FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.

jp_2

take your meds john

claim down john........its not professional looking

William Faust

please note that

I neither said that global warming is not real nor that there is no general consensus in the scientific community that it is real. The diversity of opinion to which I referred is whether man-made CO2 is causing it.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny compared to other greenhouse gases. Other posts have talked about how water vapor is the biggest one. Forget about that and it's still true. Look at numbers. Then find out how much of that is man-made. Gore's big red line looks horrifying, but it's really teensy.

A number of very respected scientists who are not beholden to oil companies claim that CO2 is not only not causing warming but it isn't even remotely possible. They say that the geologic evidence is extremely clear that warming causes CO2 increases.

Global warming has become a quasi-religion. It has gotten to the point where scientists who disagree with popular (politically accepted) notions presently in vogue are treated as heretics. That does not conform to the culture and discipline of science. Something is seriously wrong when a scientist is labeled a Global Warming Denier. He or she might as well admit to having sex with goats.

Remember eugenics? That was popular science (politics) too. We don't work as hard at sterilizing non-whites anymore.

Again, Gore is a politician. He wants to be President. Do you think that anyone would be listening to him if he did not have his current gig? I don't think so.


Your children and grandchildren have more at risk from energy wars than CO2.

DanHolohan

John,

you know I won't stand for the name-calling in my house.

Are you going to be the one who causes me to kill this otherwise interesting thread?

Cosmo_3

John listen to me

Thanks,

Cosmo

Dave_4

Free Country.........

Bill,

You are right. You do have a right to disagree. That is what this forum is about. Democracy in action.

Still you can't ignore the following two paragraphs. Facing the facts of the two paragraphs below, I find it very hard to carry your stance. Who knows maybe I am wrong. I have been wrong before. But in the case of global warming I am not willing to sacrifice this great planet or ignore the warning of 300 great men.

Global warming is very real. All of the climatalogics came together and made a statement, 300 or so of them. It was at a big conference. Out of the 300, not one, I repeat not one disagreed. They said that global warming was happening and man was the cause of it.

The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are higher then anything in the last 650,000 years. If you plot the levels on a curve, the curve becomes extremely steap in the last few decades. The curve is practically pointing straight up!!

JR


To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Dave_4

I got carried away.......

Dan,

Sorry I got carried away. What do you want me to do? How should I fix it?

I'll edit it if you want me to.

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Paul_11

HEY BILL: could you list the scientists you refer to

Bill,
Could you give us a list of the scientists you refer to.
I have a relative who is a scientist and he did some research recently and says that he can't find one peer reviewed article that has ever been written that says global warming isn't caused by human activity.

Regarding the matter of water vapor. It is one of those myths that doesn't want to go away. I posted the following a few weeks ago and now I post it again.

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we're going to control a greenhouse gas, why don't we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

Paul B. Shay
pshay@arealgoodplumber.com
LMP 1307
LMFS 654B
212-505-1837
917-939-0593
Our mission is to give such excellent Plumbing, Heating, and Sprinkler service that all of our customers become raving fans and love to tell their

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

William Faust

the document

I can't say, but I suspect that the document to which you refer is probably available online. If so, you could read it (much would go over my head) and also see the list of scientists and plumb that information according to your desire. R ght now, I suspect that you're probably not quite on the money because all scientists who participated in that UN conference (I assume that's what you have been talking about) were placed on that list whether they agreed with the report's methodologies or conclusions. That is my understanding from watching a video for which someone else posted on this thread.

To be honest, my feelings were sort of parallel to yours initially. I certainly respect your passion on the matter.

Troy_3

Stop,stop, stop

I can't take it any more. My sides hurt. OK OK I admit it I'm an IDIOT too! WOW WE should form a club. Like the opposite of Mensa. See I cant even spell. I'm qualified. Oh well. John I also do my best to promote efficient heating and I hope this helps the planet. I bet we will see where this histeria is leading soon. I'm sure there is some redistribution of wealth involved. But then that is just one idiots ramblings. i'll be dead soon and then pollute the ground and water with years of accumulated chemicals I've injested through the years.

DanHolohan

Please go back

and edit your posts where you are calling people names.

Thank you.

Dave_4

Done.....

Cosmo,

Its done. I removed it.

Sorry to offend you.

I was not saying that the Arabs were bad or anything. Just pointing out that they have a lot of money they received from oil. I and many are jelous of that. I would like to see Arabs earn less money from oil. I think it would be better for there economy. They would then compete to produce better products and sell them over seas like other countries do.

