Molten salt reactors and Thorium reactors are both still preferable to the nuclear reactors that we have now, particularly because of the decrease in waste and difficulties that arise in producing nuclear bombs from them, but, I kind of feel like, should they have been put into effect, it should have happened in the 1950s.

It seems to me that abandoning nuclear power altogether and investing in greener technologies is the only real way forward.

It seems to me that abandoning nuclear power altogether and investing in greener technologies is the only real way forward. — thewonder

That's not how it works out in practice in my opinion. 'Green' technology simply cannot compete with nuclear in certain domains that are essential to shifting from fossil fuels. Nuclear pretty much beats green technology on levelized cost of exploitation. A multi-gigawatt nuclear power station will last some 50+ years and requires little maintenance rather than fuel exchange.

Wind is pretty significant in my opinion, yet, still nuclear wins out most of the time.

Try and build a gigawatt solar farm for example or a gigawatt wind farm.

It says in the "100% renewable energy" article on Wikipedia that "supporters of 100% renewable energy do not consider nuclear power as renewable or sustainable due to perceived risks of disasters and high-level waste management, ignoring scientific consensus about these risks being both manageable and comparable with risks from renewable energy sources, and consider carbon capture and storage to have limited safe storage potential", the citation for said consensus being this document, and, so, I don't really know who to trust. I watched Into Eternity awhile ago and that didn't make it seem like nuclear energy wasn't dangerous.

Yeah, we went a certain direction with nuclear in the 50's, and this was a conscious choice for the attainment of weapons grade material. Whilst there are already demonstrated molten salt reactors with a 0% chance of meltdown... It's literally melted down, get it? Bad'tish.

And then there is the chance event of nuclear fuel escaping a nuclear power plant seems so farfetched, yet is taken sooooo seriously, that essentially you negate a positive future for hundreds of millions of people by fear alone.

Go figure.

Batshittery I tell ya.

Well, the proponents of molten salt and Thorium claim that there is no possibility of creating nuclear weapons due to the reactors, but, it is actually just very difficult to. I'm kind of thinking that, where there's a will, there's a way, y'know what I mean?

Being said, what'll probably happen is that we'll transition to nuclear power for electricity, whilst continuing to develop other clean and renewable energy sources. That's, of course, assuming that even those things happen. If they do, molten salt and Thorium reactors would be preferable.

I still think that we ought to be developing technologies currently and seek to move beyond nuclear power eventually, though.

Being said, what'll probably happen is that we'll transition to nuclear power for electricity, whilst continuing to develop other clean and renewable energy sources. That's, of course, assuming that even those things happen. If they do, molten salt and Thorium reactors would be preferable.

I still think that we ought to be developing technologies currently and seek to move beyond nuclear power eventually, though. — thewonder

With regards to this thought, we are desperately in need of alternate sources for base power that can substitute for existing gas and oil power plants. Wind is a contender; but, the US spends a miniscule amount on wind as it is, while the EU went solidly with wind.

The real contender is fusion, but it's still a far away goal as it is. The only substitute that doesn't need huge investment in storing electricity is still nuclear. For some reason this doesn't get mentioned enough that power actually needs to be replaced, not created out of thin air. Bad'tch, another wind power reference

I tend to be on your side in terms of nuclear. While I appreciate arguments against nuclear power, like the fact that they occasionally explode, like the problems of extracting uranium (or whatever), and the problems of storage -- it's still clean energy in terms of carbon emissions. It should therefore be a big component of future targets. But that'll require, above all, rehabilitating its reputation.

While I appreciate arguments against nuclear power, like the fact that they occasionally explode... — Xtrix

But that'll require, above all, rehabilitating its reputation. — Xtrix

It only took Chernobyl (actually exploded), Three Mile Island, and Fukushima to do it. I tell you there's something psychological about nuclear that commands human irrationality...

But, when you do the research, how many people have actually died from nuclear power?

But, when you do the research, how many people have actually died from nuclear power? — Shawn

Right. It's extremely rare. But people don't want it in their back yard. I think that's the problem. Understandable, but ultimately mistaken -- when you have a far greater chance of dying in a car accident or in your tub.

