10

Why don't Climatologists Support Nuclear Power?

Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 11 months ago to Science
147 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Totally agree. Energy independence is the least expensive method to nullify the Middle Eastern threat. Not sure we had what it took in materials for battery tech in the 70s/80s, but nothing drives like needs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 9 years, 11 months ago
    Of course this is not about climate change, climate change is normal. This is about power. Obama and his TPA bunch want to ban all fossil fuels, leaving just windmills and solar panels - no mention of nuclear. How better to control people, maybe lose a few who freeze as a bargain.Carbon credits are illogical. One area pollutes based on the credits from another, yet it all goes into the same atmosphere.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 11 months ago
    1st...there is the problem of waist...where do we store this crap. 2nd, We didn't cause climate change, it's a sun cycle (silly) 3rd...it's likely gona get real cold, so don't sell your winter woolies! Check out Maunder Minimum! Post Script...We actually could use more Carbon in our atmosphere, it's an electrical dispersant and we will need it cause our shields are down 20-25%...can you say; Carrington event? Here is the problem though...carbon released at ground level tends to stay at ground level...ie low in our troposphere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The effect of carbon has been exagerated.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Since humans living an affluent life produces lots of carbon, the strongly **preferred conclusion** is that there are no long-term costs of our emissions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You got it right as intended. If the scientists were running things with real science instead of the politicians with what I call socialist science or running things with a view to correct paperwork versus practical requirements. Problem is the bad philosophy of collective ownership and control not going together means the scientists are not in charge. So we end up with two nuclear power plants on top of the northern end of the west coasts biggest fault line. Might be different if they didn't go together and the politicos had to butt out. It's the same in the military. Shooters and REMFs and behind the latter are the most untrustworthy people in existence ....but they keep getting voted back into office again and again. And THAT is the real danger for any endeavor be it nuclear power plants or baking a cake. There is no such thing as socialist science but we're told sociology is a science and even my own field of political science is hardly a step above sociology. so? I keep digging and picking. Try this one.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    AGW is just a scientific answer that people don't like, which attracts a lot of bad philosophy. The evidence that human consciousness is an electrochemical reaction in the brain similarly attracts bad philosophy to try to wish away the uncomfortable reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not understand this comment. There is no such thing as socialist science. Science looks for answers based on experimentation and reason. Socialism is a bad philosophy of collective ownership/control of the means of production. The two don't go together.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The problem in both cases is fear coming from ignorance"
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cem4881 9 years, 11 months ago
    I have felt frustrated that the necessity of developing solutions to the problems brought about by climate change hasn't thrown open the gates to increased freedom of research and development. That people think somehow the bureaucratic set up we have now is going to take care of the problem. It is NOT.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've been reading the claims and counter claims about what percentage of scientists accept the validity of AGW. Thoroughly confusing. Who is surveyed, who is paying for the surveys, who is publishing, where is it published, how are the survey questions framed, etc., make the whole "97% of scientists agree" something of a farce.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonJohnson 9 years, 11 months ago
    I'm not so sure climatologists accept the idea of CO2 causing climate change. It seems to be other scientists or academics who are pushing that agenda more. So if they don't buy CO2 as the culprit, they're not going to jump on nuclear to fix a problem they don't believe exists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    THAT was where I got the mental image. I remembered somewhere a sharp picture of a submarine in orbit and how the story had described how well a submarine was suited to being a space ship...if you had unlimited power and could disregard weight constraints.

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years, 11 months ago
    The goal of the environmentalist is the extinction of man. That's why. Power bad. They even rail on wind power...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Here are the sources it was 56 years ago.

    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Back in the early sixties Analog Science Fact and Fiction depicted on it's front cover the Nautilus (first nuclear powered submarine) in orbit. The article itself concerned using a new patented invention which converted circular motion to one way motion inducing a state of weightlessness. Heady stuff for one just out of grade school. That was the space drive you are seeking. 55 years ago.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo