Your Reptile and Amphibian Resource and Information Site

Back to *General Misc Forum   Forums   Home   Members Area  

*General Misc Forum

DuckMonster   Reptililian Boy   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster   Clawedfrogsrule   DuckMonster  
Pages  < 1 2
 Member  Message


View Profile

  Message To: Gottee guy   In reference to Message Id: 1822714

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Ah, now we can start exchnaging real information.

There are 3 basic kinds of waste generated at a nuclear plant. Spent fuel, Used irradiated components and Dry active waste.

Spent fuel is just that - fuel that has been used so that it will not longer support criticality. About 1/3 of the Uranium is used, about 2/3 remains.

This spent fuel is currently stored in stainless steel lined pools of water that are cooled. It is kept in the pools for cooling as well as shielding. However, there is an issue, in that most are nearing their capacity. Why?

When this country began using nuclear power to provide electricity, we were to be able to reprocess spent fuel to retrieve the 2/3 Uranium left, as well as have a central repository (Think Yucca Mountain) to store the resulting waste after reprocessing.

Unfortunately, the Left (Enviros and Dems) has done everything to slow-stop Yucca. And, arguably the worst President ever, Jimmy Carter, shut down the Savannah River Reprocessing Facility.

This left the nuclear utilities with no choice but to store on site. Not a real problem, except that the storage capacity of the pool was not based on storing a full lifetime of speent fuel, as we were supposed to ship it for reprocessing.

So, in lieu of reprocessing and to free up space in the pool for more fuel, the industry has gone to dry storage of fuel that has had sufficient time to decay, that has lost most of its decay heat, can be loaded to liners and stored in shield casks outside and be air cooled.

That is where we are today with spent fuel.

Used irradiated components - These consist of reactor pieces that are replaced due to wear, age or maintenance. They consist of Jet Pump parts, Control Rod Blades, Power Monitors, Fuel Channels, even parts of Steam Driers. They are stored also in the fuel pool, not for cooling purposes, but for shielding.

These are processed underwater, using submersible hydraulic equipment used to compact and cut the items into sizes suitable for loading into liners for shipping and burial. The liner is loaded into a shielded shipping cask and transported to the burial site. At least they were until recently, when SC closed access to Barnwell (burial site) to all but a few plants.

So, for now the industry must retain this type of waste in their fuel pools too. But again, before long, they will reach capacity. The solution here will be for another burial site to open, or again, go to dry storage, similar to fuel.

Dry active waste is basically all the contaminated waste - rags, protective clothing, analytical waste, broken tools, mostly trash, just contaminated. This is packaged and was sent to Barnwell, or an incinerator or metal melt (incineration and metal melt provide volume reduction prior to burial). In some cases, metal or equipment can be deconned and released.

Room is not really an issue. The volume of waste produced by the 100+ operating commercial reactors is very small when compared to other electrical producers that employ coal or co-gen. Nuclear releases no CO2 that everyone has been led to believe is so detrimental. It releases no mercury, no arsenic, no naturally occuring radio isotopes as coal plants do.

So, all this should be the basis for more discussion. Have a great day ;^)

08/07/08  10:57am


Reptililian Boy
View Profile

  Message To: Reptililian Boy   In reference to Message Id: 1822744

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

2 things

I heard on the news that we haven’t made a new nuclear plant in 25 years...just throwing that out.

Is this true?


08/07/08  12:24pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1822820

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

That is true, there has been no new construction nuclear units started in 25+ years, mostly due to the hysteria after TMI. There were some that were in the midst of being built that were finished.

Thankfully, there are finally new ones currently in the process of being licensed for construction and operation.

08/07/08  12:40pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1822831

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Case in point:

Locals hear plan for nuke plant

By Karen Voyles
Sun Staff Writer

Published: Friday, August 8, 2008 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, August 8, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.
- Levy County residents and commissioners got to hear first-hand Thursday night from the power company that wants to build a nuclear power plant in the rural county involving two reactors. The 100 or so people at the meeting also got an overview from state officials on federal and state permitting procedures for nuclear plants.

Progress Energy is planning to build a $17 billion dollar nuclear generation facility and transmission lines on 5,200 acres that Progress Energy already owns near Inglis. If built, the plant is projected to generate $100 million in tax revenue annually that will go to county government and the school board. The earliest that power could be sold from the first reactor at the proposed plant would be mid-2016 and the second would likely follow in mid-2017, officials have said.

Thursday’s informational meeting was part of a lengthy permitting process for nuclear power plants, according to Mike Halpin, administrator of the siting coordination office for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

During the meeting, Halpin described his agency’s role as a funnel for other state agencies with an interest in the proposed plant, such as water management districts, the Department of Transportation and the county commission.

