NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, Greenpeace, or at least one of its founders, has joined the vast right-wing conspiracy and now says 1) build more nukes, and 2) there's no proof global warming is caused by humans!

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

Will this finally cause Kyotophiles and Al Gore acolytes to admit that the issue is not settled?

Personally, I doubt it. They have too much invested in panicking the public into backing their schemes. But, if even the founder of Greenpeace can express doubts, maybe there's hope after all.

:p Obviously he can't have reasoned that on his own. Must be getting bribes from Big Energy corporations! Everyone knows the global warming greenies are acting out of altruism, and anyone who disagrees MUST be an eeeeevil capitalist bastard!

I take common-sense steps to minimize pollution because I believe it's my obligation to be a good steward of God's green earth. I don't think we're causing global warming, though. Mount Saint Helens probably did far more toward that end than all of humanity did in all the last century.

The point of what he said is that there is a significant chance that Global Warming is real, and that the appropriate response to it is to focus on the generation of electricity with nuclear reactors, not that we shouldn't stop polluting the atmosphere.

Uh... Did you even read that article?

(A) While he says there isn't proof he goes on to say that it is likely enough that the world needs to get away from fossil fuel based power stations (such as coal) which produce greenhouse gases, saying that while he isn't certain "True Believers" like Al Gore are right he thinks the risk of them being correct is high enough that action needs to be taken.

(B) Patrick Moore, while being the founder of Greenpeace, is no longer associated with Greenpeace and actively pursues agendas that Greenpeace has historically opposed.

Right, and it's Al Gore and the "Kyotophiles" who are bleaching the Great Barrier Reef and melting Arctic ice just to fabricate Global Climate Change.

:rolleyes:

Yes, Greenpeace, or at least one of its founders, has joined the vast right-wing conspiracy and now says 1) build more nukes, and 2) there's no proof global warming is caused by humans!


No, in science there is only evidence, not proof. However, there is strong enough evidence and enough of it for us to continue on with the assumption the Global Warming is
1. Real
2. Caused by humans

Right, and it's Al Gore and the "Kyotophiles" who are bleaching the Great Barrier Reef and melting Arctic ice just to fabricate Global Climate Change.

:rolleyes:

...
...
*hides bleach and acetylene torch behind back*

Uh... Did you even read that article?


This is New Mitanni. So no.

...
...
*hides bleach and acetylene torch behind back*
Why do you have to use bleach? Hydrogen peroxide and dynamite is more effective... :rolleyes:

Why do you have to use bleach? Hydrogen peroxide and dynamite is more effective... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I tried that once, but no one bought the idea that rising ocean pHs were detonating the reefs.

Global warming is a plot by the Dutch to take over the world.

to be honest it sounds like he broke away from Green peace over Nuclear energy more then anything else.

My take on global warming it might not be 100% man's fault, but we are not helping.

I don't think the temperature change is drastic enough to cause the reaction green peace is calling for. A 100 year shift to alternative fuels( especially nuclear) is perhaps the most reasonable answer.

When we come down to it nuclear energy looks to be the only reasonable way to meet the worlds energy needs with out fossil fuels, which is the main reason Greenpeace fails since they denounce fossil fuels and denounce the only reasonable alternative at the same time.

That reminds me of this (http://www.satirewire.com/news/april02/green_fuel.shtml) story...

Global warming is a plot by the Dutch to take over the world.

Yeah, but you can say that about the West Indies and Pay-Per-View as well.

Yeah, but you can say that about the West Indies and Pay-Per-View as well.

It all makes sense now. Damn the Dutch! Is there no end to their treachery!?

Uh... Did you even read that article?

Uh . . . yes, I did read that article.


(A) While he says there isn't proof he goes on to say that it is likely enough that the world needs to get away from fossil fuel based power stations (such as coal) which produce greenhouse gases, saying that while he isn't certain "True Believers" like Al Gore are right he thinks the risk of them being correct is high enough that action needs to be taken.

The point remains that he, like so many others, questions the existence of the phenomenon.

He's right that we do need to get away from fossil fuel-based power stations for any number of reasons, such as health issues, depletion, etc.


(B) Patrick Moore, while being the founder of Greenpeace, is no longer associated with Greenpeace and actively pursues agendas that Greenpeace has historically opposed.

Which is why I added "or at least one of its founders." And as for now opposing historic Greenpeace agendas, if he can come around, there may be hope for the others.

This is New Mitanni. So no.

Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you stuck on stupid with the ad hominem attacks?

to be honest it sounds like he broke away from Green peace over Nuclear energy more then anything else.

My take on global warming it might not be 100% man's fault, but we are not helping.

I don't think the temperature change is drastic enough to cause the reaction green peace is calling for. A 100 year shift to alternative fuels( especially nuclear) is perhaps the most reasonable answer.

When we come down to it nuclear energy looks to be the only reasonable way to meet the worlds energy needs with out fossil fuels, which is the main reason Greenpeace fails since they denounce fossil fuels and denounce the only reasonable alternative at the same time.

