Home | About | Donate

57 Climate Scientists Object After Biden Falsely Claims "Not a Single Solitary Scientist" Thinks Sanders' Green New Deal Can Work

The comment my comment was replying to was deleted.

They also graded on a shameless curve, first not even including crucial positions and many actions that will turn out to be necessary, and then giving grades of B to numerical ratings that in my high school rated as Fs.


1 Like

I am a scientist, and I know it can work, especially if naysayers like Biden and Trump are gone from leadership.

Hello Beli_Tsari,
That is what the right wing has almost always desired. A peasantry, peonhood, serfs beyond all imagining and of course the ultimate JUST ABOUT EVERYONE AN IGNORANT SLAVE!

1 Like

By the time CNN led all six media conglomerates, by rip&reading PR handouts in 1990, most of my working class friends hadn’t watched “news” from '68 onwards? Bloomberg, Bezos billionaires buying media. Google, FB, Twitter silencing dissent/ truth missed by PropRNot, Correct The Record, etc… Whistleblowers arrested, journalists murdered… It’s what we do after Bernie’s stomped-down again, by OUR right wing? PS: slaves, once aware of our real circumstances, might be ignorant of Massa’s silly delusions, but their true intent seldom changes?

Hello Mary_Grayeske,
Instead of being audited annually the need is to be reported anally! Or to put it another way “Once more into the deep”. lol

yeah but that is not as lasting nor does it affect others ie it’s a one time deal

but again, it is dependent on your perspective of how deep

1 Like

Hello VirtualREality,
On what planet, in which universe would senile old Joe Buyden beat the tRump? ole joe believes in one thing. Money! He helped his son to get quite a bit and he is known as Mr. MBNA and other references like hard core capitalism, (with that description I am allowing myself a little leeway towards kindness), fascism and not to being anyone known as a promoter of democracy.

Hello dara,
Nuclear reactors are basically tea kettles using nuclear fuel to heat a lot of hot water. Why not change to sunlight and electricity to boil the water? This is so much safer on so many levels. Nuclear fuel pollution is for all intents and purposes is forever as far as the human existence is concerned! The cycle of getting the uranium from the ground to the lack of disposal just insures more pollution. I call your attention to the fact that almost all radiation is harmful!


@Trog has written the most on this site about the compelling reasons to pursue Gen IV reactors, you can search for his posts if you actually want to learn. I am well aware of solar thermal designs such as Ivanpah - I think they are very interesting, but it isn’t obvious they are going to catch on. I skimmed ~https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/02/19/largest-solar-thermal-plant-completed-ivanpah and if accurate, the price for PV (photo-voltaic) is coming down faster than this type of plant can compete. I liked the potential for energy storage with this design, but as Trog and this article points out, Ivanpah doesn’t have any.

There is an immense amount of reading ahead of you if you really want to understand all the engineering tradeoffs on alternative energy and the newer designs for nuclear power. One thing you should know right off the bat is the appealing thing about the new designs is that they can work with existing sources (bomb materials which aren’t going to be gotten rid of in any other way and spent fuel since it is only spent in the sense that the old designs can’t process it any further) with no further mining needed for many centuries (I’m opposed to most mining projects, but seawater extraction of uranium might be OK, and we are going to need to process a whole lot of lithium in the years to come).

Keep in mind that everything in science and engineering requires numbers when you actually get down to intelligently evaluating trade offs - how harmful is the extra radiation that is caused from a particular design? how harmful is the chemical pollution from a PV panel production? what is the lifetime of each? How much energy does each make in their lifetime, and on and on. Try not to be daunted, there are reasonable sources of information out there. Try to keep an open mind in your pursuits.

1 Like

Hi casey15:
I think Dante only had 9 circles of hell—looks like the DINOs ae creating a 10th level!
Or maybe—they could be digging themselves down to a googol level. : 0

Solar heat works, but only for a few hours a day, and only in certain places. And if you use electricity to boil the water to spin the generator to make electricity, you wind up with less electricity than you started with.

“This is so much safer on so many levels.”

And old-tech nuclear is much safer than coal on so many levels. So you get your biggest gain by replacing coal first. Old-tech nuclear will eventually have to be replaced, but safer forms of nuclear might make that easier.

“Nuclear fuel pollution is for all intents and purposes is forever as far as the human existence is concerned!”

The immediate threat is from fossil fuel pollution. It has the potential to cause many extinctions–which will definitely be forever. The worst cases of pollution from nuclear power had very modest and localized adverse ecological effects by comparison.

“The cycle of getting the uranium from the ground to the lack of disposal just insures more pollution.”

Coal mining is far, far worse. Uranium mining has a much smaller profile, and if we change the kinds of reactors we use, we could shrink it to almost nothing. And it is too soon to make any long-term decisions on disposal. We are still developing options.