According to Halpin, his agency works with the others to determine what certificates and licenses are needed by Progress Energy to build the plant.

Any unresolved issues will go before an administrative law judge, probably in early 2009, Halpin said. A hearing before the judge would be at a time and a location yet to be determined but one that is near the area where the plant would be built.

Under current state law, final approval for the overall certification can be handed down by the secretary of his agency of there are no remaining disputed issues, Halpin explained. However, if some issues remain in dispute, it would be up to the Governor and Cabinet to grant final state approval for the project.

Department officials encouraged those at the hearing to follow the progress of the application at

Halpin also told the crowd that the federal government is simultaneously working with Progress Energy to meet a separate set of requirements from agencies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that must be met before the project will be able to proceed.

Progress Energy sent its vice president for nuclear projects and construction, Danny Roderick, to the meeting. He began his presentation with a explanation of why an additional power plant is needed in Florida.

"Our customers want that product (electricity) when the light switch is flipped," Roderick said. He said that demand for electricity is continuing to grow for several reasons, including more electronic devices in use than ever before and homes that are now 50 percent larger than they were in the 1970s, which means they require more power to heat and cool.

"There is no one answer that will solve the energy issues we are facing in Florida," Roderick said. He noted that the nuclear plant is a $17 billion investment, but said that without it, Progress Energy customers can expect their power bills to increase by $92 billion over the next few decades.

Following Roderick’s presentation audience members were invited to comment and ask questions. While several people spoke in favor of the proposed plant, there were detractors and those with concerns about plant safety and security.

Williston resident Charles Goodman wanted to know how the nuclear waste would be disposed of. Roderick pointed out that the federal government has decided to handle all forms of U.S. nuclear waste, including from nuclear-powered submarines, medical uses as well as power plants, and that companies have no option to handle spent nuclear fuel in other ways.

Doug King of Chiefland said his family has been in Levy County for five generations and he views the proposed plant as "a God-send for Levy County. We need this power plant and the jobs it will bring our citizens."

In his presentation, Roderick said Progress Energy wants to hire as many of the approximately 800 full-time, permanent workers from the area as possible. He said the company must spend a lot of money training workers and has found that those with local ties are more likely to remain as long-term employees.

Earlier this week, the county’s planning board voted 4-1 to recommend a special exception be granted to allow the construction and operation of the pair of nuclear reactors that will make up the plant.

A comprehensive plan change to allow Progress Energy to develop a training and educational compound along U.S. 19 was also approved.

Company officials said the training facility would be an 80,000-square-foot center that included a 400-seat auditorium and a simulated power plant control room that could be used to train employees.

The recommendations will be reviewed by county commissioners on Sept. 2 at 6:30 p.m. in the county courthouse in Bronson. Commissioners have the final say at the county level on whether the changes will be granted.

The very important point is that "Customers expect that when they flip the light switch, the lights go on". People who protest building additional capacity to generate, should be identified and disconnected from the grid. Period. People protesting additional oil drilling should have their oil using vehicles confiscated. Period.

08/09/08  10:35am


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1793198

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Hey Clawed, Here is an article, based on your interest in algea as a petro source. Kinda long, read through it. My comments are in parens with asterisks.

The New American ^ | August 18, 2008 | Ed Hiserodt

Posted on Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:52:41 AM by LomanBill

A modern society such as that in the United States requires (*REQUIRES!) personal transportation — cargo trucks, planes, and cars — to make a market economy work. Any serious effort to move our country to mass transportation, such as trains and buses, for everyone and everything all the time — or even most of the time — would destroy not only our economy, but the American way of life. To provide our personal transportation for the foreseeable future, the United States needs oil or an oil substitute.

Electric vehicles, the proposed solution by many for America’s transportation problems, have serious drawbacks generally ignored by a pliant news media. Besides being automotive weenies, their batteries don’t hold a sufficient charge for many everyday trips, and require hours to recharge — unless you want to charge them quickly (thus shortening their life span) and pay the $3,000-5,000 price for replacement batteries. One might also ask: “Where is the electricity to come from if electric cars become ubiquitous?” It is estimated that it would require a dozen 1,000-megawatt power plants to replace the petroleum fuels in Los Angeles alone. (*OOOPS, You mean electricity doesn’t just magically appear in the wall sockets?) (*And lets not even talk about the ’polluting’ industries of battery manufacturing, disposal, and recycling)

The “hydrogen economy” is a total farce. Hydrogen-powered cars are about as practical as licorice submarines. Their only reason for being is to prove to a naïve public that the manufacturer is in on being “Green.” No, we need oil or something like it for the foreseeable future.