I always like to think of myself as a fair person. I am not perfect. I do not tolerate discrimination. Though there are terrorist camps in the middle east, I still believe that most Arabs are good law abiding citezens. After 911 and what happened. The terrorists did come from the middle east. I do have an anger against those terrorists. But it is not geared towards other Arabs. All people are created equal and should be treated that way.

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

DanHolohan

Please

also edit your 11:05 and 11:56 posts where you are calling David names. Thank you.

Dave_4

Wild Wild West Days of the wall..........

Dan,

I miss the wild wild west days of the wall when we had the freedom to say what we wanted. Remember those days?

I understand it is not you that are the problem. You would have to be an @#$# if you didn't try and please the lawyers. There is way to much trafic now on the wall and a person has to be really careful with what he says. There are so many people, that at least somebody is going to be offended by something.

Wow!! I offended people with every one of my posts.

The lawyers created this society. I don't like it but I and you have no choice but to live with it.

I will work hard at getting better at how I comunicate.

Sorry,

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

DanHolohan

John,

those days are in the past, and the reason why the site is the way it is today. We learned that fighting doesn't work.

And I am not at all concerned about lawyers. I ask you to behave in a polite and mature way because that is what I would do if you were a guest in my home. If we were all at the dinner table and you started talking to people in the way that you talked to them here today, I would politely, but firmly, ask you to leave.

Thanks for your understanding, and your cooperation.

Dave_4

I think I got it all

Dan,

I think I got it all.

Have I misssed anything else?

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

jp_2

I thought

you called yourself a professional, the drunk at the bar speak his mind. this where you what to be?

a wise man chooses his words carfully.

Dave_4

A D D......

J Paul,

I have Attension Deficit Disorder. So did Thomas Edison and many other great inventors. Because of ADD, sometimes I act impulsively. It is a problem that I have had to deal with all my life. In the old days people didn't let little things bother them. They worried about and worked on real problems. They were results orientated. They went about solving a problem and worked hard at it.

In today's society everyone makes such a big deal over the stupid little things. They let every little thing offend them. In the old days no one had time to worry about what they said. They just built electrical systems and cars and things. They built them well and they judged others on there acomplishments. They didn't judge them on what they said. They judged them on what they could accomplish.

I will say stupid things in the future. I can't help that. And every passing day people get madder and madder at stupid little things. Tiny Tiny things. I don't even concern myself with worrying about what stupid thing someone says. Yes I will work hard to change and be better, more civilized. Because I have no other choice.

They tore down the Energy Efficiency Action Group because I made one bad comment. People just couldn't get over that. It still bothers me today.

Now that you ask about the professional and the drunk at the bar, I think I would prefer to be behind an Irish pub having a few beers with my friends. Saying what I want and not having it appear here on the wall for the world to pick it a part and judge it.

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

William Faust

dissenting scientists

This is a partial list of scientists interviewed in the BBC piece The Great Global Warming Swindle which can be found at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=great+global+warming+swindle
&q=great+global+warming+swindle

Prof. Tim Ball, Dept. Climatology, U. Winnepeg
Prof. Nir Shariv, Inst. Physics, U. Jerusalem
Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. Earth Sciences (paleoclimatologist), U. Ottawa
Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster Weather Action
Prof. John Christy, Dept. Atmospheric Science, U. Alabama at Hunstville, lead author IPCC
Prof. Philip Stott, Dept. Biogeography, U. London
Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Inst., Paris
Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & Dept. Meterology MIT
Dr. Roy Spencer, Satellite Team Leader
Prof. Patrick Michaels, Dept. Env. Sciences, U. VA
Nigel Calder, former Editor New Scientist
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Dir. Int’l. Arctic Research Center
Prof. Frederick Singer, former Dir. US Nat’l. Weather Svc.
Prof. Carl Wunsch, Sr. Visiting Fellow Mathematics and Statistics, U. Cambridge
Prof. Jang Weitzer, Geologist
Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace

Dave_4

Missleading Video's by Martin Durkin....

Bill,

Wow!!!

Please everyone go and see Bills video. That video is the exact problem with society today. After viewing the video a person will come away believing Global Warming to be false.

According to Wikipedia, the director (Martin Durkin)of that video has a long history of misquoting experts in there field. Many Many experts have gotten mad at Martin for doing so. His vidoe's and the misquoted experts voice out on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me see for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

I wonder if a greedy rich person paid for that video? I wonder if they worked for some huge industry related concerns? Is some one here willing to track down the sponsor to see where it leads?

