Yes, but not all forms of life!

Personally I quite like the status quo but hey, maybe releasing all this energy and pollution into it will make Earth EVEN BETTER!

I’m sure the clever peopole who invented these technologies planned all this out years ago.

Face facts, there are just too many of us, we have been wayyyyyy to successful for our own good, let alone the planet.
We need pruning back, and hard.

U31 – Pruning – damn good idea

I have a little list and there is non of them will be missed

😈

We need pruning back, and hard.

………and that’s where nuclear power comes in!!! 😉

Fpmsl, Hell yeah!!!

I’m sure humans will be fine, it’s everything else that lives on this planet that needs to hope we understand what the **** we are doing.

Going back to my “Planet will find equilibrium” theory…

We have released ancient stored carbon in to the atmosphere..
Plantlife has a halcyon period, abundance every where ( as long as the two legged troll creatures quit cutting down rain forests to keep McDees in beef) , especially marine algae, inspiring carbon, expiring oygen….

You really don’t have the foggiest about what has been demonstrated (i.e. proven in rigorous, peer-reviewed experiments) to happen to natural CO2 emissions as temperature and CO2 increase, do you?

More CO2 = warmer = more respiration = more CO2
More CO2 = fertiliser effect* = more C released through root exudates into soil = more CO2 by microbial respiration.

*Most systems are severely N and P limited, so increased growth is pretty low, meaning that little extra C is fixed through photosynthesis. The ‘priming’ effect of soil carbon by an incease in easily utilisable C for the microbes as a result of root exudation is the big worry.

Nature will find a way (probably global warming) to rid itself of an organism upsetting the balance, Nuclear Power may delay the inevitable for a while, but in the end nature will win and humans lose.

Two points, once again going against the grain;

1)Waste disposal Are we looking at this just a little too pessimistically? Its quite a bit easier for us to dig, backfill and manage a twatting great hole than is is for Stan the Terrorist and his plucky chums to dig it out again (un-noticed) and make off with our nucleo-scum.
The comment above about fault lines appearing from no-where and poisoning the seas just kind of highlighted to me the paranoia we harbour over this stuff. If you chuck a few hundred thousand tonnes of rock and wotnot back in the hole, realistically, without a £1B civil engineering effort and several years notice, no-one is getting it back out.

2) Peak oil Allow me to come at this from a different angle. Peak oil, an undeniable reality, was predicted by most to occur between 2000 and 2010 (though some yanks pinned their hopes on 2020+). So its reasonably certain then that we’ve already used half the oil available to us, and consequently released half the carbon in said oil to the environment.

To think all that carbon is up there floating about is worrying; fortunately the residence time of carbon in the atmosphere is around 5-15 years (see here). Now if we assume usage grows exponentially, and that the exploitation of fossils has lasted ~150 years, the doubling time and hence stock we have left is about 6 months. This is preposterous of course; OPEC will raise the price to keep oil on the verge of mass affordability and hence maximised profitability until we truly have no more. As such, you can expect future usage rates to follow a downward trend mirroring that of the growth of supply, lasting another 150 years or so. This in itself leads to a couple of points;
a) The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently is not abnormal (380ppmv), yet we’ve already given half of what we have to give anthropogenically. Thrice over the past 200 years concentrations have exceeded 400ppmv (1825, 1857 and 1942); at our current output we cannot expect to match or exceed these levels, especially considering our output will decrease significantly in the next few decades as mentioned above.
b) The available fossil resource is dwindling and its price will escalate very quickly in a very short period of time (30 years or so, mirroring the rise in consumption over the previous 30 years). Whether we like it or not alternatives MUST be actioned right now; ahwiles will verify, wind power isn’t *quite* there yet to meet this need (eh Madam ;-)), and neither are the water based solutions. Most probably in the future they will be, but unlike nuclear, they haven’t been lighting and heating homes for several decades already.

Ultimately, in the next 30 years we’re going to feel a VERY big squeeze on fossils (for space and water heating, industrial and transport purposes), most obviously in the form of a lack of affordability. ‘Climate change’ will be long forgotten about at this point, its effects (if any at all) will be stunted by the fact that we just can’t afford to drill and burn the oil in the first place (and after a further 5-15 years, its residence time is up and we’re back to purely natural co2 output).