President Bush, with the backing of many Republicans and most Democrats, claimed to answer this need by requiring the use of billions of gallons of ethanol and biodiesel. Made by a laborious distillation process from corn and soybeans, they are on the market solely owing to mandates and subsidies (*Without which, they are NOT economically viable). In fact, because making ethanol is so energy intensive, debates are still ongoing over whether ethanol creates more energy when it is burned than is used in its creation. Of course, burning our food supply is proving (as we, and most everyone who knew anything about the topic, predicted)† not to be a solution either. While any positive energy output from ethanol production is still hotly debated, the resultant higher prices and food shortages are not in question, as evidenced by the “tortilla riots” in Mexico over the past year.

Another Ethanol?
Having been burnt by the ethanol fiasco, which has caused great misallocations of resources that will come to haunt farmers and entrepreneurs who have invested in ethanol plants, one tends to be cautious when another bioscheme becomes the rage. And algae production is fast becoming just such a rage. There are, however, major differences.

• Algae can thrive in fresh, brackish, or seawater — and very little of that is required.

• There is no need for any soil, much less good soil, as algae grow hydroponically.

• With more than 20,000 known varieties of algae, species can be chosen for high lipid content (e.g., for diesel fuel) or high sugar content for distillation purposes.

• In desert climes it can be harvested on a day-by-day basis because it grows so quickly.

All it takes is sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide (*Carbon dioxide? You mean this ’pollutant’ is necessary for plant growth? Who knew?) to provide the energy for arguably the most complex process we see in nature: photosynthesis.

Here Comes Da Sun
In its most elementary depiction, photosynthesis is a process where light energy converts carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and carbohydrates such as sugars, starches, and cellulose. It, in effect, converts the electromagnetic energy of sunlight into chemical energy that can be used as food to sustain the animal world, or as a fuel such as wood to provide warmth or for other energy requirements.

Nature isn’t in a big hurry to carry out this process, nor is she particularly worried about efficiency. As Howard Hayden points out in his very readable and informative book The Solar Fraud, New England forests convert only about 0.06 percent of the incident solar energy into chemical energy. Corn fares a bit better. Iowa, with an average insolation (the rate at which the sun’s radiation strikes a surface) of 170 watts per square meter, produces about 150 bushels of corn per acre per year, with an energy content of 404 megajoules (MJ) per bushel if you burn the corn directly as fuel. (Gasoline, by comparison, has approximately 121 MJ per gallon.) This works out to a sun-to-corn efficiency of 0.28 percent — unless you make ethanol out of it. Then you only convert 0.14 percent of the incoming solar energy to usable chemical energy.

Fortunately, the soft-energy folks are right in thinking that there is a lot of solar energy beating down on planet Earth, else there would be precious little plant or animal life. In Albuquerque where the average insolation is 240 watts per square meter, the equivalent of the energy in 254,000 gallons of gasoline falls on each acre over a year’s time. Yes, there’s plenty of sunlight; utilizing it economically is the problem.

It seems obvious that a major problem in obtaining chemical energy from plants is raising the percentage of solar energy that is converted to a form we can use for something other than working on our tans. Indeed, this is what the proponents of growing algae as a feedstock for biofuels have in mind. The first to develop an efficient and reliable process to grow algae at super-fast rates is likely to win a multi-billion-dollar prize, along with the gratitude of millions of Americans. Let us take a look at the present state of affairs as pertains to the conversion of algae into products that can be used for transportation fuels.

How It Would Work
To create diesel fuel or gasoline from algae, the oils must be extracted from the algae — it is one of the major cost factors in the production of algae-based fuels. Three processes are under consideration:

• Pressing with an “expeller,” a process that can extract 70-75 percent of the oil.

• Use of hexane as a solvent to leach out the oil, which, along with pressing can extract more than 95 percent of the oil; however, there are inherent dangers here due to the volatility of hexane solvent.

• Supercritical fluid extraction — the use of liquefied CO2 under pressure to act as a solvent to extract the oil. Almost all of the oil can be extracted using this process alone, but special equipment is necessary to maintain pressures and temperatures.

Oils from the algae are then “cracked” in a manner similar to petroleum whereby hydrogen is used to break the long hydrocarbon chains, creating what is called “green crude.” The end product is crude oil that is almost chemically indistinguishable from light, sweet crude oil, except that it is green in color.

This green crude does not have the drawbacks of biodiesel, which needs special care in its storage, transport, and use (being no more than high-grade plant or vegetable oil, it solidifies when it gets cold), and ethanol, which, too, cannot be transported using traditional pipelines, along with its numerous other problems.