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

PS_3

Kool Aid

For this argument, the Kool Aid is best served warm.

Dave_4

ADD is the reason that I am here now

J Paul,

I have spent the better part of this afternoon battleing Bill and David over global warming. I have lost several hours of work time that I should be doing.

Is ADD a good thing? Was it good for me to be impulsive and spend the afternoon in a battle?

Have I influenced people in a positive way and encouraged them to fight against global warming?

Or am I just a bum with an ADD problem ramballing on?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

Part 2 Response - Waste Disposal Funding & Issues

Sorry for the delay in this part. This is the first I could get to it due to other life issues.

Bill above questioned some of my statements concerning the power industry funding of waste disposal and how that will fall out.

That is actually a very good question...

For starters, though; i'd like to differentiate between the cost of disposing of waste - and the cost of just arguing about it to just argue and putting waste into temporary storage while people argue (If you pay a moving company to move your stuff - and they don't and you have to put it into temporary storage... Is the cost of the temporary storage actually the cost of moving your stuff).

The cost to dispose of the waste - via several different methods is fairly well known. The cost for various parties to delay it - and impose additional cost for no real reason... That is unknown, and the US Congress and President has sure made a mess of it. I also do not consider it as any real part of the cost of waste disposal. It is the cost of political posturing - and the US Federal Courts have now ruled that the Utilities cannot be held responsible for that cost. Recent article have identified that the cost of political posturing is approaching $1 Billion per year.

Dispite what any single or a few US Congress member may believe.... I believe that most of the others are starting to catch on to what the cost of delay are. Even the Senate Majority Leader can not stop an issue that most of the Senate really wants.

Please finish reading what I have dug up for facts before you get too upset about that Billion dollars per year.

Yucca Mountain.

I am not going to attempt to claim that this is the "best" deep repository site. Many sites were looked at and it is quite possible that there is a better site. I will claim that of all the sites that were looked at and of all the factors that was looked at - that Yucca Mountain is clearly one of the sites on the "good potential site" list.

Nor am I going to claim that the science - all the science - is perfect. It is not. About $9 Billion dollars has now been spent studying Yucca Mountain. It is clealy the most geologically studied piece of land anywhere in the world. Parts of the study have had to be redone because of sloppy work or errors. That is true of any very large scale project. People tend to focus on the problems uncovered - and not the rework by independent parties of the issue.

I am overall confident that the conclusion: With the right packaging and construction that spent fuel - or other nuclear waste can be safely stored there and allowed to decay down. If properely sealed, no one in the future will even know the site is there - unless they know about it. There are no reasons for anyone to live there for the forseeable future, and no reasons for anyone to mine there as there are no concentrations of commerically attractive ores (several salt deposites were rejected because someone might mine them for salt in the future).

Do we need a deep repository site?

I believe that answer is Yes; and every other country in the world facing the issue has come to the same conclusion.

However, there are some very valid questions involved.

Please check out the two possible scenerio's discussed at the following web site under the statement: "Yucca Mountain: Right Answer; Wrong Question"; where the author questions the need for Yucca Mountain.

http://www.atomicinsights.com/FTROU/02-02-02.html

I disagree with his conclusions only to the extent that three other countries that have major fuel reprocessing and isotope use have found that they still need to dispose of in a safe and relatively permanent manner about 5-10% of the waste (and this does not count Military waste).

Thus, a premanent deep repository is needed. But, perhaps it only needs to handle 10% of the current waste volumn (which would cost a whole lot less).

US Nuclear Power Plants have produced to date about 50,000 tons of spent fuel. It is a very small amount volumn wise and if stacked in a football field would only be about 30 ft high (or about the volumn of a small 2 story office building typical of many cities).

Yucca mountain was designed to hold 70,000 tons of unreprocessed spent fuel by placing it in 50 tunnels 2000 ft long (18.9 miles of storage tunnels). One of the key evaluations was for 120,000 tons; but the initial license request to the NRC will be for 70,000 tons. I note that some people indicate that Yucca Mountian could easily hold an additional several hundred thousand tons in its geologic formantion, but that was not formally studied (yet).

Unfortunately, and confounding the storage issue is US Military weapons program and US Naval reactor fuel disposal - which have now also been slated for deep repository disposal. I have heard different numbers on the quantity of this waste, and did not take time to research the issue. I will accept without challange that the existing power plant and US Miliary waste quantity already exceeds the planned capacity of 70,000 tons for Yucca Mountain, and that another repository will be needed (unless Yucca Mountain is vastly expanded - or fuel reprocessing takes place).

