Exactly who are these benevolent sisters of mercy that run the coal and oil industry that compare so well against the ogres of the nuclear industry? Whatever assumption you can make about the nuclear industry cutting corners, you can measure in the oil industry. Unless you are suggesting that all human endeavours are bound to fail because we are like that. In that case, get six billion paper cups ready and let us start preparing the Kool-Aid.
As a spoiler to the CO2 panic I had a check for the phenomenon seen after 9/11, namely that vapour trails seem benign - anyway I got this :-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15809.htm
Now I am considering going into Carbon Offset by lighting extremely dirty bonfires.
Somehow I find carbon particles a lot less worrying than nuclear waste.
We don’t really know what is happening, but I have a strong dislike of running with the herd.
gonzomax, a sincere question. If not nuclear in the short-to-medium term, how would you propose that we address the global warming problem?
I’ll jump in here.
My take is that either long term global warming is taking place, or we are going through a blip.
Either way there is nothing that we can do to about it.
If it really is taking place, and if it really is down to CO2, then India and China are not going to halt their development.
Setting up contingency plans seems sensible.
Using CO2 as an excuse for bulldozing through things that people are nervous of, seems neither rational nor particularly safe.
Funny, I felt the exact opposite - even though I’m not fully convinced that global warming is caused by human pollution, or that it’s at dire as some claim, or even if it’s actually happening, I’m cheerfully prepared to scare people into supporting nuclear energy because it’s a lot better (cleaner, safer, deprives the ridiculously corrupt Saudi Arabia of wealth, etc.) than burning oil or coal. I mean, if you’re going to exploit fear, why not do so for positive ends?
I get your point, and would agree with you if I were not rather nervous of human fallibility - or more bluntly incompetence.
Every so often one hears about things like grains of Plutonium on Scottish beaches and spills at Sellafield.
Nuclear Fission strikes me as extremely dangerous, and its by products are very dangerous - I’m all in favour of chucking money at the Fusion project - but don’t feel comfortable with Fission.
The problem with this argument is that India and China say why should we limit our emissions when the developed nations are doing so little to limit theirs? In any event, you’re not answering the question. Assume for the moment we decide that we have to reduce emissions, what would you suggest we do?
Well your first statement is a distortion of what I said, they are not going to reduce their emissions even if GWB dresses up in a cow girl outfit. 
The second part is interesting, to some extent I am in favour of the increased price of oil/fuel. It brings about natural rationing and sets off searches for more/marginal resources.
I am irrationally in favour of tidal hydro, it is simple and safe technology. My Damascene conversion took place when I looked at a river hydro system in the most stable state in West Africa, and concluded that the reason why it was stable was because they had cheap and reliable electricity.
Assuming CO2 is the problem, and I would need quite some convincing, then I would start planting trees, and in very large numbers. Getting irrigation technology down to a fine art would be interesting, also potentially useful elsewhere.
I would also start cutting swathes through the S American rain forests, according to a letter to the Times that I read about 20 years ago (from a Prof of Forestry at some Scottish Uni) rain forests actually act like a ‘jungle in a jar’ - they are O2 and CO2 neutral.
For hotter climates I would take a look at how the Israelis heat their hot water, it is bog standard, very effective - and I’ve never seen the same in Europe. Some time ago I spotted that as a potential marketing opportunity.
As I’ve said before, chucking money into the Fusion project is a sound side bet, it might or might not work - but if it does, and the side effects are as expected, then replication should be easy.
You have probably heard of fish farming, and how successful it is at converting more than 1 in 1,000,000 eggs into a viable fish. I would set up algae farms and dump the stuff in appropriate places.
And to run these projects, I would select disgruntled employees of the likes of Haliburton and the oil majors - not a bunch of tree huggers.
A fair question - and I hope an answer that is constructive.
Yes, that was constructive. Unfortunately, time does not permit extended comment, except to note that few of those are emissions reduction strategies. On carbon sink strategies, consider this article by Uncle Cecil.
As for my first point, I don’t think I distorted your position so much as stated my reply poorly. Let me try that again, explicating the pronouns: The problem with this argument is that India and China say, “Why should we [i.e., India and China] limit our emissions when the developed nations [e.g., UK and US] are doing so little to limit theirs?” Will they limit theirs if we limit ours? Hard to say. But it’s a cinch they won’t if we don’t.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=112&id=1535632006 My fear has been that as long as it is a for profit enterprise it will cut safety corners for greater earnings. It is all about the benjamins. They will make a plant last longer than it should. They will cover up flaws. I am a skeptic and believe very little of what I am told. Safety is not the prime directive.
How prophetic you were. The crows have come home to roost.
For that you resurrect a four year dead thread?
Please provide a reliable cite for the number of people who have died from radiation in Japan during the recent tsunami.
Regards,
Shodan
We’ve had plenty of newer threads about this, and it doesn’t make sense to revive a four and a half year old thread when you could find one of those or start a new one. I’m locking this.