The production of this product is also carbon neutral — the outcome that is sought for by worried environmentalists in biodiesel and ethanol production. Except for possible carbon dioxide created by the production of hydrogen for the cracking process (depending on what energy source is used in the hydrogen’s production), the carbon dioxide created by burning the products formed from the green crude — gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, methane gas, etc. — cannot be greater than the carbon dioxide yanked by the algae from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. (*But wait, isn’t all the carbon present in oil also ’carbon neutral? It was once in the atmosphere, absorbed by plants, then they died, and were converted to oil, were they not? So, isn’t that a carbon neutral process? If not, why not?)

The main sticking point in creating green crude from algae lies in producing enough high-energy-content algae to feed our country’s energy appetite. Can companies overcome the obstacles? You be the judge.

What Stands in the Way
Growing algae in and of itself is no trick; varieties of it will literally grow in almost any type of brine or even wastewater. However, growing, or culturing, a single, desired alga variety is more difficult. If algae are grown in open ponds, they are susceptible to being killed off by invasive algae and bacteria. In open ponds, fluctuating temperatures and pH levels also can kill off algae. Strains of algae that can fend for themselves in an open pond may not be strains that have optimal energy-producing qualities. Closed growing systems also have their problems: electing and “domesticating” superior species is proving to be difficult, as is introducing enough carbon dioxide (plant food) into the enclosed systems.

Even once the algae are grown, commercially viable amounts of available green crude are not a done deal. None of the proposed processes has undergone the rigors of commercial/industrial production. Economical methods to harvest the algae and extract the lipids or other carbohydrates have not been developed, and factors influencing any resultant fuel quality and properties are not yet well understood.

The obstacles notwithstanding, a survey of the literature indicates that there is a great deal of activity among those who believe the pros outweigh the cons in the development equation. Indeed, one commentator observed that companies are springing up on a near-daily basis, driven by both the ultimate prize and the fact that the capital investment for a start-up company is low as compared to wresting oil from shale formations or converting coal to liquid fuel. Examples of companies active in developing algae-to-fuel technology are noted below.

Solix Biofuels
Using triangular containers termed “photobioreactors” (PBRs), inventor Jim Sears brings together algae, water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight in order to “farm” his crop of biofuel feedstocks. Sears, of Ft. Collins, Colorado, has already learned that this simple formula isn’t quite as simple as it may initially appear. The high-oil-content algae species his company has selected is finicky about water temperature, and the normal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t sufficient to achieve maximum growth. He thinks algae farms will have to be located near power plants — although the problem of separating CO2 from other stack gases has proven to be a sticky one. At least there shouldn’t be any shortage of CO2, as a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plant produces 360 pounds of the gas every second.

Solix CEO Doug Henston predicts algae would produce 10,000 gallons of oil per acre (*So how many acres are needed to get enough to supply the US? Can you say habitat destruction? Why is it better to have 1000’s of acres of algea ponds, yet it’s BAD to build a nuclear plant on 20?) , per year. Currently soy produces some 50 gallons of oil per acre; canola, 150 gallons; and palm, 650 gallons. As vegetable oil typically has 94-95 percent the heat content of diesel fuel, 10,000 gallons would produce some 1.4 million MJ of energy per year — a whopping 4.5 percent of the incident solar energy and some 75 times the conversion rate of an oak tree.

Henston reports that his company is still in the development mode and plans a larger research project to be completed late summer 2008, which will tap into the New Belgium Brewing Company as a source of growth-enhancing CO2. Solix is financed by private equity, with $5 million having been raised and plans to raise another $10 million during 2008.

Valcent Products
In his “vertical greenhouse” near El Paso, Texas, plant physiologist and Valcent Products CEO Glen Kertz has developed a unique method of exposing algae to sunlight in order to produce the greatest amount of biomass in the shortest period of time. The device, known as a High Density Vertical Bioreactor (HDVB), or “VertiGro” system, uses a series of transparent horizontal chambers (reactors) connected in series so the algae solution is exposed to sunlight while flowing down after having been pumped up from a reservoir. The process is then repeated. Being a closed-loop system, almost no water is used except that required to feed the algae. Kertz maintains that algae is the fastest-growing plant on Earth, and in some species as much as 50 percent of the “body weight” is vegetable oil (lipids). Moreover, he claims that by selecting the right species of algae, Valcent will be able to tailor the carbon chains for those most effective in producing a menu of transportation products such as diesel or jet fuel.

Kertz is even more enthusiastic than Henston in his estimation of yields: 20,000 gallons of oil from an acre of pond, ostensibly much more from the VertiGro system. He calculates that an area one-tenth (*ONE TENTH of New Mexico?!?) the size of New Mexico in algae production would meet the fuel demands for the entire United States.