Reducing or ending reliance on fossil fuels is the wise course for any number of reasons. Nuclear power is one alternative. Personally I also support hydrogen power, especially for vehicles. But emotional responses based on inadequate and misconstrued data are a poor basis for doing so, and IMO are being instigated in support of an agenda that includes a lot more than just shifting fuels.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

Questioning the existence of the phenomenon?! He says it's happening, and it's pretty likely that humanity is, at the very least, not helping.

The point remains that he, like so many others, questions the existence of the phenomenon.

The phenomenon "global climate change" is observable fact. Doubting that it happens is like doubting rocks normally fall down when you drop them - philosophically interesting but not really practical.

Debating if humans are a significant cause is more useful.
However, while it is in no way certain that we are a significant cause, there is enough reason to at least strongly suspect we are. There is also quite enough reason to believe that the consequences of the predicted climate change are very, very bad indeed.

So why not be cautious instead of waiting till we are certain we are doomed or not ? At the very least we will learn how to better manage finite resources and create less garbage. That will benefit us in the long run even if a little costly now.

Of course, if the "global warming is all caused by nature and there is nothing we can do about it" people are right there is no real long run - in that case most of civilisation is doomed anyway no matter what we do.

But let us go for optimist Gore instead of the depressing "cannot do anything" of the opponents.

Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you stuck on stupid with the ad hominem attacks?

That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I said your argument was flawed because you were *insert insult here*. What I did was that I pointed out that you did not read the article, because you said it said something it didn't say, and that you have a history of doing this.

The point remains that he, like so many others, questions the existence of the phenomenon.No, he's questioning the influence mankind has on it, and takes that it's a real possibility that mankind does have an influence into account.
He's right that we do need to get away from fossil fuel-based power stations for any number of reasons, such as health issues, depletion, etc.Like there's no health issues where nuclear power is concerned...
Which is why I added "or at least one of its founders." And as for now opposing historic Greenpeace agendas, if he can come around, there may be hope for the others.How's the weather in Wishfulthinkingland?

Reducing or ending reliance on fossil fuels is the wise course for any number of reasons. Nuclear power is one alternative. Personally I also support hydrogen power, especially for vehicles. But emotional responses based on inadequate and misconstrued data are a poor basis for doing so, and IMO are being instigated in support of an agenda that includes a lot more than just shifting fuels.

hydrogen can not be an energy source.
because it comes from 2 sources.
source 1 fossil fuels. you basically use a steam treatment to knock the carbon molecules off of the hydrocarbons that make up fossil fuels. problems you lose the energy that was stored in the carbon portion of the hydro carbons and you release Co2 in the air.

source 2 water. use electricity to make hydrogen from water. turn hydrogen into water and collect electricity. problems you always come out in the hole this way. really just simple conservation of energy here.

It could be used as a medium of energy say transferring energy from nuclear energy to hydrogen then running your car off of it. But batteries do so more efficiently and so would require less energy over all.

So can we use Patrick Moore the same way New Mitanni and others use Al Gore now? That is, act like he's the human personification of the No (anthropogenic) Global Warming movement and that discrediting him discredits the whole movement and disproves its hypotheses and theories.

So can we use Patrick Moore the same way New Mitanni and others use Al Gore now? That is, act like he's the human personification of the No (anthropogenic) Global Warming movement and that discrediting him discredits the whole movement and disproves its hypotheses and theories.
No, we've already got Fred Phelps for that :D

The point remains that he, like so many others, questions the existence of the phenomenon.
He's questioning the fact that it's "proven", not the supposition that humans are responsible itself. I agree with him that all the evidence is circumstantial, but that even in the lack of a concrete proof, there's enough of such evidence to make a very convincing case.

Plus, I agree about the importance of nuclear energy. Admittedly, we need better mechanisms for waste management (and I'm not talkiing about using depleted uranium as a weapon) and more research into the techniques behind it, but it's a much better energy source than fossil fuels.

No, we've already got Fred Phelps for that :D

Nah, he's for dismissing all religious people.

No, he's questioning the influence mankind has on it, and takes that it's a real possibility that mankind does have an influence into account.
Like there's no health issues where nuclear power is concerned...


if nuclear waste is stored right the health risk is a lot lower then what we currently use.

if nuclear waste is stored right the health risk is a lot lower then what we currently use.Leukemia rates in children are double around nuclear powerplants than what they are elsewhere, and that's despite the fact that there is no higher radiation.

Leukemia rates in children are double around nuclear powerplants than what they are elsewhere, and that's despite the fact that there is no higher radiation.

well it is actually a 21% increase. And the author of the study said that the study has some flaws in it.
http://www.epinews.com/news5_leukemia_rates_elevated_near_nuclear_facilities_metaanalysis.html

Yes, Greenpeace, or at least one of its founders, has joined the vast right-wing conspiracy and now says 1) build more nukes, and 2) there's no proof global warming is caused by humans!

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

Will this finally cause Kyotophiles and Al Gore acolytes to admit that the issue is not settled?

Personally, I doubt it. They have too much invested in panicking the public into backing their schemes. But, if even the founder of Greenpeace can express doubts, maybe there's hope after all.

here follow the first two paragraphs of the article you link to.

