Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

So the IPCC study just came out and things dont look pretty. It looks like the we can expect more heat waves and more hurricanes over the next century. But what I hear very little of is what we can do. I read that even if Kyoto was implemented tomorrow, it would have very little impact on the current trends. What exactly must be done? How much are we going to have to scale back our economies so that we can survive this? Has anyone even developed a realistic plan?

(Please dont turn this thread into a global warming debate. For the sake of discussion I am assuming that the report is true)

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

Temperature history
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...125/Graph1.jpg

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

Like it or not, solving this problem is going to require a fundamental change in our society. Here's a list of where I would start:

Tougher CAFE standards
Zoning restrictions to encourage more compact neighborhoods, reduce driving times
Increase gas tax
Sign and implement Kyoto
Loosen regs on nuclear power
Money for mass transit

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Temperature history
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...125/Graph1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Good call. Since AC has no way of dealing with global warming, just pretend like it doesn't exist.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

If immediate emissions controls don't do anything and things keep getting worse due to feedback etc, Carbon sequestration will take care of the problem.

Really the technology to fix things almost immediately exists. It's all a matter of putting money into fixing the problem. Right now there is no incentive for an entrepreneur to build a carbon farm because obviously there is no market for it. A solution might be subsidizing the carbon capturing business. That takes a lot of money to be effective.

A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly must be done? How much are we going to have to scale back our economies so that we can survive this? Has anyone even developed a realistic plan?

[/ QUOTE ]Realistically, little will be done.

Industrial nations will never willingly drop their energy consumption in any significant way, since it means they will be giving up their lead in economic power. Emerging economies will never willingly abandon their aspirations to parity, either.

Same goes for individuals.

The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon, but, at the same time, it must be a catastrophy which won't be lethal for the human race, or the rest of the world.

We have a hardcore smoker in our hands, a nicotine addict, who's also overweight, and only a serious heart attack can make him lose weight and give up smoking, or at least seriously cut back from his four packs a day.

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon......


[/ QUOTE ]

'Over-consumption'....What is that?

'Wild capitalist abandon....What is that?




The 'rest of the world' will continue on with or without the human race. If humans become extinct, whether by their own mischief or some other natural force(s), the 'rest of the world' will evolve on, sans humans (and others species that will fall victim to human activities). Perhaps another hominid type species will evolve again - it is a few billion years before the sun loses equilibrium.



On an important related note, I thought you knew that man was not the center of the universe, an egomaniacal delusion still perpetrated by our many friends in the religion department.



".........it must be a catastrophy which won't be lethal for the human race, or the rest of the world."

As for "which won't be lethal for the human race" you missed the mark wide. Reload and take better aim next time so you don't seem so silly.

-Zeno

Mark it
 

[ QUOTE ]
'Over-consumption'....What is that?

'Wild capitalist abandon'....What is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

=

Virtually.

[ QUOTE ]
The 'rest of the world' will continue on with or without the human race. If humans become extinct, whether by their own mischief or some other natural force(s), the 'rest of the world' will evolve on, sans humans (and others species that will fall victim to human activities).

[/ QUOTE ]Misanthropes through many of us are, it is logical for mankind to proceed along the course that provides the best chance of preserving our (sole) natural habitat.

It's either this, or an expedient suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps another hominid type species will evolve again.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not relevant to the issue, but the appearance of our kind of hominids was already such an outside shot, that it is pretty much evident that another shot will likely not result in the same outcome. (I.e. if we were to re-wind History some hundreds of millions of years back and let it roll again, we would almost certainly end up with extremely different forms of life on the planet.)

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you knew that Man was not the center of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]He isn't. We aren't. This doesn't mean that Man cannot, by now, seriously affect his environment to the point of, God-like, destroying it.

That's the whole point, really. Man's ability to do extreme, God-like damage. He doesn't have the capacity to do God-like good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it must be a catastrophy which won't be lethal for the human race, or the rest of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]As for "which won't be lethal for the human race" you missed the mark wide.

[/ QUOTE ]There can be such catastrophies. I won't bother with providing examples, since this tends to derail the discussion and we focus on the example rather than issue.

Mickey Brausch

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Temperature history
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...125/Graph1.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the early 80's. The evidence has moved on a little since then and we know a fair bit more now. Since you seem not to understand that, I'll explain.