Scottsdale-based PetroSun, already a player in the oil and natural-gas industries, plans to open a 1,100-acre saltwater open-pond system with 94 five-acre and 63 10-acre ponds. Located on the Texas Gulf coast, it plans to extract oil on-site and then barge or truck the raw oil to a biodiesel refinery.

The company plans additional algae sites and extraction plants in Alabama, Arizona, and Louisiana.

The interest in algae-to-oil is certainly not limited to the United States. Prototype production is underway in Israel and New Zealand, with the aforementioned PetroSun planning facilities in Mexico, Brazil, and Australia. At this point in time all of these plants have one thing in common: they are not yet producing any fuel. It may well come to pass — and there is certainly “a lot of attempting going on out there” — but the process may well prove to be more difficult than it seems to be at first glance.

One very encouraging sign, however, is the lack of interest the federal government is showing in algae-to-oil production. The energy legislation of the federal government — (Read this next part two or three times, it is so important. Gov’t produces nothing but chaos. It will be private industry that gets us through this.) particularly with Democrats in control of the House and Senate — is focused on those technologies that don’t have a chance of producing significant energy. The politicians are buying off special-interest groups that can’t legitimately compete in the energy market. In light of this, it may well be that algae could play a key role in our energy future.

08/09/08  02:12pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1825038

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

* Carbon dioxide necessary for plant growth- yup, that’s why alternative fuel possibilities like algea are awesome, they remove some of the excess CO2 and replace it with oxygen...and technically as you’ve stated before, CO2 isn’t a pollutant, just a ghg that traps sunlight on Earth’s surface rather than allowing it to escape back out into space.
*Carbon in oil also "carbon neutral"- well technically the natural formation and state of oil would be carbon neutral; it’s when we burn it and use it as fuel that we start adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere...I think that’s what you meant to refer to or ask, I may have misunderstood the question or something. The wording of that little passage was kind of confusing for me, so if that wasn’t what you meant I apologize.
*Possible habitat destruction/size one tenth of new mexico- Well if the only way to cultivate algae would be full scale ponds, than yes, 1000s of acres of just algea ponds would be much worse than a nuclear plant on 20. But the thing about many varieties of algea is that they can be grown in many situations. Honestly, they could probably set up areas on top of buildings with good sun exposure to grow algea. And splitting up the ponds over many small areas already in existence could definately work I think, no real need to destroy more habitat...just take advantage of already available space.

ok, so yeah that was long, but a pretty good read. I didn’t respond to the first two comments because I figured they were basically rhetorical, I wasn’t ignoring anything just for the sake of ignoring though. And besides that I think I responded to everything else, though there were a lot of words to get lost in so if I did miss anything else it was completely unintentional.

08/09/08  09:27pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1825464

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

CO2 is a MILD GHG. Water vapor and methane are MUCH more efficient GHG’s. So, if we all drive fuel cell or H2 cars, that put out water vapor, isn’t that even worse than CO2? If not, why not? It can be shown, that CO2 follows earth temps, in other words, as the planet warms (from incresed solar activity) that CO2 is released from solution from the oceans.

And methane? Many studies have been made regarding the impact of cow flatulence. Do not laugh, I’m serious. That being the case, if animal flatulence is an issue, what might you be willing to do to reduce your own?

Oil, as some believe, comes from past plant life. That plant life took CO2 from the atmosphere. We are just putting it back. The earth is a CLOSED system. Essentially, no Carbon is here that wasn’t here millions of years ago. Us burning ’fossil’ fuels introduces NO new CO2 that wasn’t present in the atmosphere at some point.

I challenge you to develop, post, and prove as economical, a business plan that is viable using 1000’s of small distributed ponds versus large local ponds. Think economy of scale here. Many small is very expensive when compared to few large.

The other two, well, a news article about pending hearings for new nuke plants isn’t rhetorical. It is good news.

08/09/08  11:02pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1825590

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

My son read this and said that you got ’pond’. I think that was a funny.

08/09/08  11:16pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1825600

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

lol your son is wrong! I’m not "pond" quite yet lol although yeah that was a pretty funny statement considering the conversation.
Anyway, back to the fun stuff...

CO2 is worse than water vapor because it stays in the atmosphere much longer than the water vapor and other ghg, so even if it is milder/weaker, it has much more time to accumulate. I guess it’s kind of like bioaccumulation in the food chain, for the lower consumers like fish it isn’t quite as bad, but as you work your way up the chain it doesn’t break down, and rather just gets worse for the other predetory animals like birds of prey and such. There is a much more detailed explanation on that wikipedia article I posted a link to, I don’t remember which thread it was on...if you do a wiki search on green house gas you should be able to find it.