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.


ok. let's compare.

article reports P.M. said "there is no proof, but it is likely that switching to nuclear power (id est stopping anthropic emission of greenhouse gases) will be needed; the chemical composition of athmosphere is changing and we need to abandon fossil fuels"
new mitanni says "P.M. says there is no proof and that we should build more nuclear weapons"

Clearly, someone should read better the links he wants to provide before posting. Seesh. :p

Also, the article seems quite idiotically biased (that is, biased towards idiocy) when the journalist claims that nuclear power needs previous nuclear weaponry testing. This guy should be reminded that first you build a reactor, not a bomb. First Fermi at Chicago, only afterwards Trinity at Alamogordo.

Reducing or ending reliance on fossil fuels is the wise course for any number of reasons. Nuclear power is one alternative. Personally I also support hydrogen power, especially for vehicles.

Ehm... are you aware of the small differences between "nuclear power" and "hydrogen power"?

Nuclear power is a source.

Hydrogen is a vector: that is, it can be used to store or transport energy. There is no hydrogen equivalent of oilfields. The most abundant and available source of hydrogen would be water, but you have to use an astounding amount of energy to split 2 molecules of water into 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 molecule of oxygen.

To sum it up, you can use nuclear power as a source and transport/store energy by using the power you get from uranium fission to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Or you can use wind or solar power as source.

well it is actually a 21% increase. And the author of the study said that the study has some flaws in it.
http://www.epinews.com/news5_leukemia_rates_elevated_near_nuclear_facilities_metaanalysis.html
Not the study I'm referring to. (http://www.kinderkrebsregister.de/) (--> Publikationen --> 2007)

if nuclear waste is stored right the health risk is a lot lower then what we currently use.
Is that guarantee good for the next 100,000 years?

We’ve a duty not only to protect our immediate ancestors form health risks of nuclear waste, but to our ancestors who’ll be around for the half-life of the most dangerous waste.

We’ve a duty not only to protect our immediate ancestors form health risks of nuclear waste, but to our ancestors who’ll be around for the half-life of the most dangerous waste.

Why?

Why?

Gratitude from generations 1, 000 years in the future ain't gonna feed ma family.

I say we burn the hippies for fuel, win-win for all.

Gratitude from generations 1, 000 years in the future ain't gonna feed ma family.

I say we burn the hippies for fuel, win-win for all.

I wish that was an option in an NS Issue. I'd totally pick it.

What a stupid thread title.. Clearly the OP'er didn't read the article at all.
Horrible.

Anyway, I think nuclear power should definitely be looked at by a few more countries. Apparently it works fantastically in France

Nuclear power I don't is a viable widespread solution to GW, for one uranium reserves are finite, and secondly storage of massive amounts highly danger dangerous after product is still very iffy and that stuff doesn't go away for over 100,000 years at least. For example, go to Russia and you'll see entire towns near plants are irradiated at dangerous levels, the drinking water is contaminated and if you take a measuring device it goes off the chart of what is safe.

Combine that with the 'other' uses of nuclear material, I don't think it's worth it in the long run, certainly not with solar as a viable alternative as California has proven.

I wish that was an option in an NS Issue. I'd totally pick it.

Well get a game mod to add it then! Yeesh. Can't believe you don't use your modly authority to get what you want. 'Sides more issues need options like that.

First, the title of this thread was extremely misleading. Patrick Moore no longer associates with Greenpeace, and is a total sellout.

Second, as previously mentioned, the dangers of nuclear waste far outweigh the zero emissions, and hydrogen uses a crapload of fossil fuels to make it usable.
Solar, wind, and a few more energy producers are much safer and more efficient.

I wish that was an option in an NS Issue. I'd totally pick it.After unsettling the UN, can NationStates seriously afford infringing on a Dilbert cartoon?

But, if even the founder of Greenpeace can express doubts, maybe there's hope after all.

ok, while partially you can be blamed for not reading the article, the statesman also deserves part of the blame. moore is a co-founder of greenpeace, sure. but he hasn't been associated with them for decades. like 1986ish. since then he has done lots of things with industries passing themselves off as green, and has long been called a sell-out. starting in the late 80s/early 90s.

Proof that people really can read what they want to read, rather than what is written.

ok, while partially you can be blamed for not reading the article, the statesman also deserves part of the blame. moore is a co-founder of greenpeace, sure. but he hasn't been associated with them for decades. like 1986ish. since then he has done lots of things with industries passing themselves off as green, and has long been called a sell-out. starting in the late 80s/early 90s.

How the hell could you be a sell out in this sort of thing? Climatology isn't some hip new underground indie scene, it's a science and a very mainstream one at that.

How the hell could you be a sell out in this sort of thing? Climatology isn't some hip new underground indie scene, it's a science and a very mainstream one at that.

he started shilling for industry groups based on his alleged credibility as a founder of greenpeace. that has been his primary occupation for 20 years or so. he is called a sell out in the pejorative sense of compromising his former principles in exchange for cash.

Okay, so here we see a poster that finds it easier to believe that global warming is a conspiracy made up by people that want to hurt America, having made such claims in the past, than to believe in all the evidence and research about global warming.