We've know for some time there are large cyclical variations in global temperature. However what we have recently come to understand is that human involvement is perturbing these cycles. Hence over the next hundred years we will see a rise in global temperatures well above that what we would expect purely as a result of the natural cycle.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

To return to topic, one of the most serious greenhouse gas emitters is not cars, or aeroplanes, but agriculture. Vast tracts of land are set aside for grazing instead of being forest, and the animals on that land being fed high protien diets so they get fat then emit great quantities of methane. One estimate put the total contribution to the greenhouse gasses from agriculture at 80%. This includes the animals emissions themselves, and all the farm machinery needed to tend and process such herds.

http://www.indsp.org/IAGW.php

We are only just coming to understand this component but I expect it to be talked about a lot more over the coming months and years. If it's true (and I see no reason to think it isn't), then one of the major things we'll need to do to combat global warming is change our diet. Vast herds of animals so we can eat meat with each and every single meal is not sustainable. Oh, and just in case anyone is confused here, no, I am not a vegetarian.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Loosen regs on nuclear power

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of using the state to beat people down, why not simply do the above in a big way. I know that ruins the liberal rush of micro-managing everyone's life but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Loosen regs on nuclear power

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of using the state to beat people down, why not simply do the above in a big way. I know that ruins the liberal rush of micro-managing everyone's life but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into the ground.

I agree that nuclear power is likely our only hope, but current technology does not adequately deal with the byproducts of nuclear consumption. This "solution" is not "ready" for implementation.

Re: Mark it
 

[ QUOTE ]
...since this tends to derail the discussion,,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, side issues brought up are for another time and/or place.

-Zeno

Re: Mark it
 

There is a great talk on the topic by Nate Lewis here; http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/lewis1/

Personally I favour carbon capture and storage for the short term.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the IPCC study just came out and things dont look pretty. It looks like the we can expect more heat waves and more hurricanes over the next century. But what I hear very little of is what we can do. I read that even if Kyoto was implemented tomorrow, it would have very little impact on the current trends. What exactly must be done? How much are we going to have to scale back our economies so that we can survive this? Has anyone even developed a realistic plan?

(Please dont turn this thread into a global warming debate. For the sake of discussion I am assuming that the report is true)

[/ QUOTE ]

An unknown technological advance will be the only solution. The world is not going to reduce energy consumption rates. As you pointed out, if Kyoto was implemented it will not materially change anything. Kyoto is just a way for the world's politicians to claim they are doing something about Global Warming. Unfortunately, Kyoto will just lead to a false sense of security for short term political gain. Short of a world Islamic state that wants to revert back to the 12th century, technological advance is the only solution.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

This same or very similar question was asked in this forum not too long ago. It may have dealt more with the personal response to global warming so my response was tailored to conservation with the inducement that it saved money. This capital was then invested in, say, GE or ExxonMobil.

On a more national of international level what "must be done" is an interesting question. Specific solutions may induce other problems, some foreseeable in which net gain must be weighed, others less so. It is a rather large conundrum with no real viable or workable solution given mankind’s present level of development. In other words I agree with Mickey - Realistically, not much will be done.

-Zeno

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

This is my biggest problem with global warming, its just being used for political ends without anyone actually coming up with a realistic solution. Up here in canada its basically being used as an easy attack by the opposition party, when the opposition party did nothing about global warming last time they were in power. And its not like global warming wasnt an issue 2 years ago. Or that stupid lights out campaign. How many of those people would be willing to completely give up their car and rely on public transportation to get everywhere. Its a lot of talk but I believe the majority of people arent willing to make the sacrifices.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
....but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Building viable Nuclear power plants will reduce carbon emmissions it will not end carbon emissions or reliance on fossil fuels for other things, transportion is one example but there are many others.

-Zeno

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into the ground.


[/ QUOTE ]


By-products of nuclear generating plants are not simply "spewed into the ground". Storage of this radioactive waste is not unmanageable and can be done wisely and technological advancement in this area is promising.

-Zeno

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Loosen regs on nuclear power

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of using the state to beat people down, why not simply do the above in a big way. I know that ruins the liberal rush of micro-managing everyone's life but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]


And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Space can handle it, if we could get it there.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Building viable Nuclear power plants will reduce carbon emmissions it will not end carbon emissions or reliance on fossil fuels for other things, transportion is one example but there are many others.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

If the need is great the technology will follow. All energy is fungible.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Loosen regs on nuclear power

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of using the state to beat people down, why not simply do the above in a big way. I know that ruins the liberal rush of micro-managing everyone's life but nuke power will, by itself, end most carbon dependence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into the ground.