I’m a big believer that with the right research and progression we can make renewables work for us in a practical, economic and reliable fashion (we do receive 20,000 times more energy from the sun daily than we use after all). We just need a 30 year stop gap, and fission is the best bet we have.

So much that is simply incorrect in that Ben

Howeever I will pick up on one point – peak oil being passed does not mean we have released half the CO2 we are able to do – what about coal, waht about wood burning / deforestation. ?

That article’s interesting Ben, and one I’ve not seen before. Also interesting is that such a potentially high impact article has been about for nearly 2 years and hasn’t been cited once.

More interesting still is that he’s a died in the wool climate change denier, who has spent his career working in coal combustion research. Not that this would affect his research at all 🙄

I’m surprised it was published at all to be honest…

Bloody hell – don’t look now but I think we’ve just agreed, TJ…

it is true however, that there are some, ahem. ‘issues’ with wind power…

i can’t say much more, cos i’ll get sacked.

Dibbs – Member

Nature will find a way … to rid itself of an organism … in the end nature will win and humans lose

hmm, ‘nature’ isn’t a conscious entity – it doesn’t have feelings, it doesn’t get upset or angry. it doesn’t have a plan.

climate change, will not ‘defeat’ humans, our slide from prosperity will be much more malthusian.

http://iicph.org/revelations-from-an-edf-insider-epr-reactor-prone-to-major-nuclear-accident-risk
http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_nuclear_reactor_design_PR_100310.pdf
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/EDF_Reactor_Design_Unlikely_To_Succeed_999.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/346f220e-c6ed-11df-a806-00144feab49a.html#axzz15icE0UID

All the people who cheerfully expect humans to be wiped out in the future, in some great karmic retribution, seem to be the same types who say ‘change nothing now’.

When you are sat at the top of the food chain, exploiting the earth more than ever and casually wiping out species without even noticing, I find that a bit rich.

Remind me, what was the point of nuclear power?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39197.pdf

“10.12 As discussed in chapter two, although nuclear power stations are
carbon free at the point of generation, there are carbon emissions that arise
from the fabrication of fuel. Any move to ores containing less uranium would
require more energy to extract and process, with a possible increase in
carbon emissions. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be
a need to mine significantly lower-grade ores than we currently use314. This
suggests that the emissions of CO2 from nuclear power will not differ greatly
from those created by wind power.
10.13 The true impact of producing nuclear fuel on carbon emissions is,
however, disputed. For example, in 2000 the Green parties of the European
Parliament requested a study which concluded that the recovery and
processing of lower-grade uranium ores is inefficient and would increase
CO2 emissions315. The study also concluded that mining and milling “lean”
uranium deposits (i.e. where the concentration of uranium ore is low), may
have a negative energy balance and that it would take more energy to extract
the uranium than could be recovered using the uranium as fuel. However, as
discussed at paragraph 10.2, we have no evidence that there will be a need to
mine significantly lower-grade ores.”

er, that we’ll be running short on power very soon, and nuclear power stations could be part of a solution.

not a part that everyone is happy with, but a part none the less.

peak oil was 2008 – the decline has been ‘propped up’ by the growth of russian oil.

russian oil is now mature (not growing so much) – the post-peak decline will get faster, it’s going to be a very interesting century!

Oh, he speaks! I thought he just posted links on most threads he ‘contributes’ to…

Benkitcher – no, it isn’t silly to say that fault lines could move. The Cheviot Hills were once volcanoes you know, so things DO change.

How will the containers be marked so that people millions of years in the future (who won’t speak English or any other language that we now have) understand that they should not open the boxes?

Karinofnine – Member

Benkitcher – no, it isn’t silly to say that fault lines could move. The Cheviot Hills were once volcanoes you know, so things DO change.

the cheviot hills were volcanoes 400 million years ago – they’re devonian granite. Things do change but on very very very very long timescales, we only need a few geologic seconds.

How will the containers be marked so that people millions of years in the future understand that they should not open the boxes?

1) millions of years? – we need waaaaay less than that*.

2) why would these peoples of the future be rummaging around in the middle of a granite mountain**?

*the Cheviots haven’t moved for 400 million years. we only need a few thousand for the really nasty stuff, a blink of an eye in comparison.