As for the methane, yes I am aware of the studies that have been done with cows. And one way of lessening this is to cut back on the consumption of beef. Since cows are the main offenders in question, rather than continue breeding them like crazy to feed our insatiable appetite for red meet, maybe we could cut down (not necessarily cut out all meat), and look at more alternatives that produce less methane, like poultry, fish, maybe even stuff like lamb, though I don’t know what studies have been done to determine their output. Perhaps even changing the cows’ diet can have an impact...methane is the result of bacterial decomposition of food products, but the amount can vary depending on the food that is offered...maybe a change in cow feed can have a positive influence. Though I doubt studies have been done about that, at least none that I know of.

And as for carbon, no new carbon is here that wasn’t here since the beginning of Earth...however it is the conversion of carbon that changes, and we do influence it greatly. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly since the pre-industrial era, suggesting that our devices do play a substantial role here in the output of CO2. Plants do need this for photosynthesis, and thus would provide the natural balance, but with increasing amounts of CO2 world-wide and decreasing amounts of plant life from deforestation, that natural balance is being greatly disrupted.

As for the algea ponds, I’m no engineer and I don’t know very much about what is more economically plausible than other ideas, but there are lots of big buildings in the US with a lot of roof space going unused... and something like a factory with a lot of floor (or roof) space and tons of CO2 being released regularly might be a good spot to have an algea pond. That way there is good access to sunlight and CO2, and I don’t see why anyone would oppose having the ponds on top of the buildings really. I don’t know, that’s just my idea...making good use of available space and resources that are already there anyway. And it’s not like there’s any shortage of factories and other large buildings.

08/10/08  04:55pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1826160

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Thanks for the LOL, he and I both thought it was kinda funny. Clawed, I will give you a "hats off" as your posts always seem to have a lot of thought behind them. The thought is a bit misguided, but that is why I am here, trying to get real information, real science, real knowledge into this General Forum.

You see, no one has answered my very pertinent question - "WHAT is the Normal Climate for this planet"?
Or perhaps think of it this way - "WHAT is the earths ideal climate"? And WHY? And WHO gets to determine that?

It is difficult, but we need to acknowledge, as a species on this planet, we mean nothing. We cannot destroy it, only ourselves. We cannot change what nature is going to do. The SUN is so much more powerful than we. A Volcano is going to do its thing, no matter what. A swamp emits more GHG than a city.

Mount St. Helens put MAN to shame with her GHG emissions and ecological damage. Have you been there to see? I have. It is stark, at best. The winding mountian road cuts through what can best be described as almost lush, rain forest-like growth. Beautiful, awe inspiring. Then around a bend, the road is bordered on both sides, literally, by a Moon-scape of destruction. It has not regrown yet, YEARS after the blast. The only way nasty old MAN could do the same would be the use of nuclear weapons, or, perhaps, drive a convoy of SUV’s coast to caost? Yeah, that is sarcasm.

Environmentalists’ Wild Predictions
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.


Ok, here is another post:

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at the relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the ’proof’ that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually lagged behind temperature increases an average of 800 years! So it couldn’t have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had once led to increased warming during the past 400,000 years. -ETL

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, ’Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,’ Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other ’minor greenhouse gases.’ As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.


Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many ’facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Comments on the relevance of CO2 as a GHG?

08/11/08  06:31pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1827413

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

There is no "normal" climate for earth, and the ideal for us would be whatever is deemed best for our own sustainablility.
"It is difficult, but we need to acknowledge, as a species on this planet, we mean nothing. We cannot destroy it, only ourselves." - You’re right, we can’t destroy the earth, but destroying ourselves is a real possibility honestly, and that is what I’m afraid of. Not even just in the possibility of global warming, but even just through all the garbage we put on this planet that negatively impacts our health, not to mention the weapons we create specifically for mass destruction. There are so many ways for us to slowly (or quickly) end our species, and so few ways to reverse things once they’ve been done....but that’s a different conversation I guess.

Comments on CO2? I don’t know honestly. I still feel we should be held accountable for what we put on the earth, into the air...that’s about it for now.

08/11/08  07:32pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1827460

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

There is no "normal" climate for earth, and the ideal for us would be whatever is deemed best for our own sustainablility.

SO, you admit that we, as a species, should do what is best for us, not necessarily for the Striped Snail Darter?

Clawed, we are as natural as an Oak Tree, or a Mud Puppy.

Conservatism balances Our needs versus the Environment much more than Liberalism. That camp dismisses the needs of people entirely, only focusing on ’nature’. To a True Enviro, man is a disease on the earth. Stand in front of a mirror. Look at yourself, your family pictures, imagine your offspring. Are you, your parents, your future children ’viruses’ on the face of the earth?