I agree that nuclear power is likely our only hope, but current technology does not adequately deal with the byproducts of nuclear consumption. This "solution" is not "ready" for implementation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the standard to use here should not be whether or not it is "adequate", but whether or not it is better than the alternative.

Nuclear power definitely meets the standard of being the lesser of two evils.

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon

[/ QUOTE ]

You're like a parody of what conservatives picture a radical leftwinger to be like. You actually WANT for catastrophic destruction visited upon mankind because you hate everything so much. You are awesome.

natedogg

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon

[/ QUOTE ]

You're like a parody of what conservatives picture a radical leftwinger to be like. You actually WANT for catastrophic destruction visited upon mankind because you hate everything so much. You are awesome.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
I took his statement to mean not that he wants a "significant enough" natural catastrophe to happen, but that barring one people won't "awaken... to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon."

This interpretation seems pretty clear to me from the context and Mickey's posting history. I'm not sure why you'd assume he meant what you said he meant.

Re: A serious but non-lethal heart attack
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world needs a natural catastrophy which is significant enough to cause mayhem and destruction of a scale that will awaken the people of this planet to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon

[/ QUOTE ]

You're like a parody of what conservatives picture a radical leftwinger to be like. You actually WANT for catastrophic destruction visited upon mankind because you hate everything so much. You are awesome.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]
I took his statement to mean not that he wants a "significant enough" natural catastrophe to happen, but that barring one people won't "awaken... to the perils of over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon."

This interpretation seems pretty clear to me from the context and Mickey's posting history. I'm not sure why you'd assume he meant what you said he meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, the overpopulation problem is being generated prinarily from the second and third countries which can not be categorized as first-world high consumers. The richer countries are having fewer kids, bordering even on below replacement levels. So I don't see the point of conflating "over-population, over-consumption and wild capitalist abandon" because the first doesn't typically go with the second and third.

Yes, I agree a serious problem is overpopulation, but given the correlative evidence, it would suggest that capitalism is not the cause of overpopulation. If overpopulation is a problem to be solved, how about starting in those places and cultures where they are actually producing kids at much higher than replacement levels? There's where the overpopulation is coming from; not from the capitalistic West.

Moreover, people in the West are more likely to acknowledge that overpopulation may be a problem. Try telling that to most people living in Africa or in the Middle East. So it's a double-bind because those who are contributing most to overall population growth are generally the least likely to think that having more, and more, and more, and more kids is not a good thing.

Yes, people in the West will wake up to the problems of overpopulation (or already have), but that won't stop large portions of the world from continuing to exacerbate the situation.

Does the poster think that natural calamities will cause these second- and third-worlders to say "hey wait a minute, maybe we should have fewer children?"? No, it will be lost on them, and the lesson will be absorbed by those who already know it and who are not contributing to population growth. So it's too simplistic to talk about "mankind" waking up: the people that need to be waking up, are generally among the least likely to do so. So natural calamities will serve no good lesson as far as "teaching humanity" something. The lesson will reinforce what those who have few offspring already believe, and will fall on deaf ears of those who are relatively breeding like the proverbial rabbits.

Some may think overpopulation is not a problem at all, but that's another discussion. I just wanted to point out that I see no positive corelation between capitalism and excessive population growth rates, and maybe even an inverse correlation has been coming to exist in the last several decades.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you've never been to Nevada.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good call. Since AC has no way of dealing with global warming

[/ QUOTE ]
false

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good call. Since AC has no way of dealing with global warming

[/ QUOTE ]
false

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay...potd goes to shake I guess...

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Expensive and dangerous, yes. But with the newer reactor designs, it will be MUCH less dangerous to dispose of the waste than the current plants. Today's operating nuclear power plants are 30-year old technology, which is a lifetime, considering how new nuclear technology is. And the new designs are much safer, cleaner, and more efficient than the technology of yesterday.

And we have to compare it to the alternative. Expanding the use of nuclear power is inevitable, we would be better off starting to further improve the technology as soon as possible.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space.

[/ QUOTE ]

Space can handle it, if we could get it there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Placing nuclear waste in a safe orbit between Earth and Venus is doable. It's also supposedly pretty safe. Take a look at http://yarchive.net/space/science/nuke_waste.html

However public opinion would probably be a show-stopper.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space.