I'm thinking of a psychological disease that begins with P and a quality that begins with S.

he is called a sell out in the pejorative sense of compromising his former principles in exchange for cash.

What principles did he compromise and what examples can you give which shows that he did this?

What principles did he compromise and what examples can you give which shows that he did this?

let's try the obvious one. what was greenpeace founded to do?

Is that guarantee good for the next 100,000 years?

We’ve a duty not only to protect our immediate ancestors form health risks of nuclear waste, but to our ancestors who’ll be around for the half-life of the most dangerous waste.

there is this desert in Nevada that is amazingly stable and by all odds isn't going anywhere for 100,000 years. I say we bury the crap out there.

Can we get this thread changed to something less misleading and dishonest and stupid?

Like perhaps, "New Mitanni Now Officially in Denial!"

Yes, Greenpeace, or at least one of its founders, has joined the vast right-wing conspiracy and now says 1) build more nukes, and 2) there's no proof global warming is caused by humans!

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

Will this finally cause Kyotophiles and Al Gore acolytes to admit that the issue is not settled?

Personally, I doubt it. They have too much invested in panicking the public into backing their schemes. But, if even the founder of Greenpeace can express doubts, maybe there's hope after all.

The article says neither of those things. I had at least always assumed you could read, however apperantly even that was giving you too much credit.

he started shilling for industry groups based on his alleged credibility as a founder of greenpeace. that has been his primary occupation for 20 years or so. he is called a sell out in the pejorative sense of compromising his former principles in exchange for cash.

I wouldn't use the term sell out. My understanding was he was always the odd man out in green peace, who thought nuclear power in the future might be made useful and was more concerned with local environmental change rather then global change.

Reducing or ending reliance on fossil fuels is the wise course for any number of reasons. Nuclear power is one alternative. Personally I also support hydrogen power, especially for vehicles. But emotional responses based on inadequate and misconstrued data are a poor basis for doing so, and IMO are being instigated in support of an agenda that includes a lot more than just shifting fuels.

Er, NM, while I agree with a lot of what you're saying, there's no such thing as "hydrogen power". Hydrogen requires significantly more energy to produce than we get out of it, and the physics says that will never change. Hydrogen is a damaging illusion.

Is that guarantee good for the next 100,000 years?


With currently available technology, we could bury fission waste into subsiding rifts of the ocean floor. In some thousands of years, the subsidence will take it down into the mantle, which is half-liquid and radioactive. In the meanwhile, the monstruous pressure on the ocean floor will keep the waste safe and secure.

Currently the UN consider such practice ocean dumping... even if you bury the wastes into 500 metres-deep wells into the ocean's rocky floor.

I agree that it's better to cause some economic damage if we're wrong than to risk major disasters if we're right.

While hydrogen won't be able to fully replace oil, it COULD replace gasoline. Use renewable energy (which method is irrelevant) to produce hydrogen fuel, then run cars on the hydrogen.

I think that the dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated - somewhat. Nuclear power is dangerous, there's no denying that. But I can only name two nuclear accidents of note, only one of which (Chernobyl) resulted in a nuclear disaster. The French have relied on nuclear power for the bulk of their energy needs since the 70s, and I can't find any mention of an incident in France. If we have a good safety program (like whatever the French have), we should be able to avoid another Chernobyl.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with nuclear power is waste. Placing it near subduction zones is nice, but offhand, I can't name a subduction zone that isn't near a highly populated area. Alternatively, we could place it in some giant wasteland - maybe Saudi Arabia - where the local geology is stable, and if something DOES happen, there isn't anyone nearby to care.

Finally, we really need to redouble our efforts on the fusion front. Fusion is not only clean, it provides even more bang for your buck than fission. If we can get sustainable fusion, we'll be set for the forseeable future.

I agree that it's better to cause some economic damage if we're wrong than to risk major disasters if we're right.

While hydrogen won't be able to fully replace oil, it COULD replace gasoline. Use renewable energy (which method is irrelevant) to produce hydrogen fuel, then run cars on the hydrogen.

the renewable energy source will always be more effective then hydrogen. because hydrogen's use for fuel is a net energy loss. hence why batteries are much more likely then hydrogen.


I think that the dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated - somewhat. Nuclear power is dangerous, there's no denying that. But I can only name two nuclear accidents of note, only one of which (Chernobyl) resulted in a nuclear disaster. The French have relied on nuclear power for the bulk of their energy needs since the 70s, and I can't find any mention of an incident in France. If we have a good safety program (like whatever the French have), we should be able to avoid another Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was caused by communist corner cutting.
and in all fairness the majority of French reactors are located out of France to avoid political fall out.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with nuclear power is waste. Placing it near subduction zones is nice, but offhand, I can't name a subduction zone that isn't near a highly populated area. Alternatively, we could place it in some giant wasteland - maybe Saudi Arabia - where the local geology is stable, and if something DOES happen, there isn't anyone nearby to care.

the Marianas Trench is a subduction zone which is not near a major population area.
Finally, we really need to redouble our efforts on the fusion front. Fusion is not only clean, it provides even more bang for your buck than fission. If we can get sustainable fusion, we'll be set for the forseeable future.

not enough is know about fusion to say for certain but I am beginning to have my doubts it will ever be a useful energy source simply because the amount of heat you need to get fusion to take place(requires nuclear energy to get it that hot). on earth it just seems too likely to cause problems. Space travel is a different story.