Yucca Mountain was initially susposed to cost about $15 Billion dollars to research, license, build, fill, and close. That was years ago. I do note that the current Power Plant fund has collected and grown via interest to about $28 Billion dollars so far. So in theory; 5/7 (71%)of the repository capacity has already greatly overfunded the initial expected cost of Yucca Mountain.

How much will Yucca Mountain really cost? I make the following estimation.

$9 Billion already expendid.

$1 Billion to license (if it can be licensed - the NRC makes no promises on that - but in the end I suspect the answer is yes it can and will be licensed).

$1 Billion a year to construct tunnels, place used fuel, and operate (This is a DOE number - that is all they say they can spend in a year of operation - which I find reasonable).

So it depends on how many years it operates after getting a license.

If you recall, above I indicated that the storage tunnels would be 18.9 miles long.

Milwaukee Wisconsin had to build a "Deep Tunnel" sewage/storm water collection tunnel system 300 ft down in hard rock. 19.4 miles of tunnels cost $1 Billion to build and took 9 years (they then built another 7 miles of tunnes for $130 Million).

Since they did not have to line the tunnels with ASME Class three nuclear grade supports, and linings, all from exotic corrosion resistant materials, etc they did not need to spend $1 Billion a year to build the tunnels.

Hence: It is reasonable to believe that if they actually just go to work and drill and line the tunnels that 10 years would be a reasonabl timetable to build the 50 planned 2000 ft long tunnels. They could be filling the tunnels as fast as they are built (the tunnel system was laid out that way such that the first tunnel would be filled while the third or 4th tunnel was under construction).

So worst case scenerio: The repository operates for 15 years in the build and fill - if they just go do it - for the 70,000 tons for the initial license. After which the cost are only for security and monitoring until it is sealed which should be a Million or so each year.

So; realistically: $25 Billion dollars covers the whole thing (and it could be less).

I have seen many people list scenerios where the site operates for 50 or more years.... Thus it's projected cost is in the range of $60 Billion.

Well sure - if they are drilling tunnels and filling them for 50 years.... If you can build tunnels for 70,000 tons in 10 years that might be a final capacity of 350,000 tons....{Eddited to correct number to 350,000 about 4 hours after initial post} which is so far beyond any capacity that anyone has ever mentioned will be needed to be streatching the realm of imagination. However, if so - not to bad in my book... 350,000 tons for $60 Billion dollars would be a real deal... (remember that 120,000 ton number - and the other comments on the geologic storage capacity of the site... who knows how much may really be stored there).

However, the actaul number of years of operation and final cost do not really matter. Becasue it is already fully fundid.

By some strange quirk Congress actually set up the Wast Disposal Fund correctly. All collections go into it (and not the general fund), Any interest it earns goes back into it and it builds in value... Just like a trust fund should be.

The result is that even after paying for the $9 billion so far on Yucca Mountain - it is generating about $1 Billion dollars a year in interest. That is in addition to the about $3/4 Billon that the Utilities (and their customers) are paying into it each year - meaning the fund is growing about about $1.75 Billino each year minus $1/2 to 3/4 Billion that congress allows Yucca Mountain to have to prepare the NRC License Submittal.

Did you note that the DOE indicated that it would cost about $1 Billion dollars a year to drill and fill tunnels... The interest payments alone have now reached the realm where they would fund Yucca Mountain forever... and most certainly in a few more years of Utility payments no matter how much waste is eventually stored there. Now isn't that the way a trust fund should operate.

Might I mention: Don't you wish SS had been set up this way...


Note also that is assuming the the Military has no obiligations to pay their fair share of disposal for their waste (could this be another subsidy by nuclear utilties - and their customers to the govenment? I'll bet on it).

Now I would like to point out that there is no requirment that the US government persue deep disposal as far as the Utilities are concerned. All that is required is for the US Government to take possession of the waste. That is the Law as passed several times by Congress and signed by the President. That is also why the courts have ruled the the US Goverment is leagally liable for the extra cost for the Utilities to temporarily store the waste beyond the intial plant storage capacity.

The US Government could for example establish their own dry fuel storage repositories. That really makes sense from many angles - especially if anyone wants the option to reprocess the fuel (as England, France, and Russia does - and also reprocesses for reactors in many countries arround the world).

As many have pointed out a dry fuel storage site would be much cheaper to build than the very large deep depository... (like 1/100 the cost).