**i can imagine that they’ll be looking for somewhere to store nuclear waste – in which case they’ll understand perfectly what they’ve found.

let’s pretend that human beings are wiped out by air-borne ebola, it will take at least 3 million years for the chimps to get to a stage where they’re capable of mining through granite. by which time all the waste we bury will have been safe for about 3million years.

i’ve just driven home – and a thought struck me, and i know you’ll all love it.

we should put our nuclear waste in a volcano, a really big one – either toba or yellowstone.

toba went bang 70,000 years ago, it’s building again and is due to go off in 30,000 years – by which time anything we stick in it will be safe, and then it will be thinly spread (explosively) over most of the pacific, and then covered in 5metres of volcanic ash.

Yellowstone is due to go bang any day now, anything we stick in it will be thinly spread over most of the northern hemisphere, and then covered in 10metres of volcanic ash.

i’ve done the maths, and a few hundred kilos of uranium spread over the northern hemisphere = fnck-all per sqkm.

Both of these are sensible ideas; if we stick it in toba, it’ll have decayed to safe levels by the time it’s ejected.

if we stick the waste in yellowstone, life as we know it will come to a sudden end, and there will a small increase in the levels of background radiation.

compared to both of these good ideas, the plan to bury our waste in 2,000,000,000 year old granite bedrock seems excessively safe – almost to the point of paranoia.

oh…

anyway, i challenge anyone to pick fault with my plans for ‘volcanic-disposal’ –

plan ‘toba’ – the waste decays to safe levels, and is then spread thinly over the pacific.

plan ‘yellowstone’ – sometime tommorow (geologically speaking) all of our nuclear waste is spread over half the planet – so thinly you’ll need an electron microscope to find traces of it.

More interesting still is that he’s a died in the wool climate change denier, who has spent his career working in coal combustion research. Not that this would affect his research at al

I’ll concede, that was lazy searching for evidence. There is much better data out there for C14 resident time

However, working for the IPCC or any other ‘climate change’ centre doesn’t mean you’re expected only to produce results along the party line? Phil Jones doesn’t agree, obviously! Climate science funding is just as much a gravy train as petro-chemical company research.

So much that is simply incorrect in that Ben.

Go on then Jeremy, be a hero. Tell me where I’m wrong.

Data about peak coal is very thin on the ground as you will know, but there are some indications that there is a tangible strain on the resource, indicating we’re already heading on a decline. For example, China’s cap on coal output is a reasonable indication that their heavy dependency on the stuff is causing worry as reserves decline. So I would say, even given a decade discrepancy between peek oil and coal (which could be shorter if synthesised liquids take off), the two are synonymous and can be considered the same.

Doomsday is coming not in the form of 30cm higher seas or unseasonably early blooming daffodils, but in a massive regression (or arguably redressing) of the UKs economic status. The pain will hit when we, after several decades as a net oil exporter and artificially wealthy nation, come face to face with our bleak economic future in oils absence. Developing the cutting edge of nuclear plant manufacture, decommission and waste disposal might lend us the chance to control some part of the global energy market again, and stop the UK on a dive into poverty and squalor. The fact that we’d be almost self sufficient* in keeping the lights on (and hospitals working, drugs fridges chilled, schools lit and heated etc.) is an added bonus.

*Until Thorium is viable and we can mine the arse out of Somerset, we might have to ask kindly for Uranium

Both of these are sensible ideas

not how I would describe them but I do like the plan

Climate science funding is just as much a gravy train as petro-chemical company research.

harder really to see what the “industry” is that they are working for. All scientists get paid by someone so are they all just saying what the people who pay them say? Plenty of non climatoligist have divergent evidence to support the theory.

and stop the UK on a dive into poverty and squalor

With philanthropic capitalsim this could happen 😯 at least our welfare wont be affected eh 😉
That said the basic poinr re where we will all be once the energy crisis bites is a fair one.
PS almost all you said about co2 is incorrect but done to death on here.

I think you will find your N&P effect will be adequately accounted for by river sediment and wind bourne dusts dropping nutrients in to the seas, supporting the algael blooms…

And for the sake of your argument, are we supposed to totally ignore the fossil record? The carboniferous period never happened?