Is that guarantee good for the next 100,000 years?

Yes. I don't know about regulations in other countries, but Swedish nuclear waste is sealed in copper cannisters which are obliged by regulation to last for a minimum of 100,000 years.

Yes. I don't know about regulations in other countries, but Swedish nuclear waste is sealed in copper cannisters which are obliged by regulation to last for a minimum of 100,000 years.And if they don't, we'll sue the guys that sealed them!

And if they don't, we'll sue the guys that sealed them!

So how are they going to make sure the canisters are good for 100,000 years exactly? How do they even test them to be sure it'll last 100,000 years? Easy to make promises when you'll be long dead before that time.

So how are they going to make sure the canisters are good for 100,000 years exactly? How do they even test them to be sure it'll last 100,000 years? Easy to make promises when you'll be long dead before that time.Exactly. ;)
They don't have to make sure they last the full guaranteed 100,000 years, just that they outlast their lifetimes.

decided this was worth a long post...


IMHO, nuclear energy is a great in-between way of generating power without burning FF, however it gives us this lovely radioactive crap that we have to deal with, currently the favored(sp) way of dealing with it (certainally here in the UK) is digging a big hole in the ground and burying it... after some treatment and reclaimation of course.

there are some vast expanses of desert on this planet that not much lives in... provided it aint the bonneville salt flats, pretty much anywhere else out of the way seems alright...

problem is, when uranium, an other potential "fuels" for this source of energy start to run out, we get to a similar situation to one that we have now... there will reach a point where extracting uranium is not profitable, for whatever reasons... altho there will be less "carbon" emissions, which the greenies will appreciate...

The "Global Energy/Enviromental Crisis" as i see it:

we have 2 problems.

1. there are alot of us. by us i mean humans, look at any global population graphs and you'll see the steep rise...

http://www.edu.ue-foundation.org/images/chart.jpg

http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/surp/surp96/laughlin/stat/3D_tutor/world_pop.gif

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1154/IMAGES/Int_Banking_Summer_School-2.gif

...this means that there are alot of people who want/use alot of power... so, regardless of new, "green" energies, there will always be a demand for cheap power, regardless of cost, after all, what gives us the right, in the western world to tell china/india to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to something more expensive/difficult to set up/use/maintain when we've been burning those same fuels since at a rough guess, en masse since the late 18th century...


2. money.

see above...kinda...

energy is in demand, any people want to pay as little as possible for as much as possible, i mean, over here people went on strike when petrol hit 80p/ltr last weekend i payed £1.15/ltr... granted, most of that is TAX, but why is it taxed so harshly? beacuse people want it, and its easy money for the guvmunt.

the person who creates an "enviromentally sound", cheap, reliable source of energy will either be very rich or very dead...

so, all-in all... sod greenpeace, give money to scientists, engineers and inventors to push new fuels forward, since when have hippies ever advanced civilizations?

thanks for reading...

Al.

Moore left Greenpeace because he said that it had been taken over by political interests and the focus shifted from environmentalism to anti-capitalism and anti-globalization. This is true, not just of Greenpeace but of the environmental movement as a whole. It puts a lot of true environmentalists and conservationists at odds with what society views as environmentalist.

The problem with nuclear fission waste isn't as big as you'd think and a lot of the fear and opposition towards it stems from the only 2 civilian meltdowns in history. Only 1 incident resulted in death and the death toll was actually quite low, only 56 caused by radiation poisoning and thyroid cancer (which can be treated), due to a rapid response by the Soviet authorities in containing the area and evacuating everyone from the region. The release of radiation was much lower than it could have been and the accident was caused by plant operator error and poor design. I mean, who tips their control rods with graphite? That's a mod that'll only increase the reaction. And besides, I think positive void coefficient reactors are illegal in the United States.

Nuclear fission still does present the fastest way to clean energy and the waste can actually be a source of new fuel for the next generation of reactors as well as a source of fuel for advanced rocket propulsion technolgies like the Nuclear Pulse Rocket and Nuclear Thermal Rockets. It would also provide the time needed to continue IEC fusion research and start building the fusion reactors that would eventually take over for the fission reactors. Of course the eventual goal should be to build a Dyson Sphere or Swarm in stages so that all of the sun's energy can be harnessed and we can move up the Kardashev scale to level 2.

I think James Lovelock (another ex-greenpeace guy) had it dead right when it comes to nuclear power vs fossil power

"Whats worse, 50 000 posible dead from 1 meltdown every 50 years, or 500 000 000 dead from the effects of global warming?"


Much as the so called 'green'* movement hate it, we have to go nuclear.

The only wind power solution to our power needs is to build pumped storage hydro plants that can store the wind's energy , but site for that sort of thing are few and far between, banning 10% of cars from Britian's roads will only makes 3% dent in CO2 emission at best.