08/11/08  07:40pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1827468

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Well the thing is, that a lot of what effects the environment will/does effect us in some way too, either directly or indirectly. We can’t survive without an environment to sustain us, which is why I’m concerned for the natural world.
We are as natural as an oak tree, but for some reason I feel like we try to forget that and separate ourselves on a different platform altogether. And we just keep moving further and further away from (my definition of) nature.
Conservatism focuses on us...liberalism focuses on nature...I’m right in the middle. We do pollute the planet horribly, just thinking of all the trash we produce on a daily basis is disheartening. And in my section of the neighborhood there isn’t even a recycling program, which makes me feel like a hypocrite when I speak of environmental activism....but anyway, are we a virus? Not entirely, we do tend to at least try to fix mistakes once we have realized and accepted them. A virus would care only for itself and continue it’s assault on it’s host undeterred. We have made great strides in eliminating things like CFC’s at least, and getting rid of other harmful substances for the most part. At least we try to be better.

08/11/08  08:14pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1827514

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Clawed!!! This is perhaps your BEST post ever.

Well the thing is, that a lot of what effects the environment will/does effect us in some way too, either directly or indirectly. We can’t survive without an environment to sustain us, which is why I’m concerned for the natural world.

You are correct, what affects the environment affects us. No doubt. But the issue here is WHAT IS IT that affects the environment? Look at the sheer magnitude of nature. It is not a ’fragile’ thing. The Sun is powerful. The Earth and its dynamics are Powerful. Man is, of and by itself, a nothing. The samps around New Orleans produce a greater GHG effect than New Orleans does itself. Should we fill in that swamp to help save the world?

Truth be told, Man is on a plane above the natural world; however, we are subject to its conditions and limitations, as is all physical life. The problem is very tellingly stated in your words.... "further away from (my definition of) nature"....

Again, what is NORMAL, what is BEST for this planet? and WHO gets to make that call? It is my own humble opinion that nature, in general, and this planet and its Sun, specifically, will dictate the fate, the climate, the condition of the biosphere, much more than we will ever will. Excepting perhaps our own insanity in regards to nuclear war, a different issue entirely.

Conservatism focuses on Liberty, Freedom. Yes I know, that may sound just a little trite and old fashioned, but it IS what this country was founded on and what made it the Great Power it was. I defy you to show me a Great Power (Liberty and Economy combined) anywhere else. Conservatism also (This my be controversial) acknowledges a higher power than Man.

Liberalism is focused on Man. Think "Constitution is a Living Document". Think abortion is OK, but executing a 5 time murderer is somehow wrong. (Innocent OK to die, guilty must be saved). Animals are much more important to a liberal than is a person or society in general. Personal conduct, regardless of consequenses is always OK, no matter what. Liberals do not care about rights unless it impacts them.

Liberals champion diversity. I believe that I am part of the diversity of humanity, yet, if I speak my views in public, I am called hateful, mean, stupid. So apparently, diversity only works if all are the same. (HUH?) Saying something is wrong is not hateful. It is moral. Is morality wrong? Increasingly, it seems so.

You think ’we’ pollute horribly? Who is ’we’? Americans? I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. I tell you now, this country is cleaner than it was then. Wanna see pollution? Be brave go to China and North Korea. Check it out, see the damage, the animal and plant destruction. Then, pick up a banner and protest there. Double dog dare you.

Or maybe, open your eyes about how lucky you are to have been born in the US. Take a deep breath and start celebrating being a member of the BEST country on the planet.

No local recycling program? Be a LEADER. Start one if you feel strongly. Or as a minimum, crush those cans and recycle yourself. I did that as akid 35 years ago, for my own profit. Give it a try, you might like the feeling of profit.

08/11/08  09:54pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1827650

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

And let’s talk about Big Wind or Big Solar.

Let’s be honest, these ’sources of energy’ are ONLY viable woth subsidies. (Thta means the tax dollars of someone who actually gets out of bed every morning to go to work)

But Big Oil? It only asks to do its business. No subsidies, no help, no public monies. JUST GET THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY.

And you shall have gasoline to pump at a reasonable price.

Anybody have a good rebuttal based in fact?

08/11/08  11:08pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1827751

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

HEY!!, Where did the ice go?

08/12/08  05:46pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1828662

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

I think I’ve had better posts, but I’m always accepting of a compliment :)

Before you said that we humans are no different than an oak tree, now you are saying that we are in a plane above the natural world, the two seem to contradict eachother to me. I see no reason why we should be any higher than other forms of life, if anything that tree probably has more to offer it’s immediate surroundings and has probably been there longer than any human.