It only took Chernobyl (actually exploded), Three Mile Island, and Fukushima to do it. I tell you there's something psychological about nuclear that commands human irrationality... — Shawn

Well, the opposition to nuclear power was born out of the anti-nuclear movement, originally set forth in favor of disarmament and later led to the creation of a number of environmentalist movements, and, so, you're asking the environmentalist movement to change a basic assumption concerning its original basis. There was Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and it was also quite easy to associate nuclear power with the atomic bomb, which is even still kind of a concern.

Worth taking a look around.

* A huge fire in Siberia is casting out smoke for 3,000 miles.
* Greece – burning.
* California – burning.
* Oregon – burning.
* Historic flooding in Germany and Belgium.
* Italy just experienced the hottest European day ever.
* July 2021 is the hottest month ever recorded.
* Drought and extreme weather disturbances are cutting food production, increasing hunger and raising food prices worldwide.
* Rising sea levels threaten Miami, New York, Charleston and countless coastal cities around the world in the not-to-distant future.

The above is from a Bernie tweet, but it's a good synopsis. This isn't the world I remember from the 80s and 90s, or even the 2000s. We've wasted 30 years thanks to the same stall tactics the tobacco industry used and which the fossil fuel lobby is now using.

Krugman has two very good articles in the Times worth a read as well:

Who Created the Renewable Energy Miracle?

The Bad Economics of Fossil Fuel Defenders

Of course, these facts won’t change Republican minds. It’s painfully obvious that politicians opposing climate action aren’t arguing in good faith; they’ve effectively decided to block any and all measures to ward off disaster and will use whatever excuses they can find to justify their position.

Why has the G.O.P. become the party of pollution? I used to think that it was mainly about money; in the 2020 election cycle Republicans received 84 percent of political contributions from the oil and gas industry and 96 percent of contributions from coal mining.

And money is surely part of the story. But I now think there’s more to it than that. Like pandemic policy, where the G.O.P. has effectively allied itself with the coronavirus, climate policy has become a front in the culture war; there’s a sense on the right that real men disdain renewable energy and love burning fossil fuels. Look at the dishonest attempts to blame wind farms for Texas blackouts actually caused by freezing pipelines.

In any case, what you need to know is that claims that taking on climate change would be an economic disaster are as much at odds with the evidence as claims that the climate isn’t changing. — Paul Krugman

Can anyone name one thing in the Creation that does not change? Is not the climate an element of the Creation? Therefore, how is it that a person [other than a "Phobic-D" type personality] would view climate change as unusual? Peace

"Phobic-D" type personality? A person whose reasoning ability is compromised by one or more intense non-conscious fear(s) deeply repressed in his or her MIND [which is Invisible to the brain], and this phobia is taken-on in early childhood and involves a real or imagined traumatic event. And the self-protection against exposing this bit of trauma to conscious awareness takes precedence over, and automatically influences all of that person's thoughts, thinking and views of life.

Is not the climate an element of the Creation?

What is your meaning of Creation? Because deserting or flooding the most part of the world because of pollution and bad decisions does not seem to be a Creation significant to me but the contrary, we are literally destroying instead of building...

There is no argument about climate change.
12.000 years ago there was an ice age, it has been warming since that time in history!
The purpose of political parties and religion is to divide people, create fear of the other group,
and fundraise.

Can anyone name one thing in the Creation that does not change? Is not the climate an element of the Creation? Therefore, how is it that a person [other than a "Phobic-D" type personality] would view climate change as unusual? — 1 Brother James

There is no argument about climate change.
12.000 years ago there was an ice age, it has been warming since that time in history!
The purpose of political parties and religion is to divide people, create fear of the other group,
and fundraise. — Rxspence

Interesting that my post would elicit a political response, given by two "recent" members.

Yes, climate is an element of creation. Nuclear weapons are elements of creation. Should we not be cautious about them? Should we not understand the science beyond them, and the severity of the consequences if left unchecked?