Going full on nuclear like France removes over 25% of our CO2 emissions with NO loss in living standards.
Couple the nuclear option with laws governing the efficency of domestic appliances (eg Whirlpool would have 5 years to make their washing machines use 5% less power and water for the same load).

El-Presidente Boris

*actually I'm sure the green movement would be better named the " we want everyone back in wooden huts eating dung" movement

Nuclear power I don't is a viable widespread solution to GW, for one uranium reserves are finite, and secondly storage of massive amounts highly danger dangerous after product is still very iffy and that stuff doesn't go away for over 100,000 years at least. For example, go to Russia and you'll see entire towns near plants are irradiated at dangerous levels, the drinking water is contaminated and if you take a measuring device it goes off the chart of what is safe.
Shows how much you know. Ever think of removing the actinides from the waste and using them as fuel? Besides, Pu only has a half-life of about 25,000 years and is a fuel in both explosive devices and power plants. In other words, you can get Pu fuel out of U waste. All that's left are some undesirable, unusable fragments and impurities and they don't stay a danger for anywhere near the time.

And did you consider that waste reprocessing combined with breeder reactors could extend the usefulness of mined U by 60x or more? I didn't think so. You're opposition to this technology exposes you as the arrogant, reactionary, bourgeoisie elitist you really are.

Combine that with the 'other' uses of nuclear material, I don't think it's worth it in the long run, certainly not with solar as a viable alternative as California has proven.
Exerpt from the Wiki page on the California Solar Initiative
"Residential installation starts in early 2007 fell off sharply because of the disincentives inherent in SB1, requiring time-of-use (TOU) tariffs, with the result that homeowners who install panels may find their electric bill increasing rather than decreasing. The governor and legislature moved quickly to pass AB1714 (June 2007) to delay the implementation of this rule until 2009. Critics believe the governor's lack of action is due to bias towards freezing technology as observed in the documentary Batman & Robin (1997)."
It's nice to see that gaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Quinlan/gaming) is alive and well.

It would be nice, although in reality it seems hard to justify investing in something as capital-intensive and uncertain as a nuclear power plant when you could invest in a combined wind power/peaking plant system instead and avoid most of the work necessary to get that plant up and running. Plus, it would be up and running a lot more quickly. (Speaking of which, T Boone Pickens apparently wants to build a 4,000 MW wind farm...that's a nuclear scale plant in and of itself.)

That being said, I'm a wholehearted supporter of nuclear power. If we can build those plants and phase out coal once and for all, it will be 100% worth it. If we could get a plentiful source of biogas up and running, we could use natural gas plants instead, but right now nuclear appears to be the best long-term choice. One interesting fact people don't realize is that US nuclear power production has increased fairly considerably over the past 20 years or so despite no construction of new plants; if we can use up spare capacity at existing plants, that alone would produce a considerable amount of new power.

here follow the first two paragraphs of the article you link to.


ok. let's compare.

article reports P.M. said "there is no proof, but it is likely that switching to nuclear power (id est stopping anthropic emission of greenhouse gases) will be needed; the chemical composition of athmosphere is changing and we need to abandon fossil fuels"
new mitanni says "P.M. says there is no proof and that we should build more nuclear weapons"

Clearly, someone should read better the links he wants to provide before posting. Seesh. :p

Also, the article seems quite idiotically biased (that is, biased towards idiocy) when the journalist claims that nuclear power needs previous nuclear weaponry testing. This guy should be reminded that first you build a reactor, not a bomb. First Fermi at Chicago, only afterwards Trinity at Alamogordo.

heh...beat me to it...

That opening paragraph really makes no sense at all...

Well, I was going to explain the potential benefits of nuclear power, but Indri beat me to it, so I'm just going to say that nuclear power is not the great evil that some people think it is.

Also, Greenpeace is a worthless organization notorious for its jackassery.

decided this was worth a long post...


IMHO, nuclear energy is a great in-between way of generating power without burning FF, however it gives us this lovely radioactive crap that we have to deal with, currently the favored(sp) way of dealing with it (certainally here in the UK) is digging a big hole in the ground and burying it... after some treatment and reclaimation of course.

there are some vast expanses of desert on this planet that not much lives in... provided it aint the bonneville salt flats, pretty much anywhere else out of the way seems alright...

problem is, when uranium, an other potential "fuels" for this source of energy start to run out, we get to a similar situation to one that we have now... there will reach a point where extracting uranium is not profitable, for whatever reasons... altho there will be less "carbon" emissions, which the greenies will appreciate...



Changes in international law need to take place so nuclear waste can be dumped in subduction zones so that nuclear waste can be disposed of by the earth's mantel. More then likely when fuel prices are stupidly high The US will lead the way by withdrawing from said treaty that prevents said common sense dumping of nuclear fuel.

Well nuclear fuel is what we call a for the foreseeable future fuel with increasing energy demands oil will run out in 50 to 100 years. coal will run out with in 300 to 500 years. nuclear fuel will last between 5,000 and 10,000 years. think of it like this a nuclear energy pellet 7 cm long provides the same amount of energy as 1 years worth of coal form a coal power plant.

there is this desert in Nevada that is amazingly stable and by all odds isn’t going anywhere for 100,000 years. I say we bury the crap out there.
Not much of a guarantee there.