The "We" that I was referring to was humanity as a whole, not Americans. I am thankful to have been born in this country, and I do love and appreciate the life I lead.

I have more to say probably...but I have to go, I’ll be back tomorrow most likely.

08/12/08  10:01pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1828976

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

OK Clawed,

Man is a natural animal. We eat, we die, we give birth. Is that not ’natural’?

At the same time, we are above the rest of the world. Who can deny we have assumed control and rule it for our own benefit? A trees life span has nothing to do with it. It is the ability to think and control your own environment.

That tree, for one preson, can be a wonderful place for a hammock, a cool shady place. For another person, that tree will be a very nice dresser for his (or her) room.

We have been given this planet, its plant life, its animal life, for our benefit.

If as you seem to think, a human is no more important than an animal, then could I not take my son to the Dr to get him neutered if I wanted no GrandKids? Why or Why not? He wants to know your opinion on this. Actually he is kind of nervous right now.

08/12/08  10:13pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1828992

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

We are not above the rest of the world, I think we just have this superiority complex. We couldn’t exist without the natural world, but it could exist very well without are we really above it, or do we just think we are?
A dog (or whatever animal you’d want to neuter) is your responsibility, as are any offspring that the dog produces. The dog is yours, it isn’t a separate independant being unless you decide to "set it free" or something to that extent. Your son is your responsibility until he matures enough to leave on his own. The children he has would then be his responsibility, not yours. Because it is assumed he’ll be leaving the nest at some point and leading his own life, his ability/choice to have kids is up to him, you would really have no responsibility to them, just him, which is why you can’t/shouldn’t neuter your son...which I’m sure he’ll be glad to here :)

08/13/08  08:29pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1830128

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

Look, either we are different (superior? inferior?) to animals-not-man, or we are not.

There is a double standard in your reply.

IF we are no better than animals, then we can treat ourselves the same. We can kill each other if we need to, neuter or spay or abort as needed.

You freely admit that I can own a dog, or cat or snake. At no time have I advocated mistreatment of animals, only that theyt are there for us to use for our benefit.

You admit that my child is ’different’. Why? Because he is Human. He is MORE than that dog or cat.

I do not believe this is the case, we are superior. We may be ’animal’, however, we are not ’animals’ and should act accordingly. We do know right from wrong (at least most do).

One thing you will find when you mature and have kids, is that you are ALWAYS the parent, even when they are 30. There is some responsibility even then, if help is needed, AGAIN so much different from lower animals. Imagine the mature Lion coming to his Dad for advice.

08/14/08  11:20pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1831382

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

I never said your child was "different", just the circumstances. Many animals have something in common with humans; they raise their young and devote their lives to the survival of their offspring, they make sacrifices for them in order to keep them fed and safe, and they teach them what is necessary to live on their own so that they shouldn’t NEED the parent any more. You get your children educated so that they can go out in the world and earn a living, you teach them to look both ways before crossing the street, you tell them what foods are good and which to avoid or at least not eat too much of...all these things you do for them so that they can live independantly of you in the future. That doesn’t mean they CAN’T come to you for advice, just that it is assumed they can now support themselves and a possible family on their own thanks to your guidance throught the years.
A dog however, will never outgrow the care of a human. We teach it to always depend on us for food and shelter. We make them give up their scavaging instincts (dumpster diving/toilet drinking) and leave them unable to survive without us. They are our complete responsibility, as are any offspring they produce under our care...if you can’t afford/don’t feel like dealing with 8 more dogs, get your dog fixed. Unlike our children, the dogs aren’t taught to move out and move on as they would in the wild.

08/15/08  09:54am


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1831668

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

So, you agree, Humans are higher animals than dogs

08/15/08  01:59pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1831861

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

no, I agree that different rules apply because we are different animals, not higher or lower in any way.

08/15/08  04:37pm


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1832030

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

but the same rules apply to dogs, as to cats, as to snakes as to birds, as to fish as to ferrets, as to turtles, as to ......... ALL except us humans. WHY are the rules different with us? Because we are more than they are. We are self-aware in a much greater way, we think in a much higher fashion (at least most of us do).

An example: I have a choice between saving a person that I do not know or my favorite dog. That dog is in trouble. Because we are more important.

08/15/08  10:21pm


View Profile

  Message To: Clawedfrogsrule   In reference to Message Id: 1832383

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

If people are so high and mighty, they should be able to save themselves and let you get the dog :P

08/16/08  09:14am


View Profile

  Message To: DuckMonster   In reference to Message Id: 1832664

 What do you think about Nuclear Power?

And if the dog is so equal, he can fend for himself.

08/16/08  09:42am
Pages  < 1 2

Back to *General Misc Forum   Forums   Home   Members Area