[/ QUOTE ]

Space can handle it, if we could get it there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Placing nuclear waste in a safe orbit between Earth and Venus is doable. It's also supposedly pretty safe. Take a look at http://yarchive.net/space/science/nuke_waste.html

However public opinion would probably be a show-stopper.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cost per pound to put anything into earth orbit is huge. It's mega-huge to put it into solar orbit.

Visualize Nevada. Big hole. Really big. Not next to my condo but a couple dozen miles up US95.

These tiny European countries are dealing with the waste and last I checked they're not just shipping it to Jersey.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you've never been to Nevada.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I have. But if the plan is to replace all energy currently being produced by carbon emission creating resources with nuclear power, then:

1. The amount of nuclear waste produced would go way up; and
2. The amount of nuclear waste being produced would pile up faster than the rate at which the radiation would decay down to safe levels, so even all the space in the Nevada desert would eventually fill up.

I'm not saying that nuclear energy won't be the solution. I'm saying it isn't the solution now. We couldn't implement it tomorrow to solve the problem of carbon emissions without creating an equally difficult problem of nuclear waste disposal. Admittedly, this may get us some time but it isn't a magic bullet.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Expensive and dangerous, yes. But with the newer reactor designs, it will be MUCH less dangerous to dispose of the waste than the current plants. Today's operating nuclear power plants are 30-year old technology, which is a lifetime, considering how new nuclear technology is. And the new designs are much safer, cleaner, and more efficient than the technology of yesterday.

And we have to compare it to the alternative. Expanding the use of nuclear power is inevitable, we would be better off starting to further improve the technology as soon as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right - so we agree. We should work on improving our nuclear reactors so that they will be a viable alternative in the future. That doesn't mean they are a magic bullet solution now.

Recall that they initial post that started this discussion on nuclear energy said that a solution to global warming would be to reduce regs on nuclear power. This is exactly what we don't want to do. The regs that limit research can go, but the regs that limit the amount of nuclear waste that can be produced by a functioning reactor can not go.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorant BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you've never been to Nevada.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I have. But if the plan is to replace all energy currently being produced by carbon emission creating resources with nuclear power, then:

1. The amount of nuclear waste produced would go way up; and
2. The amount of nuclear waste being produced would pile up faster than the rate at which the radiation would decay down to safe levels, so even all the space in the Nevada desert would eventually fill up.

I'm not saying that nuclear energy won't be the solution. I'm saying it isn't the solution now. We couldn't implement it tomorrow to solve the problem of carbon emissions without creating an equally difficult problem of nuclear waste disposal. Admittedly, this may get us some time but it isn't a magic bullet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are unclear on the needed acreage VS the available acreage. You are likely also assuming static (and possibly ancient) technology.

Last I heard, all of America's solid waste (garbage) for the next 50 years would be accomodated in a landfill no larger than 12 miles square*. Nuclear waste couldn't possibly be 0.1% of this volume**.

* Source - My failing memory, maybe Bjorn Lomborg
** str8 outta my ass

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

The bulk of the electricity in this country and others are produced from coal and oil. They are burned to produce steam which turns a turbine to produce electricity. Burning coal and oil produces a lot of carbon dioxide which is a 'greenhouse gas'.
The switch to Nuclear generators for the production of electricity will reduce the greenhouse gasses as there are virtually no emmissions w/nuclear.

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space.

[/ QUOTE ]

Space can handle it, if we could get it there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Placing nuclear waste in a safe orbit between Earth and Venus is doable. It's also supposedly pretty safe. Take a look at http://yarchive.net/space/science/nuke_waste.html

However public opinion would probably be a show-stopper.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cost per pound to put anything into earth orbit is huge. It's mega-huge to put it into solar orbit.

Visualize Nevada. Big hole. Really big. Not next to my condo but a couple dozen miles up US95.

These tiny European countries are dealing with the waste and last I checked they're not just shipping it to Jersey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup it's expensive, given current launch technology. Overall burial is probably better.

However safety is not much of a concern. Containers can be built that will survive worst-case reentry scenarios. Also the results of a container failing during reentry are not nearly as bad as you appear to imagine.

(Try reading the link I quoted. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure I have. But if the plan is to replace all energy currently being produced by carbon emission creating resources with nuclear power, then:

1. The amount of nuclear waste produced would go way up; and
2. The amount of nuclear waste being produced would pile up faster than the rate at which the radiation would decay down to safe levels, so even all the space in the Nevada desert would eventually fill up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is rubbish. We will run out of uranium before this happens.

Unfortunately it would only take about 10 years to use up all minable uranium resources if we were to power our entire global economy from nuclear power.