With currently available technology, we could bury fission waste into subsiding rifts of the ocean floor. In some thousands of years, the subsidence will take it down into the mantle, which is half-liquid and radioactive. In the meanwhile, the monstruous pressure on the ocean floor will keep the waste safe and secure.

Currently the UN consider such practice ocean dumping... even if you bury the wastes into 500 metres-deep wells into the ocean’s rocky floor.
Interesting...

Yes. I don’t know about regulations in other countries, but Swedish nuclear waste is sealed in copper cannisters which are obliged by regulation to last for a minimum of 100,000 years.
On top of that, we’d need to make sure the cannisters were in a secure location for the next 100,000 years. Again, not much of a guarantee.

On top of that, we’d need to make sure the cannisters were in a secure location for the next 100,000 years. Again, not much of a guarantee.

We could hide them in Ann Coulter's vagina. :D

So how are they going to make sure the canisters are good for 100,000 years exactly? How do they even test them to be sure it'll last 100,000 years? Easy to make promises when you'll be long dead before that time.

The same way you design anything for longevity: by working out the worst case scenario in terms of conditions they'll face and designing to exceed those specifications. You can also stage short-duration tests to predict their behaviour over long lengths of time, in the same way that automotive manufacturers leave cars in exposed positions in, for example, the Arizona desert for a few years to simulate the the effect of many more years weathering in a friendlier environment.

On top of that, we’d need to make sure the cannisters were in a secure location for the next 100,000 years. Again, not much of a guarantee.

To continue using the Swedish example, one of their underground locations is built into a layer of rock which has remained practically unchanged for nearly 2 billion years: the chances of anything drastic happening in the next 100,000 (a blink of an eye in geological terms) are vanishingly small.

We could hide them in Ann Coulter's vagina. :D

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that she has one.

Also, Greenpeace is a worthless organization notorious for its jackassery.

What basis do you have for saying that? Everything Greenpeace does is to save the Earth and everything that lives on it. Since when has trying to help people been worthless?

Shows how much you know. Ever think of removing the actinides from the waste and using them as fuel? Besides, Pu only has a half-life of about 25,000 years and is a fuel in both explosive devices and power plants. In other words, you can get Pu fuel out of U waste. All that's left are some undesirable, unusable fragments and impurities and they don't stay a danger for anywhere near the time.

And did you consider that waste reprocessing combined with breeder reactors could extend the usefulness of mined U by 60x or more? I didn't think so. You're opposition to this technology exposes you as the arrogant, reactionary, bourgeoisie elitist you really are.
I assume you're talking about integral fast reactors? It's a shame Clinton cut the research funding.

let's try the obvious one. what was greenpeace founded to do?

Good point, still I don't see how changing your opinion is the same as 'selling out', it's not as if anyone actually offered him shit loads of cash just to publicly announce support for nuclear power (unless you have proof).#

Edit: oh yeah, and if you want to know the actual reason he left:

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization in 1986 when it decided to support a universal ban on chlorine, which Moore has called "the biggest advance in the history of public health" and "essential for our health."[17] Moore has argued that Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science, noting that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education."[17]

What basis do you have for saying that? Everything Greenpeace does is to save the Earth and everything that lives on it. Since when has trying to help people been worthless?

since they stopped having scientist on their board of directors.

since they stopped having scientist on their board of directors.

Neither do most governments. They do have consultants that are scientists though.

Neither do most governments. They do have consultants that are scientists though.

Yet Greenpeace consistently take part in activism based on complete scientific naivety, not that they don't do good things also, but some of the stuff they do is completely retarded.

Neither do most governments. They do have consultants that are scientists though.

scientists sit in various positions in the government's executive branch, department of energy etc...
I do not want scientists to make laws for me thank you.

What basis do you have for saying that? Everything Greenpeace does is to save the Earth and everything that lives on it. Since when has trying to help people been worthless?

If you want to help people, there are much better organizations to support.

scientists sit in various positions in the government's executive branch, department of energy etc...

But they are not the president, vice president and so on. Which is the "board of directors" of the USA.

Does that mean the US government is useless and cannot help people ?
Wait - don't answer that ;)

What basis do you have for saying that? Everything Greenpeace does is to save the Earth and everything that lives on it. Since when has trying to help people been worthless?
-I'd say their opposition to civilian nuclear power not linked to weapons development for a start.
-Their push for a ban on chlorine which was pointed out just a few posts prior to his one.
-They oppose both controlled use of DDT in the countries plagued by Malaria.
-Their opposition to GE foods actually got a lot of people in Africa killed. In August 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Program.
-They destroyed a coral reef by ramming it with their ship while 'on a mission to protect it' or some shit along those lines in 2005.
-They were banned from the IWC One of their ships pulled a Sea Shepherd during a "protest" in Dec '05/Jan '06 when it collided with a Japanese research vessel.
-They've lied about trees and deforestation a couple times for the publicity.

They're really just a step away from the pirate and terrorist Paul Watson and his SSCS.

