Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

Page 10 of 11 [ 164 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

20 Nov 2013, 4:47 pm

AspE wrote:

Jono wrote:

It's much better than the regulation of carbon. Nuclear power stations have a 0% carbon emission rate and they release only steam into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is basically just steam generated power, using the heat generated by nuclear fission to boil water. Eliminating carbon emissions for power use is far better than reducing them.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The water emissions from nuclear plants ruin the surrounding waterways environmentally due to excess heat. Building a nuclear power plant requires huge inputs of fossil fuel, as does mining the uranium. And they are very expensive to clean up when they fail, as they will.

Firstly, nuclear power stations release far less water vapour into the atmosphere that coal power stations release CO2 because most of the water is recycled. Secondly, water vapour is also far less of a problem than CO2 anyway because it's part of the Earth's natural water cycle and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere can drop rapidly within days or even hours due to local weather patterns, whether it falls as rain, snow or hail. Any CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, on the other hand, can remain in the atmosphere for centuries. The amount of carbon emissions needed for transportation and mining of the required materials is also extremely low compared to the carbon emissions from coal power stations. Finally, nuclear power is actually the safest method of power generation compared to the others and has killed far fewer people even if you include the major disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Nov 2013, 5:10 pm

AspE wrote:

eric76 wrote:

How many nuclear power plants have failed? What percentage is that of nuclear power plants?

It doesn't take many to make a big expensive mess.

The overall safety record of nuclear power generation is better than coal fired plants. The kind of air pollution exhaled by coal powered plants causes deaths in the tens of thousands due to pulminary complications and ischemic hear failure. Coal plants are much deadlier than nuclear power generating facilities.

How many deaths resulted from the failure at three mile island. Zero.

Not so good news for Chenobyl however. The Russians built sh***y unsafe reactors which were operated by drunken komimisars.

Japan turned out to be a disappointment. The suits running Fukishima Dai Ichi were no better than their western counterparts.

ruveyn

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Nov 2013, 6:31 pm

It's the same with radiation, it causes cancers but we won't know until later through statistical analysis.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

20 Nov 2013, 7:27 pm

AspE wrote:

It's the same with radiation, it causes cancers but we won't know until later through statistical analysis.

Coal power stations actually release more radiation than nuclear power stations. Also, it's not the case that any amount of radiation causes risk as we are exposed to background all the time. Almost everything is radioactive to some extent due to it containing a small amount of radioactive isotopes. Did you know that a bananas are radioactive enough to set off radiation sensors used to detect smuggling of nuclear materials at US ports?

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

20 Nov 2013, 7:40 pm

Jono wrote:

AspE wrote:

It's the same with radiation, it causes cancers but we won't know until later through statistical analysis.

Yes, due to an isotope of potassium. But at least coal plants can't melt down. I'm not in favor of coal plants either.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

20 Nov 2013, 8:22 pm

AspE wrote:

Jono wrote:

AspE wrote:

It's the same with radiation, it causes cancers but we won't know until later through statistical analysis.

Yes, due to an isotope of potassium. But at least coal plants can't melt down. I'm not in favor of coal plants either.

The thing is, compared even to renewable energy sources, nuclear power causes the lowest number of deaths per kilowatt of electricity generated and that includes accidents as well as health related deaths. Coal power, on the other hand, actually has the highest due to both the amount of pollution it creates and accidents as well. At this point, I'd rather take my chances with the risk of nuclear meltdown because even despite meltdowns, the nuclear option is both the safest and healthiest. Take a look here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Nov 2013, 12:12 am

ruveyn wrote:

AspE wrote:

eric76 wrote:

How many nuclear power plants have failed? What percentage is that of nuclear power plants?

It doesn't take many to make a big expensive mess.

The real problem in Japan is where they put it. On the other hand, are there really any good places in Japan for a nuclear reactor?

Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

21 Nov 2013, 4:24 am

I would disagree. Japan simply is too near to actively moving tectonical borders.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

21 Nov 2013, 5:20 am

Schneekugel wrote:

I would disagree. Japan simply is too near to actively moving tectonical borders.

Japan's 3rd generation reactors were able to withstand the earthquake and tsunami. It turns out the reactor at Fukushima Dai Ichi that melted down was an older 2nd generation design from the '60's that had design flaws in it that they weren't anticipating. They didn't expect that a tsunami could cut off the backup coolant systems, the tsunami was larger than what it was designed to handle.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

22 Nov 2013, 12:04 pm

AspE wrote:

It's the same with radiation, it causes cancers but we won't know until later through statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis has been done.

This is the best review I could find: http://www.ijponline.net/content/36/1/60

And the results are...

... we can't tell.

Some studies show a relationship (particularly ones conducted in Germany). Most are inconclusive (i.e. they do not show a relationship, or any slight relationship they do show is better explained by other factors). The study that was most definitively against was in Finland, but that didn't have many subjects who lived very close to the plant. The question remains open.

I'd never actually looked at this, getting my information second hand. I had been told it was much more conclusive.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Nov 2013, 9:53 pm

Jono wrote:

Schneekugel wrote:

I would disagree. Japan simply is too near to actively moving tectonical borders.

They did not build their sea-walls high enough to keep out the Tsunami. That is what ultimately wrecked Fukishima Dai Ichi.

ruveyn

Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

25 Nov 2013, 4:16 am

ruveyn wrote:

Jono wrote:

Schneekugel wrote:

I would disagree. Japan simply is too near to actively moving tectonical borders.

They did not build their sea-walls high enough to keep out the Tsunami. That is what ultimately wrecked Fukishima Dai Ichi.

ruveyn

Thats exactly what I mean. Japan is that near to active moving tectonical borders, that its simply hard for any kind of engineers to do calculation, that can guarantee 100% safety for the time, a reactor stands. Just as building substances gets naturally older. The nowadays new reactors, will as well have bad building substance in 80 years.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Nov 2013, 1:11 pm

Schneekugel wrote:

Japan is one of the last places on earth to build any kind of dams or energy producing facilities with a great deal of potential energy. Precisely because it is on the Pacific "Ring of of Fire". So you are quite correct.

ruveyn

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

27 Nov 2013, 4:57 pm

From http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/:

Quote:

Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts don’t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.

Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views.

“Political ideology was the factor next most strongly associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming. This also goes against the idea of scientists’ opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists’ opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,” writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.

“The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public,” Stenhouse writes.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

28 Nov 2013, 7:42 am

It is obvious that you are not a scientist, because you didn't check the raw data!

A moment's examination shows you have taken an article from a laughably right wing website, so there is a considerable amount of spin in what they publish. Very few people responded, only just over 1000, which is not representative, particularly as many of those who replied are not scientists, and more are not climate scientists.

Looking at the paper: "Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics, were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence."

"Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth & Lichter 2012, Bray 2010).

It also found that increased expertise correlated with increase views that climate change is caused by man.

It is a pity that significant minorities of experts let their Conservative views blind them.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Nov 2013, 10:05 am

The_Walrus wrote:

A moment's examination shows you have taken an article from a laughably right wing website, so there is a considerable amount of spin in what they publish.

Are you suggesting that the left wing sources don't put considerable spin into what they publish?

Page 10 of 11 [ 164 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility Post Reply New Topic

Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility