MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Macavity: i don't like that.
Torminalis: nice idea! - here's £5billion, go and have a look at space elevators.
i suspect TJ might suggest 'controlled environment monitored storage'
Best place for the waste IMo
I did love this
zokes - Member
The answer to the waste is quite simple. Either keep it where we can see it, or bury it in a geologically stable area.
Well Doh you aren't going to put in into space are you
Sadly lacking in detail tho. Still not actually a [i]solution[/i]
It has amused me as well watching Zokes use the same arguments against me as he uses himself - i get accused of vague platitudes when thats all he produces, I get accused of using historical data when thats what he does with conventional stations and the best is the accusations of hysteria - when its not me that is shouting " new nukes now or the lights go out" Zokes - you will end up sounding like Zulu eleven if you are not careful
There is not s single place where I have been hysterical.
I think everything useful that can be said has been said
what is the least-bad thing we can do with the waste?
Not make any more
ok, good suggestion* - but what about the stuff we've already got?
(*i'm not in love with nuclear power, but i do love the electricity that comes out of them. I'm trying to use less, but billions of other people don't seem to want to do that)
McAvity - did you not miss a few in your list of acidents?
Windscale / sellafeild several times, Dounray
ok, good suggestion* - but what about the stuff we've already got?
Yes it was a good answer if a bit smug 8)
I believe we are not certain as there is a debate between surface storage and deep burial. I am nowhere near knowledgable emnough to decide which is safest but both have inherent risks. Burial I assume will be the preferred method as out of sight out of mind
see Carbon Capture & Storage.
Ah, so buying a potentially dangerous waste deep underground?
(I have noted that you said you have/are studying this, and I'm sure it's much more complex than that... A bit like a nuclear repository in way then.)
there have been hardly any embarrasing accidents.
Chernobyl - An experiment that was expressly banned on a reactor that by western standards would never have been built
Kyshtym - Not moved on since 1957 have we?
Three Mile Island - Very little release comparatively, and again, caused by gung-ho ****wittery (several safeguards and alarms were ignored or disabled)
Tokaimura - Ignoring safety guidelines - but granted, this one is more concerning
Mihama - Had nothing to do with the nuclear part of the plant - could have happened at a coal or gas plant
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory - experimental rector back in 1961 - again, have we not moved on?
Severesk (Tomsk-7), - Again, quite alarming (even more so the lack of info on it)
Noone is saying nuclear power is perfect. Also, noone is giving any workable solutions that don't require it...
We cannot, surely, in all conscience, keep on producing dangerous waste which we simply do not know how to deal with. It is indefensible and manifestly incompatible with our ideals of being the 'superior' animal on this planet.
As I have already said on this thread, we need to reduce the amount of fuel we use. It [i]could[/i] be done, but I know it will not be done.
I ride through the 'burbs of London and into the centre for work most days. This morning I looked into the cars queuing in Dulwich Village. The vast majority contained one single person (and no large/heavy luggage that I could see). Dulwich is well served by public transport yet the roads are clogged each morning by cars containing one person.
My colleagues, upon learning that I ride to work, state "I couldn't do that". Actually, yes, they could. What they mean is they can't [i]be bothered[/i] to do it. It might mess up their hair or their makeup.
No, nuclear power or not, we are all going to hell in a handcart. The annoying thing is, I am frugal with resources, yet, when the lights do go out I will be in the dark just the same as those who have been profligate. Irritating - perhaps I should start driving/flying everywhere and bang the heating up full blast so I can walk round in the nude at home?
It has amused me as well watching Zokes use the same arguments against me as he uses himself - i get accused of vague platitudes when thats all he produces, I get accused of using historical data when thats what he does with conventional stations
I posted you very new data: 2010 figures and a 2010 article in Science. It is not my fault you choose not to read them. Anything more modern and they would be future projections - something you also seem to dislike.
There is not s single place where I have been hysterical.
Really? Take a good look...
The very basis of your argument is based upon the hysteria surrounding the word 'nuclear'. They had to change NMR to MRI for medical use to take the word out, a large number of much more researched scientists than I all agree. Yet somehow you have superior knowledge.
You've still not said what we're going to do instead.
Lots of power stations come to the ends of their lives, we rely more on electricity to replace petrol and gas. If we don't replace those stations, there won't be enough electricity to go round.
Not hysterical, simple arithmetic...
We cannot, surely, in all conscience, keep on producing dangerous waste which we simply do not know how to deal with
Correct. Best stop burning fossil fuels then...
Zokes - point to one post where I have been hysterical.
I have made reasoned debate and provided you with my reasoning
I have told you what I would do instead. You chose to rubbish it on the basis its politically impossible
What type of reactor is going to be at Hinkley Point?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/edf-has-welding-problems-at-flamanville-epr-reactor-french-watchdog-says.html
http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2010/11/04/epr-reactor-in-crisis/
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2010/11/03/prnewswire201011031724PR_NEWS_USPR_____DC94703.html
You chose to rubbish it on the basis its politically impossible
Given that like it or not, we're governed by politics, this seems a fairly reasonable stance to take...
Is the waste from fossil fuels worse than nuclear waste then?
Is the waste from fossil fuels worse than nuclear waste then?
Depends whether or not you believe the vast body of evidence for anthropogenic climate change... (And whether you live in a low lying country or rely on weather patterns for rains for the harvest)
Politically impossible - I do love your confidence in your political predictions - your position is only an opinion.
I don't believe it is politically impossible. It has not been tried. Public opinion is against new nukes so planning laws have had to be changed to get around the democratic process for them
Anthropogenic - had to look it up. Okay, so, man-made.
So if you live in a low lying country or depend on rain - you could move (yes, not easy, but my point is there are solutions) but if someone spilled nuclear waste on you, you would be dead - wouldn't you? It's deadly isn't it? It kills you and everything else.
Karine - its a bit like saying would you like to die of cancer or of drowning? Both you end up dead.
Nuclear waste is more toxic on a local level. greenhouse gases may well be on a worldwide level
i think public opinion of new-nukes might change when the good people of tesco-X-factor-land are faced with 2 choices.
use less leccy - the horror!
use siberian gas* - along with lots of rupert-murdoch-sponsored-jingoism.
gas is usefull stuff. you can store it in bottles and use it in vehicles and remote place. it seems almost a waste to burn it static power stations - a bit like diesel trains, we should be saving the diesel for things like tractors...
(*i don't have a problem with siberian gas)
But if the world were covered in sea (because the ice caps had melted) - and we know that this has happened before, and I think it is a little arrogant to think that just because people have come along the world will obligingly remain the same for our pleasure - it wouldn't be poisoned would it. If it were covered in nuclear waste, it would be poisoned. So it isn't quite the same thing.
Point still stands though - we need to use less.
and this is why my government will be one of compassionate fascism.
leaving people to do their own thing is fine and good, but we're often greedy and stupid, occasionally we needs telling.
So if you live in a low lying country or depend on rain - you could move (yes, not easy, but my point is there are solutions)
Some estimations of deaths likely as a result of the 'business as usual' scenario for CO2 emissions and possible positive-feedback mechanisms causing the release of a lot more natural greenhouse gases point to over 2bn dead s a result of disease, famine, flooding, loss of land suitable for agriculture. The sad thing is, most of those deaths would be caused by someone else's (i.e. ours) pollution.
Politically impossible - I do love your confidence in your political predictions - your position is only an opinion.
Depends on how you spin it, but seeing as fuel excise duty is theoretically a tax designed to reduce use and increase efficiency, I wouldn't rely too much on a political mandate. People complain and riot when petrol goes up by 2p. What do you expect them to do when they are told to reduce their energy usage by half?
As IanMunro said a few pages back - the economic question is even more perverse. To increase acceptance, income tax could be reduced in liu of energy tax (your carrot). Taxation becomes modelled around energy. People use less energy. Big black hole in your balance sheet.
Still a moot point though - in 30 years time a lot of power stations will have closed, a lot more cars and heating will be done by electricity. Something has to replace them.
What are the estimations of deaths if a significant amount of nuclear waste gets into the sea - like if there was an earthquake which broke the underground containers?
Sorry zokes, just to set the record straight on my earlier post, I accepted that I didn't have an answer to the conundrum but I don't think I was being hysterical. Your point with fossil fuels being dangerous is well made, but to say that my comment of "health problems (for those living) near nuclear power stations" is hysterical feels a little conveniently dismissive and somewhat patronising. Neither my language nor point was hysterical, I believe.
Ok just wanted to get that off my chest, let's not you and I now get into an unhelpful calling contest but rather get on with the real debate (In any case I have work to do and won't have time to post any more this afternoon).
Zokes - you keep saying this about electric cars
1) nice crystal ball Where is the tech to make this possible coming from?
2) exactly the same applies about this as energy efficiency - its politically difficult
Your point about sin taxes reducing consumption leaving a black hole is simple rubbish - as consumption drop the tax rises or you regain the tax from elsewhere
Ridiculous and stupid point.
On the cars - its at least as likely that personal transport simply is priced out of the reach of many people and is used less - all this car use has arisen in 40 years - in 30 it could easily disappear again.
Predictions you make you are 100% certain on - no one else is allowed to make predictions at all.
Onone orange - he thinks he strengthens his point calling opponents of nukes hysterical even if like you and I they are reasoned in their approach - the only hysteric on this thread is Zokes
erm calm down no one has been hysterical and you have manage dot utterly oppose each other for quite a few pages without the usual insults - well done but does either of you think you may change your mind or persuade the other? That really would be hysterical 😉
Because I'm trying to avoid debugging a program I've word search through this thread and the first accusation of being 'hysterical'. It was made by TJ and aimed at zokes.
Page 4 if you want to check
You hysterical arguing about the effects of climate change does you no favours.
So stick that in your pipe TJ and smoke it 🙂
For all of you in the south west (who will actually be using power from the new plant) might want to go to this:
[i]There are two talks being hosted by the IET at Tremough (School of Mines) this term.
The first will be next Thursday (25th November), entitled: ‘Nuclear Power – Now and the Future’, by Peter Higginson (Hinckley B). This talk will provide an insight into the current status and future of nuclear power generation, and how the UK can work towards a “rational national” energy supply mix.
The talk will start at 1900 in the Old Chapel Lecture Theatre, with tea/coffee from 1830 in the refectory. All welcome.
The second talk will be the following Thursday (2nd December), entitled: ‘Developments in Marine Power / Tidal Generation’, by Prof. Mike Belmont, details to follow nearer the time.[/i]
If people want heat and light in the future, nuclear will play a part. I think the second post in summed it up... we should be working on making it safer and more reliable, not outlawing it.
Karinofnine - MemberWhat ... if there was an earthquake which broke the underground containers?
i don't think we'll be building storage facilities near fault-lines.
finland have been looking at the requirements of long-term geologic storage, they're considering such things as the weight of a 3km thick ice-sheet on the storage site. as is likely during the next ice age.
people like yourself and TJ ask really good difficult questions, which boffins have to answer, this is the peer-review process in action. it's brilliant, and that's why science works.
How many years of nuclear fuel do we have left?
Hmmm, assuming the fault lines stay where they are now (and these things do change).
Still waiting for an estimate of the death toll if a significant amount of waste got loose. Funny how there's this silence when you ask questions about cost of decommissioning and outcome of a severe accidents. The proponents of nuclear seem to have oodles of figures at their disposal to prove nuclear is the answer yet none for the awkward questions.
I know we will have nuclear, by the way - even though I am agin it - but it is very interesting to explore it in this way.
Interesting that the idea of reduction in use of resources/fuel is a complete non-starter!
If people want heat and light in the future, nuclear will play a part.
We could do other things for heat and energy but they may cost more money it is not inevitable we use nuclear it is a choice.
If people want heat and light in the future, nuclear will play a part.We could do other things for heat and energy but they may cost more money it is not inevitable we use nuclear it is a choice.
thats part of my point... the choice has been made, a new reactor is going in.
I am worried about the consequences should this source of power ever fail and the aftermath of long-term storage. Take historic landfills for instance: long term problems. Although, they were put in without legislation and rigorous controls, (but the deepwater horizon was meant to have those too... ! ) lets hope lesions have been learnt…
I think a reliable mix of power sources is the way forward with nuclear playing a part in that mix.
edit- oooOOooo check this out... there are a fews years left out there:
[url= http://www.nea.fr/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nuclear_fuel_resources.pdf ]http://www.nea.fr/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nuclear_fuel_resources.pdf[/url]
neilforrow - lesions are what I am worried about lol!
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....
...but in a more energetic, stormy atmosphere?
We had that before, and life persevered?
In fact it has been suggested by greater minds then on here that the times of strife, especially the ice ages were the catalyst of evolution...
Bring it on!
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)[b]Waste disposal[/b] Are we looking at this just a little [i]too[/i] pessimistically? Its quite a bit easier for us to dig, backfill and manage a ****ting 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) [b]Peak oil[/b] 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 ([url= http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r ]see here[/url]). 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 - MemberNature 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.
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?
"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 - MemberBenkitcher - 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
not how I would describe them but I do like the planBoth of these are sensible ideas
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?