“I call your attention to the fact that almost all radiation is harmful!”

You mean potentially harmful. Low-level radiation has very low hazard. (Every human that has ever lived has been radioactive.) High radiation has high hazard, but not necessarily high risk. Nuclear spent fuel, for example, is highly radioactive and could kill a person in seconds if they were next to it without shielding. But that has never happened, so the death toll from spent fuel has yet to budge from zero. The largest amount of radiation exposure to humans comes from medical sources, where the benefits usually outweigh the potential harms.

Reactors that don’t exist can’t be assumed to be anything, least of all what the people who profit from them want the public to believe. One thing we know is that they trade the problems current nukes have for others, equally bad, and that the industry lies about that. The price is unknown but we can safely assume they won’t be able to compete with solar and wind in the future any more than they can now. Even less, in fact. There was and will be no meterless power coming from the nuke industry.

CSP will be a valuable part of our energy system. Prices continue to drop; they’re in the same range as PV. Given that it also provides energy past sundown and the length of time it does that keeps growing, its value to the grid is undeniable wherever it can be built and HVDC lines can connect it to where the need is. That’s almost everywhere in the world.

Focusing on Ivanpah above all the other CSP installations that exist, and being wildly, irrationally, and unwarrantedly optimistic about a technology that can’t even solve the problems it’s had for 75 years and just keeps getting more expensive, while refusing to admit the undeniable progress and advantages in CSP or even mention future CSP generations that are almost here, is inexcusable, and is a way-overused tactic of the right and fossil and fissile fuel corporations.

Your patronizing attitude toward casey is especially disturbing considering you seem not to know what you’re talking about.

In terms of Molten Salt Reactors, I’m no expert, I only know what I read in terms of mildly technical summaries. As I understand it, important aspects of the new MSR designs have been operated in the two MSR reactors that have existed. Also though no new reactor has finished construction and is operating with metrics to be assessed, the design of a plant being built right now (there is one being built in China and one planned for Canada, and another in Malaysia or someplace) is obviously very firm - no one starts a project of that size without knowing what they want to do. Again not my field, but I imagine the designs are simulated and analyzed so saying they can’t be assumed to be anything does not seem like a reasonable position to me. But I agree that actual operation (where the rubber meets the road as people where I work like to say) is quite important to look at before one would commit to building 10s let alone 100s of these reactors. If the reactors being built fail miserably on price compared to alternatives (and this includes not just electricity, but if they can move industrial level heat to a manufacturing process nearby and sell that heat, that gets to be accounted for in the economics), they won’t go anywhere. If they are close to competitive, but can make the argument that there is an economic benefit to knocking down the total amount of high level radioactive material - I don’t think it is unreasonable to price that benefit and take it into account in a decision, but if that’s what it takes to tip the scales, I agree it will be a very hard sell to make many of these reactors.

@Trog has covered the meterless power claim many times - nobody who is serious in the industry ever made that claim and to ascribe it the industry as a whole is a poor argument strategy if you ask me.

That would be great - I think it is very cool technology. After reading the story I linked to, I’m a little worried that government regulators are going to be too hesitant to permit based on bird fatality and not that I don’t give a crap about birds - but I want to see the compelling story that it is a problem for a given species. At least CSP doesn’t harm bats in the least (Trog pointed out that wind power does affect bats too which I had never thought of - again, it’s the species effect that I care about).

I know about Ivanpah because I see stories about it and I drive by it when I go to Vegas to visit my parents and go rock climbing in Red Rocks. If you have a better example of a CSP installation - one that has a few days of salt storage perhaps - please give a link (with a ~ in front or whatever trick you prefer to satisfy CD).

Feel free to post a link about future CSP designs. I’m sure there are possible optimizations, but I wasn’t aware of anything revolutionary - not like the change from the current nuclear power generation design (which I hate and have said so many times here - no new plants of that design - I just want to be cautious on which and how fast we shut them down) to an MSR design. But I’d be very interested to know if there are entirely new designs planned - don’t they all use towers, receivers, the same type of salt, steam generation of electricity? (One important thing about Ivanpah - at least the steam generation is closed cycle - they aren’t bringing in new water all the time - they heat is dropped via the air - I get the impression that isn’t true of all CSPs operating today).

If @caseyf5 wishes to respond, I’m more than happy to follow up. I thought I was being reasonable and encouraging him or her to improve their argument because what was said in the brief post wasn’t convincing. But if I can rephrase my words to get better effect, I will do so. I don’t claim to be an expert - I never said caseyf5 should go back and read all my posts, there is plenty of information online and I’m not even knowledgable enough to make a list of links. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say I don’t know what I’m talking about - I know some, and I make mistakes like everyone, and I change my mind from time to time (like Trog, I was more reflexively anti-nuke in the past - 80s and 90s in my case).

1 Like