Well, if there is money to build and operate the deep depository, then certainly there is money in the Waste Fund to build and operate dry storage facilities... In a few years there will even be money to build and operate both - forever... based on the interest off of the Waste Fund.

One catch... Each licensed dry fuel storage site requires a NRC license. Not cheap to get, and an annual license fee of about $3/4 Million dollars. Each site requires 24 hour arround the clock security forces (at least in the US). $Millions per year.

Now you can have 80 such sites (which is what is happening becasue plants must set them up) or you can have one national or several regional sites. The licensing cost and operating cost is essentially the same weather you are storing 6 dry fuel cask - or 6000 of them.

However, should the US Goverment take possession of the existing dry cask storage sites - and maintain the licenses, security, etc it would cost about $1 Billion per year (as reported in sevearl sources). Once they take posession they are free to use the money from the Waste Fund - which coincientelly is earning about $1 Billion a year in interest.

I persoanly feel that it is a shame that a number of nuclear plants have been totally decommisioned and demolished except for a small fenced in area with a security building in the area - and dry cask storage - because the US Government has refused to set up centralized dry fuel storage.

In the end I feel that the US Government is moving towards both centrilized dry fuel storage, fuel reprocessing, and deep repository.

Licensing of Yucca Mountain will proably occur, although perhaps not while Senator Reed is the Senate Majority Leader - but between the Military need for deep repository storage of their waste (which people rarely talk about) and the need to dispose of 5%-10% of the waste from reprocessing there is really no option but to build a deep repository somewhere. Most of the waste will be Military with only a small portion from fuel recycling redidue.

As far as overall safety down the years. The one legal challange that won in court (compared to sevearl dozen that were outright dismissed) was related to very long periods of storage compared to the initial standard.

The initial radiation leakage standard the Deep Repository Disposal had to meet was that after 10,000 years there should be no more worst case rediation leakage that could get to the surface in any reasaonable from such the people living in the area would recieve no more does from the waste than if they ate a bannana a year.

The courts found that peoples claims that this was an unreasonable time period for nuclear waste to be valid - especially given that under worst case conditions the maximim radiation leakage from the spent fuel would not occur untill something like 1/4 to 1/2 million years.

This involves a hypothetical case if the caverns were to either have huge flows of water through them - or flood; and the water was so corrosive that it totally dissolved the linings storage cask and fuel cladding - and started dissoving "all" the ceramic fuel pellats; not that anyone can tell you how natural water gets that corrosive).

From memory I belive that they now have to demonstraite with a reasonable degree of certainty that possible radiation leakage out to either 1/2 or 1 million years.

Also from memory - the charts I have seen from such analysis indicates that there is a peak in radioctive leakage should the fuel pellets become exposed to suitably corrosive water and the water leak to the surface (or to levels where surface wells might be). My memory was it goes up to the does equivalent of about a dozen bananas a year - assuming people were living there.

Of course, it will take a major climate change for people to ever be able to live there - but that is concievable in a 100,000 years.

I would also like to mention transportation issues.

What issues? Waste fuel has been transported thousands of times in the US, and over 10,000 times in the rest of the world. There has never been a radiological incident (there have been a few accidents).

The Cask are the most rugged and thouroghly tested shipping containers on this earth.

What happens if they are in a fire. They have been tested at fires that are much hotter and much longer than any vehicle accident fire (even gas tanker truck accident).

What if a truck were to stall across a railroad track and a freight train hit the cask. 80 MPH Freight locamotive test. The locomotive lost. All they had to do was pick up the dented cask from the field and put it on another truck. It was intack.

What if it falls off a bridge... Tested, Cask Passed.

What if it were to fall onto a sharp hardened steel spike mounted in sold concrete.. could it puncture the cask. Tested, Cask passed.

Etc.

What about all that radiation... Have you had a bannana today - or perhaps a potato (arn't you worried about that radiation). Better yet - did you fly somewhere. You have recieved more Natural radiation from any flight in the world more than a few minute long that you would recieve from a transport cask.

Did I mention the radiation from a granite counter top...

Have you considered why the govenment allows all kinds of hazardous materials and waste to be shipped all over the US. What about the accidents that injure or kill people - where areas are evacuated.... How come those items do not have the same kinds of safty standards as what is required for spent fuel. How come I can ship other radionuclides via FedeX or UPS - or even by truck?

Anyway, I hope that answers the questions.

Perry

Mark Hunt

Wikpedia??


You are using this as your source??

An on-line "encyclopedia" that allows visitors to add whatever they want?

