cars forever!!! -- j
.
behind a 302 which got 33mpg at 75. . no joke! -- j
.
2-speed power glide! Bulletproof transmission.
That car would be worth something.
My butt was about four inches off the ground or so it seemed and one had to be on the lookout for any sort of rut, pot hole or whatever. It was not made for US highways. The insurance was ....for those days sky high. Next tour I switched to MGB-GT. Sold both for more than I had paid and the third go round settled for a Land Rover.
In Panama Canal Zone I joined the motorcycle club and the choices were Triumph, BSA or Harley. One dollar per cc which included shipping. Gas was far far under a dollar a gallon. Do you remember 35 cents to 55 cents? Tax included. Wages were less but disposable income was higher. Three of rented an apartment while attending a school in Washington DC. Groceries were $150 a month minus perishables. For all three The apartment was also $150 a month. Per Diem was $20 a day.
THOSE were the good ole days
.
they still helped me give myself emphysema. -- j
.
One of my soccer buddies is 63. After a game, he has an IPA, and a pipe. The guy is slower than the 30-somethings, but solid as a rock. I bet he ends up living to his 90s like your dad.
I never saw the point, but I got my start a little later than you I think. I do drink too much though. How's that?
I was a smart, but weird kid. I used to say to people on the street, "Johnny Unitas says don't smoke", when I was like 3-4 yrs old. My mother was mortified.
have a rumble all its own. -- j
.
like this (without the cowcatcher):::
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=1977...
man, will that thing tow a boat!!! -- j
.
and you can eat lunch while she tows the boat
up the ramp!!! -- j
.
Nelly and I delivered food for family and horses
and she was a real trooper! . but the hilarious
event was getting stuck in low range on our land
45 minutes away . . . in high range, that's 45 minutes.
after some wild fiddling around with a pair of pliers,
we got back into high range and came home.
there is threadlocker on that adjustment fitting, now. -- j
p.s. you do remember Nellybelle from the Roy Rogers
show, yes? . http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nell...
.
I watched Little Rascals, Three Stooges and Looney Tunes reruns on Sat morning.
However, I want a Jeep like that, with a more modern drive train that will do 2x45 mph.
I forgot. . there's nothing like an old jeep -- the
rumble, the bouncing around with the terrain,
the sense of Go Anywhere!!! -- j
.
Really want a Dodge Lil Red Express, that I swap a Cummins turbo-diesel into. That would be fast as lightning, and very cool.
http://cars.oodle.com/detail/1979-dodge-...
it's in PA, so it might not be too far away..... -- j
.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jeep-Comanche-Pi...
it's in Massachusetts and I don't know where
you are ....... I bought a Subaru Baja from a friend
and it was wrecked by another friend, so I bought
a second one. . the 2nd one has a turbo! -- j
.
I bought my last 5 cars on eBay (my last 2, my wife's last 2 and my sons), 4 of them sight unseen. No issues so far.
I think nuclear will make a comeback in my lifetime, either because of rising fuel costs, concern about local pollution and global climate change, and advances in making nuclear even safer.
I even have a work buddy whose wife is a professor of climatology, but absolutely nothing she has pointed me too is more than coincidence and appealing to the potential risk IF the coincidence is correct. "Adjusting"prior temperature data from which Global Cooling was prophetized in the 70s is really not helping my suspicions that this is anything but a power play by the Greenies.
Show me the models predicting where we are from where we were. Show me that someone can prove they understand the physical system well enough that we should entrust our freedoms to them. Show me that I should pay $7,500 to someone buying a Tesla, that the EPA should have power to legislate CO2, or that we should have invested $400M in Solyndra.
The only obvious benefit from reducing our CO2 emissions is an corresponding increase in national security by reducing the strength of our asymmetric enemies in the Middle East.
If this could really be shown then given necessity, Nuclear Power MUST take off. It is clearly the only option to address the need, and in doing so, we trivialize the Middle East Threat.
Because it is not obvious, it makes the overall response lackadaisical, which is inefficient in cost and time, and worse, points the consequential investment to longer-term, unaffordable renewable sources. If you are right, we are doing the wrong thing. Convince me and I'll become a vocal supporter, as any good skeptic should do.
I would extend this argument to what you said on Middle East national security issues. Using Middle Eastern oil for fuel or plastics has costs that should be borne by those who do it.
Again though, you are asserting there is sufficient information to levy a burden on others. You seems to be avoiding pointing me to fundamental technical arguments demonstrating the need for this action. Are you taking the position that enough people have agree, therefore it must be correct?
I accept the expertise of scientists who have found something that we all wish weren't true because there are trillions of dollars worth of economic activity powered by burning stuff. It's not that their conclusion must be correct. Science by its nature is open to new evidence. The evidence at this point is CO2 emissions are affecting the climate in costly ways. We should be working on ways to capture the carbon, run reactions (maybe in plants) that consume carbon, find energy sources that don't emit carbon, and find ways to drive the climate to suit human interests.
BTW - Ford invented the NiMH battery tech that the original Prius used.
BTW, I think the organelles' function is more certain than AGW. They're only analogous in that I'm not an expert in either one. In any case, I accept scientific opinion over what I wish were true.
The bar is higher for that assertion.
I am pleased to read interesting but irrelevant science about mitochondria, spider husbandry, electric eels, quarks and social behavior. The minute someone want to use this information as a basis for power, it is time to become and expert, or be a lemming, and there is never a time to be ignorant of the facts but assert to others they are correct.
Question is. What happened to the rods used in the other plants? Was there no one to say "Quick go grab one each from plants 2, 3 and 4?
Yes we knew the Eureka and the Diablo Canyon plant near CalTech were built over a major fault line. They made a movie about it. But it wasn't on our check list.
And you still want to vote the supporters of socialist science back into power?
You still want to put the same people back into power and in charge of nuclear power plants?
Personally from my own perspective I've had enough of winning wars to ...how was it....see defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
This decade its global warming, oh wait now its just climate change since "consensus of grant beggars" does not equate to proof. Back in the 60s and 70s it was the impending ice age from global cooling.
It was BS then and its BS now.
The only A=A involved is the same groups pushing each direction.
There's no denying that. There's millions to be made studying the climate. The trouble is there's tens of trillions of dollars (yes, 10^13) of economic activity associated with burning stuff. This is why people deny reality.
Still think "A=A" is noise.