The issue is not the change, but the rate of change. Yes, the climate has changed throughout a long history -- 4 billion years or so. But modern human beings have only been around about 200,000. In that time, but especially the last 12,000 years since the invention of farming, CO2 and warming haven't occurred to this degree. When you flash forward a few millennia to when scientific instruments were used deliberately to measure CO2, in the late 1800s, you have a very definite trend. Easy to see:

Interesting that my post would elicit a political response, given by two "recent" members. — Xtrix

I am neither political or a new member.
Your misdirection of the discussion in an effort to continue a fear based non argument
could have only one purpose. Focus tax dollars on research.
There are many scientists that do not agree and denial of funding is the main reason
they are not herd.
Are you aware of the tons of carbon dioxide we produce daily and ship to
food processors, scientists, and others. Nurseries produce co2 to help plants grow.

CLIMATE CHANGE is not an answer to a problem, it is an invitation to divide people
so that you can call the other side STUPID!
For all of the years that we used the word Pollution no one argued that there is no pollution!

In 1983 the bold headlines in the Newspaper read "ICE AGE COMING"
In 1984 "GLOBAL WARMING" 15 years to live if we don't change!!
In 1994 "GLOBAL WARMING" 10 years an we will be beyond hope!!!
In 2004 "CLIMATE CHANGE" 10 years and it's too late!!!!
In 2014 "CLIMATE CHANGE" Yada Yada 10 years..beyond hope.
In 2016 "OBAMA BUYS 38 MILLION HOUSE AT SEA LEVEL"
In 2020 "GLOBAL WARMING" Greta says it's been 2 years and you haven't done anything!!
I'm not taking either side, I'm saying you don't want to solve the problem,
you just want to divide people and take their money!!

I am neither political or a new member. — Rxspence

You are being political. Climate denial is political. Much like the tobacco industry propaganda, the fossil fuel industry has used social issues to associate with the science in an attempt to discredit it. But the science is clear.

Your denial is political, ultimately, even if you are not a political person. I don't expect you to acknowledge this or agree with it, but it's true.

There are many scientists that do not agree and denial of funding is the main reason
they are not herd. — Rxspence

Actually, climate deniers are better funded that most climatologists, and are heard far more than the vast consensus. This is one of the byproducts of "equal time" and "both-sides" that we often hear.

Scientists who "do not agree" are a minority, but are disproportionately heard and funded -- why? Because fossil fuel companies seek them out. They're usually not climate scientists, either. Plenty of good studies about this.

Nurseries produce co2 to help plants grow. — Rxspence

Have you done any reading on this topic at all? I ask seriously. If not, I have a question: are you willing to learn about it? If not, there's no sense in continuing.

In 1983 the bold headlines in the Newspaper read "ICE AGE COMING" — Rxspence

What newspaper? No scientific journal was saying an ice age was coming. This claim has been debunked for years.

In 1984 "GLOBAL WARMING" 15 years to live if we don't change!! — Rxspence

No one said this in 1984. Literally no one. You're making this up.

In 1994 "GLOBAL WARMING" 10 years an we will be beyond hope!!! — Rxspence

No one said this in 1994. You're making this up.

I'm not taking either side — Rxspence

There are not two sides. There's the fact of climate change, and there's denial. If denial is a "side," then you have clearly chosen that side -- based solely on what you've said so far. It appears you've been exposed almost exclusively to denialist media, my guess being conservative media.

I'm saying you don't want to solve the problem,
you just want to divide people and take their money!! — Rxspence

You don't know anything about me. Making a claim like this is absurd.

I have no desire to divide people, and in fact the opposite: we need everyone to solve this problem. Repeating slogans about "taking people's money" does you no credit.

Your misdirection of the discussion — Rxspence

It's not a misdirection at all. It's exactly the point: CO2 has increased to levels not seen in 800,000 years. Temperatures have risen accordingly. The effects are already being seen, as has been predicted for years now. What they are finding out is that the predications were far too optimistic.

It's a hard thing to face, but putting our heads in the sand will do nothing. This problem can be solved, and we have the tools to solve them. Like with the coronavirus, we have solutions. It's up to people and the people they elect to face reality, follow science, and make the right decisions. If the science is rejected in favor of conspiracies and misinformation -- for political reasons -- then this only exacerbates the problem.