Did you even watch the video John?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Dave_4

Just google Martin Durkin

Mark,

Just google Martin Durkin. Many articles apear from many different sources, about how he consistantly misrepresented the facts in many of his video's.

I haven't tracked down who funded his videos but I bet if you did you would find some greedy rich people trying to defend there interests. Big Oil, Big Industry or someone like that.

Anyway the stuff on google discredits him plenty.

Now what about those 300 Climatologists? No one has discredited them yet. They have no reason to lie. They are telling the truth. They worked very hard to come up with there study and results. It is based on science.

JR

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mark Hunt

John


Did you actually watch the video?

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

William Faust

forget the video

since John thinks that it's propaganda. Somewhere below (forgot which one) is a list of dissenting scientists and their viewpoints - which are not all the same. Good article in the WSJournal recently by Prof. Lindzen, whether one agrees. My point is that there's no room for Gestapo tactics when it comes to science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
http://www.nrsp.com/people.html

DISCLOSURE: I AM A TOOL OF THE OIL INDUSTRY AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Yours Truly,
Karl Rove

That's for John who wanted to know who I was and who was funding me (Geo. W. Bush, of course).

This is my last post on this thread. How about a new thread where I pose the following quiz:

If Saddam Hussein is Duke Atreides and Geo. W. Bush is Baron Harkonnen, are we screwed if the Iranians are the Fremen?

The Wall is the greatest. I learned so much here about my steam heating system.

Bill (or Karl)

Dave_4

Research.......

Dave,

First you need to learn how to do research. Research is all about getting at the truth. I have done my research.

When you see a video like that you need to first find out what the qualifications are of the person who made the video. Then once you find plenty of stuff to discredit him, you can't believe anything in his video. If he has a long history of misrepresenting the facts then you have to expect him to also do that in the future.

I researched the climatologists at ASHRAE. Now why would the 10 PHD's, engineers, and scientists have a reason to lie to me? I have my Inventors Assoc meetings at Fairfield University in CT. I was the past president. I personally know many professor's there. They all beleive global warming is happening. They are all concerned. They all have jobs with the University and aren't paid for by any interest groups. They have no reason to lie. I heard about the conference that the Climatlogists went to and made the statement below.

" The earth is warming up and man is the cause!!!"

Many, Many different sources agree. Not one leading expert disagreed. I don't care one way or another to tell you the truth. I used to race cars. I wish global warming wasn't true!! I loved tuning and building fast cars.

Now that I know the truth I am going to do something about it. I am working hard to reduce global warming.

JR



To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

John

I understand; and am glad that you are willing to appologize. Not a problem in my book.

However, concerning your position I have to disagree with some of what you presented.

I think if you were to research the issue you would find the following:

A) The overwhelming vast majority of scientist agree that global warming is occuring.

The vast majority of scientist agree that mankind has had a part in causing global warming.

C) The vast majority of scientist are wondering and debating how much mankind has affected global warming. It is largly manmade, or is it largly natural cycles? I have seen several papers where people talk about the 5% to 95% range. It seems there are many who agree with the concept that mankinds affects are in the range of 5% to 95% - and that the rest of the global warming affect is natural.

D) There is no general consensus amoung most of the scientist of the world that mankind is largly responsible for global warming (well above 50% of the affect). Some believe and argue for the 90-95% range, others believe and argue for the 5-10% range, and yet others think that its about equal.

E) Reports from largly political scientific organizations are not that well respected in the independent scientific world (and scientist tend to be independent).

F) The vast majority of scientist know that CO2 is only one of many manmade and natural greenhouse gases - but it is often referenced or used as a convienient indicator for the stating point of a discussion.

F) The overwhelming vast majority of scientist agree that it is best if we eliminate or minimize all forms of environmental polution.

The result is for example: that a lot of scientist will support the concept of reducing coal cumbustion for other forms of energy even if they are unsure how much coal power plants and CO2 add to global warming.


Edited to add: For those following the Nuclear discussion (cost and what is in it) - I posted my Part 2 answere on Waste Disposal above.

Perry

Perry_3

Good research is always welcome..

John,

Welcome to the club - I am glad you are questioning some of the sources.

See my comments below your other post.

I have no problem whatsover with you doing what you will do to reduce emmissions.

Perry

jp_2

consensus

fun, you never hear what 'that' consensus actually is, good post perry.

Cosmo_3

John

John,

your comment, "Just pointing out that they have a lot of money they received from oil. I and many are jelous of that."