-I'd say their opposition to civilian nuclear power not linked to weapons development for a start.Well, it's certainly impractical to say 'No' to nuclear power... For the next fifty years, at least. I wouldn't strictly say 'Bad', though.
-They oppose both controlled use of DDT in the countries plagued by Malaria.Given that the overuse of DDT in Malaria-plagued areas led to tolerances that made its use ineffective before its negative effects on the environment were even observed, which resulted in it being abandoned for the purpose of Malaria-control well before the ban came about, combined with the use of modern pesticides to achieve, well... In essence, essentially the same... I don't really see what the problem is here. As it is, the problems caused by increasing tolerances among Anopheles & co mean that the use of insecticides will never be sufficient - the only way to get rid of malaria is to eliminate the swamps (Which we did, in Europe. DDT the main reason for the elimination of Malaria here... Ha! Good joke).
-Their opposition to GE foods actually got a lot of people in Africa killed. In August 2002, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Program.Wouldn't that have been... Zambias decision? And I'm sure you'll forgive me for considering the possibility of Zambia's, ah... Somewhat unconventional politics playing a role there.[/QUOTE]

Worth noting that Greenpeace is also one of the organisations actually opposed to biofuels (Which our idiot chancellor is trying to push through for some inconceivable reason; presumably the agricultural lobby or some such thing), since they actually did their math on the overall environmental balance thereof - which is horrifically negative.

And that's not exactly what you'd a populist 'We don't care about the facts' environment-oriented organisation expect to do.

Also worth noting that although Greenpeace' 'Never!' stances are more publically known, they're not their standard practice - their campaigns to, lets say, stop overfishing are explicitly meant to ensure the sustainability of our exploitation of fish stocks, preventing their complete depletion, and not to end fishing forever.

You want to take a look at nutjobs? Look at PETA. Greenpeace is nowhere near that level, and although it's certainly not perfect and occasionally overdoes things - overall, I'd consider their actions (Which are, in any case, 99% information, rather than the publicity-rich stunts) to have a pretty positive balance.

As for alarmism... Honestly, I don't mind it overly much. I remember the eighties/ early nineties, with campaigns saying that whatever water we're using will never be as clean again. Complete bullshit, of course - with sufficient investments in water treatment plants, and general reduction of poisonous emissions by the industry, our water's been getting cleaner for over a decade, now. But without this alarmism, the public pressure that was needed to get politics (And the industry) to actually do something would not have occured as fast, the damage would've been greater, the costs to deal with it (And therefore the taxes required to do so) would've been greater, too...

Alarmism can be dishonest, but at the same time, it can be quite useful, not to mention an actual moneysaver.

And lifesaver, come to think of it.

How's the weather in Wishfulthinkingland?

Its ok, never been better.

Its ok, never been better.

Brilliant nation name :)

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that she has one.

Well, assuming it exists, and one can get past the teeth, it's the safest place on Earth. :)

Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you stuck on stupid with the ad hominem attacks?

Not every personal attack is ad-hominem ... only if it is meant as a tactic to discredit your argument. In this case on a forum it could just as easily be simple discussion about your history on this board

Patrick Moore plays the xylophone! (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/patrick+moore/)

Is that the kind of man you want answering phones at three in the morning?

Patrick Moore plays the xylophone! (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/patrick+moore/)

Is that the kind of man you want answering phones at three in the morning?

You've got the wrong Patrick Moore.

Wouldn't that have been... Zambias decision? And I'm sure you'll forgive me for considering the possibility of Zambia's, ah... Somewhat unconventional politics playing a role there.
They came to that decision because of Greenpeace's campaing against GE food. They showed up at some meetings and whatnot saying that GMOs are poisonous and destroy the environment and made a lot of other discredited and unsubstantiated claims. As a result some leaders allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes and a lot of people died as a result.

You want to take a look at nutjobs? Look at PETA. Greenpeace is nowhere near that level, and although it's certainly not perfect and occasionally overdoes things - overall, I'd consider their actions (Which are, in any case, 99% information, rather than the publicity-rich stunts) to have a pretty positive balance.
I wouldn't. They want to turn the clock back on food and energy production and a lot of their members and supporters are either in favor of or a stone's throw from wanting to get rid of medical research.

As for alarmism... Honestly, I don't mind it overly much. I remember the eighties/ early nineties, with campaigns saying that whatever water we're using will never be as clean again. Complete bullshit, of course - with sufficient investments in water treatment plants, and general reduction of poisonous emissions by the industry, our water's been getting cleaner for over a decade, now. But without this alarmism, the public pressure that was needed to get politics (And the industry) to actually do something would not have occured as fast, the damage would've been greater, the costs to deal with it (And therefore the taxes required to do so) would've been greater, too...

Alarmism can be dishonest, but at the same time, it can be quite useful, not to mention an actual moneysaver.

And lifesaver, come to think of it.
No end justifies the means of lying.

You've got the wrong Patrick Moore.

Are you telling me there's more than one? Psssh. Next you'll be telling me that Earth orbits the Sun.

http://img117.exs.cx/img117/9585/q9crolleyes.gif]