You don't know anything about me. Making a claim like this is absurd. — Xtrix

No one disputes climate change!
It is only anthropomorphic that they challenge.
Roy Spencer who designed and launched the equipment for NASA disputes many of the claims.
His equipment could not support these conclusions.
I am 64 and was in college when the articles I quoted came out.
You are an open book, you have no desire to bring people together by insulting them.
And both parties have had 29 years to solve the problem

Have you done any reading on this topic at all? I ask seriously. If not, I have a question: are you willing to learn about it? If not, there's no sense in continuing. — Xtrix

I ran a Nursery from 2000 to 2006

You are being political. Climate denial is political. — Xtrix

Do you ever read what you post?
At first I thought you were a shill
Now I'm wondering what grade you are in.
Sorry for coming down to your level!

No one disputes climate change!
It is only anthropomorphic that they challenge. — Rxspence

No one disputes this either. In the same way no one disputes that the Earth is round.

Roy Spencer — Rxspence

A very famous climate denier and fraud, unfortunately. As has been well documented. So is this the major source of your information about the topic?

You are an open book, you have no desire to bring people together by insulting them. — Rxspence

I haven't insulted you.

I am 64 and was in college when the articles I quoted came out. — Rxspence

There are no such articles. Your memory is incorrect. What you're citing is a myth often repeated in right-wing media and elsewhere, claiming that scientists in the 70s were warning about a coming ice age. This has been debunked many times. Also, no one was claiming there were only a "12 years" left to solve the climate crisis in the 1980s. Absolutely no one. It was only beginning to be widely understood at a high degree of certainty at that point.

Which is why you can't cite any of the sources.

Have you done any reading on this topic at all? I ask seriously. If not, I have a question: are you willing to learn about it? If not, there's no sense in continuing.
— Xtrix

I ran a Nursery from 2000 to 2006 — Rxspence

Okay, but that answers neither of my questions. One can run a nursery, or even be a botanist, and still know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, or in this case climate science. So far you've repeated a number of denialist slogans and referred to a well-known climate denier, Roy Spencer. That doesn't tell me you've read much on this topic from the overwhelming majority of climatologists who have studied this all their lives. It's at least worth a minute to see what they have to say, rather than exclusively trust and listen to what you would call "skeptics" (and I would call denialists).

A very famous climate denier and fraud, unfortunately. As has been well documented. So is this the major source of your information about the topic? — Xtrix

If the person (Roy Spencer) who designed, launched, and calibrated the equipment used to
prove Anthropomorphic Climate Change says your conclusions are faulty, you calling him a fraud
is a double edged sword.
PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself.

Well done Rxspence, now we all have to have more than half a page of uncritical un-self-aware stupidity to marr this thread. Can an admin remove these stupid posts please?

PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself. — Rxspence

Perhaps take your own advice. Roy Spencer, like yourself, is a climate denier— and has also taken money from fossil fuel companies.

There were plenty of scientists who were bought by big tobacco too. This is nothing new. You’re welcome to continue on with your denial if you wish, given your lack of answer to my question generally means you’re unwilling to learn about this topic. So be it.

Europe looks for solutions as it grapples with catastrophic wildfires

As wildfires ravage the Mediterranean region, many have asked if such blazes are an inescapable part of global warming or whether steps can be taken to reverse the trend.

I think it is both. But one of the things that tears me off is the fact of how some persons can be so evil. They burn down all the forest and vegetation in a period of year where there is a lot heat and lack or rain. Obviously, the fire spreads so quickly around all the Mediterranean making a completely catastrophe.
What I want to share here is the worrying of notice the existe of such bad persons without ethics and moral. I can't even understand what they see as "fun" burning down trees and destroying the environment. I wish if they are catched by police officers they would receive a heavy sentence.

Those people are immoral yes...

More worrying is the trend of climate change itself and the lack of action to stop it:
- At 1.3 C rise in temperature we are allready experiencing serious adverse effects all over the world.
- The Paris accord has some loose references to 1.5, but really it aims for 2 C maximum rise.
- 2 C maximum rise can only be attained if countries decarbonise rather quickly
- what countries have committed to amounts to nowhere near what is needed to stay under that 2 C
- and even then it's worse because typically countries don't deliver on these commitments and numbers are generally made to look better than they are through some bureaucratic hocuspocus

So if nothing really drastically changes, we are heading over 2 C easily.

The thing that most people don't fully appreciate I think, and I didn't too until recently, is that such a "small" rise in global average temperature is already really bad for a lot of things.