I have a couple things to say about that statement.

First, we are in the Lenten season, and that jealousy can easily be cured by a confession

Second, lets not forget that the Middle East is not the only geographical area that is making crazy money in oil. Lets also not forget that the guys who actually enjoy all that money are very few in comparison to how many poverty stricken people live there.

John, it just has always been my opinion that when we talk about ecology, environment, pollution, energy efficiency, and how to improve life on our Earth, it is pretty meaningless to add issues of politics, nationalism, and ethnicism. This is pure science.

The middle east didn't create the political problems we have there now. The worlds energy needs and supply/demand economics simply added a whole boatload of fuel to an existing fire.

The term terrorism does not belong to any single race, region, or government. It is a word used to describe violence. Terrorists have been around since the beginning of time. It will never go away completely, and we know from experience some of the best defenses against terrorism include representative government of, for, and by the people, a population of people that are not afraid to defend their liberties, a kind soul, a firm hand, and a big stick.

I agree with you that the less money we send over there for oil the better for all of us. You see John we really agree, it is just the wording you sometimes use.

I think that with only a few exceptions this thread has been one of the most enlightening, and entertaining times on the Wall yet!


Cosmo

Perry_3

Who is \"Big Oil\"

I think you all will find this interesting:

Which oil companies now control the world oil market?

Lets here your guesses....

Once upon a time (in the 50's and 60's there were 7 companies that were broke out of the original "standard oil company" which was considered monopolistic. Most of you could probably name 5 of those 7 with ease... Those companies are probably your guesses...


Sorry, they are all has beens now.

Look at the linked article to find out who is controlling us, and who we are supportin with our export dollars.

What might their aims be?

www.ft.com/cms/s/471ae1b8-d001-11db-94cb-000b5df10621.html


Perry

Maine Doug_60

It was a surprise

to see the Mobil near my SIL in NJ change to LukOil and even more when it spread all over the place.
Asked Mobil why I should use their Speedpass if the the number of their stations is dwindling--- no answer!
And it was Citgo that brought lower cost heating oil to Maine and now other states for distribution to low income families.
The world changes...

mel rowe

Just wanted to repost this. Probably not noticed/read by some of the latest posters. More to think about. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm John Ruhnke's problem is that he is just too biased to appreciate a good prejudiced point of view. LOL

Tony_23

Boy, Oh Boy

Guess I missed some "slinging" while I was out working today

Since when does consensus dictate facts ? A consensus of mistaken notions is still mistaken. If 6 people said it was sunny out at 2 A.M., and 2 people said it was dark, who'd be right ? Science isn't a matter of vote or agreement, it's a matter of facts. If you choose to ignore some facts and embellish others, that's not science. It's manipulation. Playing on a strong emotion is an old trick of manipulation. Fear is a very strong emotion.

Since when does big business, whether it's Big Oil or others, have a monopoly on coercion or control of facts or people ? Governments have been controlling people for eons. Keeping the masses huddled, through fear or otherwise, has it's advantages when you're in power. Also, those government research grants don't come if they aren't espousing what the "powers" want distributed. The point is that all the arguments for not believing the naysayers of GW can be used for not believing the proponents of GW. Think about it.

I hope to live long enough to see the next "impending ice age" like I saw the last one those 30 years ago. That was based on 30 years of cooler temperatures. Now we have 30 years of slightly warmer temps and here we are. I figure in the next 5 years we'll start seeing cooler temps again

Mark Hunt

Thanks!

Now read this.

Is there anything that can't be blamed on globular warming?

Yes, I misspelled it on purpose.

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

CC.Rob_3

various sides

The issue cuts all ways.

Carl Wunsch, who was featured in the "Swindle" video, has this to say about his experience. He was not pleased.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm

Meanwhile, some people are also asking/advising Gore to cool it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?em&ex=1174017600&en=a1fd786aa4a2721f&ei=5087

Perry_3

Part 1 response: More details.

Now that I have more time to look up details:


As mentioned above the 2007 NRC budget looks like this:

Authorized Spending: $821.6 Million

Expected Fees: $666.5 Million

Federal Funding: $155.1 Million

I find it interesting that the NRC is currently only collecting 90% of their budget as fees. I have several very solid references that indicates that in 2002 - 2003 timeframe they were collecting 96% of their budget via fees.

Anyway, Fees are collected in two parts:

Part 170: License Applications and investigative or review hourly rate recovery.

Part 171: Annual License Fees for license holders.

As indicated above the current hourly recovery rate of Part 170 is $256 per hour - which includes all overhead as the NRC employees don't make nearly that (many make about 1/4 of that - and a few make 1/2 of that).

For more information on these fees and an exact breakdown of who pays how much for license applications and annual license fees see the various links listed at:

www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing/fees.html

Concerning the NEI letter of March 5 that Bill identified. This letter was in response to new fee schedules published in the Federal Register Feb 2, 2007 by the NRC for 2007.

"Part II; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for FY 2007; Proposed Rule"

I don't recall the link I used to find this last week - but if anyone really want to see it they can email me direct. I have this section of the Federal Register saved as a 34 page pdf file.

This sheds some very interesting light on the subject:

For example: Part 171 Fees are expected to be $471.5 Millon dollars (out of $664.9 Million if total fees which is $1.6 Million less than the original budget number above).

It also indicates that Power Reactor Licenses were increasing from $3,704,000 per reactor in 2006 to $4,088,000 per reactor in 2007 (an increase of $384,000 per reactor); that research and test reactor license fees were incresing from $80,100 per year to $92,300 per year; and that for all other license catagories that their annual license fee goes down (and the High Enriched Uranium Fuel Facility license went down by $969,000 - and I'll admit that there is only one of those and they do not make power plant reactor fuel).

Now there are 104 licensed power reactors in the US (at 65 plant sites). At $4,088,000 per reactor this nets the NRC $425,152,000 in Part 171 fees from the power reactors.

This represents 90.2% of all part 171 Fees collected.

There are currently 36 research and test reactors licensed which brings in another $3,322,800 in license fees, or 0.7% of Part 171 Fees (note that all reactor licenses combined bring in 90.9% of Part 171 Fees).

The NRC is also gracious enough to indicate how much of its budget and staff resources are applied to Nuclear Reactor Safety. 70% of its budget - and that includes all the research and test reactors along with the power reactors.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1350/v18/fig03.html

So, The power industry is paying as part of its license fees at a rate of 90+ percent, when the staff and budget required to oversee this industry is 70%.

The power industry is subsidizing everyone else - big time.

Now for the Part 170 Fees; my initial read is that the NRC has standardized on the hourly rate of $256 per manhour for everyone.... except that certain groups get exemptions in the fine print from having to pay these (or most of these) fees. Research reactors appear to be exempt; and I do not have a problem with that. I stopped reading the fine print past that; as I think my point is well established.

The Nuclear Power industry subsidizes everyone else in the nuclear field on a regulatory level. The NEI letter expressed concern over how the rates have increased on the power industry more while generally being decreased on other nuclear license users just this year without adequate or reasonable explaination.


Hope that helps,

Perry

Perry_3

The number seems high:

My understanding is that if you converted coal and natural gas use to an oil equivelent, and the existing several hundred nuke plants that the world is currently consuming the equivelent of about 1 cubic mile of oil per year.

Can't remember for sure where I got the graphic; but someone looked at the different energy stratagis and asked how much would we have to build to produce the equivelent of 1 cubic mile of oil per year. The numbers were two large to make sense so they broke it down to how many would we have to build each year for 50 years.

I have attached the graphic (Net Cubic Mile Oil..).

Comes out to 2600 nuclear plants to replace everything - worldwide.

Is it feasable to build 50+ nuke plants in the world a year. Actaully yes. For a period in the 80's there were about 20 per year being built as the US and France was building their existing infastructure. Certainly Europe, the US, China, India, and many other countries have the capability to easily build 5 to 10 a year. We would have to reopen a few large scale forging facilities to make reactor vessels and heads, and may need to build a few more facilities (3 in the US were closed - and 2 still exist in working order - and it looks like one of those facilities will be reopened in the next 5 years). There are 3 facilities in the world that I know of doing this work now (and about 30 units under construction at this time).

However, keep in mind - no one is suggesting that only one energy source handles all the worlds needs. There is room for everyone. The only real question is what will the main energy source be? Mixed with everthing else - we may only need 30 reactors a year (1500).

If we go to breader reactors we would never run out of nuclear fuel.

Perry

Perry_3

On the nuclear side of things...

Last week Bill asked some good questions and I did not have the time then to respond properly.

I have posted 3 responses above (dated March 14); for those who were looking for good information.

Sometimes I struggle as to how many other sites I should list as references. I guess I assume that people will check out the NRC (nrc.gov), NEI (nei.org), and even the government Yucca Mountain site:

www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml

Hope that helps all.

Perry