How many climate scientists did it take to change a light bulb? NONE. But they did have consensus that it would change.
Why wasn’t Climate Change ever regarded as the number one issue of prime importance to everyone since we were told climate change was to have been immanent death for the planet, as in SAVE THE PLANET?
Why did we enjoy condemning our kids to their graves with CO2 death warrants and CO2 death threats? This is liberal love?
Was it necessary to threaten my kids with death by CO2 just to get them to turn the lights out more often?
Why were there thousands of more “consensus” scientists than protesters?
Why did CO2 levels rise despite our contributing less with the world economic downturn?
Wouldn’t the plants have shown effects long before the climate would shown effects?
Why did the leftwing hope for the CO2 misery to really have happened and the rightwing discounted it as corrupt exaggerated and politicized science?
Why were scientists not called what they were, fallible and mortal human beings and lab coat consultants?
Didn’t scientists pollute the world in the first place with their chemicals?
Why didn’t the countless thousands of consensus scientists march in the streets if this was certain death we were facing?
Since Climate Change denied ancient climate, did the doomers therefore deny evolution too? Who’s the knuckle dragging neocon now?
Why didn’t the people know that the UN’s scientific warning, predicted the effects of CO2 were to have been anything from “nothing at all” to “unstoppable warming” (death)?
Will history view climate scientists as being to science what witch burners and The Crusades and abusive priests were to religion?
History has already shown that Climate Change was to the Democrats what the Iraq War was to the neocons, lies, and fear and politics.

Interesting choice of words scattered throughout this article which masquerades as being based on fact.

dogma - intellectually bereft - facile distortion of reality - and of course ideological.

The use of the last word (ideological) is common usage by right-wing ideological hacks such as Rheese, who both explicitly and implicitly pretend that their "world"-view is not based on any kind of ideological bias. Or put in another way only they see "reality true".

Meanwhile for a well researched collection of essays and comments on the negative effects of genetically modified "food" - and of the toxic politics involved in the promotion of such, why not check out:

http://gmo.mercola.com

i can only..agree...ho-hum

the article seems scitophrenic..
even contradictory...

quote..one parragrap<<..Mark Lynas..writes..highlighting the need to deal with..the issue of man-made globe warming claiming..

"the climate denial*..crowd...>>..not him?..lol<<.had been reduced to..an embarrassing rump..lurking in the darker corners..of the internet"..is described as.."a campaigner>>

then

<<who has been..a member of action groups..
on..GM foods..and..*climate*..change"...!

Mr Lynas said*.."the environmental lobby..was losing the battle for public opinion..on climate change...because it*..had*made too many apocalyptic prophecies..and exaggerated claims".>>>..ie he has

<<Really?>>

END QUOTE...
then max..goes off..on his adgenda/..tangent..re..

quote..<<..Another long time environmental/campaigner..who saw the error*..of his ways,..Stewart Brand an American activist and former editor of Whole Earth Catalog,.said:

"I would like to see..an environmental movement that says,..it turns out our fears..about genetically engineered food crops..were exaggerated..and we are glad about that...

It is a humble and modest stance to take to..the real world.">>

end quote

it seems they are
but somehow..the first quote..INVERTS the assertion

in other words,..there seems some spin

and i cant be botherd reading anymore..
to find out what..the spin leads to

yes they lied...about many things
and still are[gm...hasnt increased..crop yeild

but has made..many round-up..resitant.."weeds"...
that monsattano..can sue*..you...for.."letting"..grow..

still are...cli-MATE/change..is about getting..
*a nice big*..new*tax*..[by taxpayers and govt subsidy]

then allowing the money men..
to get at..the new cash-cow..[fullstop]

however much they spin it
they been caught...lying...too many times

mainly via spin merchants...serving..the company-line
in lue of...real..new*s

Meanwhile Monsanto is in financial strife because its products are failing. This is because the biological world is dynamic, and evolves resistance and new strains, whereas every GM organism is static, and a new artificial gene has to be introduced - always losing the evolutionary arms race.

For some time GM products have not been yielding the results claimed for them, and now the fundamental folly of the GM strategy is starting to show.

This article's claims for GMO are nonsense.

I agree to disagree with a lot of the so-called great intentions that people give the planet that they live on and only take action when there's a dollar in the field of play. GM food is fine as long as the original gene pool of the first species are banked in order to have a contingency plan if something went terrible wrong.

Nuclear Power can be the only way to go as far as commonsense goes and all know ( along with other tec,s) this reality must be put in place as soon as possible.

But of course, man-kind is a bit slow at times, and has great difficulty in dealing with the most simplest of understandings that any 10 year old can work out.

Yes, some Environmental groups will have to bite their tongues a bit in the coming years, with the full understanding that the extremist attitude on climate change cant hold. The wheels of the global money-making as to continue and it would be foolish to think we all can go back to the dark-ages.

A nice global balance will do just nicely.

Thats what we should be aiming for.

BLUE.

I used to subscribe to the Co-Evolution Quarterly and purchased The Whole Earth Catalog too. Great stuff altogether.

There are many books and essays etc which describe the origins and cultural consequences of the now dominant technocratic world-view.
As usual I still think that one of the best was The Pentagon of Power by Lewis Mumford in which he discusses the origins of the pattern-organizing myth that now patterns every aspect of the world - what he called the Invisible Mega-Machine.

A myth that is so invisible and hence so "natural" to us that we do not (cannot) understand its trance like power. And yet this seeming "naturalness" is not natural at all. It is a cultural construct, as this essay points out.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/asana_of_science/index.html

Of course science and technology are very useful in helping humankind survive and prosper. But as the above essay points out the ideology of scientism has become the way in which we relate to everything. As such is profoundly anti-human because it denies and suppresses most of what we are at the depth level of our being.

Plus an appreciation of The Pentagon of Power at:

http://hugeasscity.com/2008/5/21/blame-lewis-mumford

http://radicalarchives.org/2010/09/06/dw-against-the-megamachine

The second reference is from an author who pays homage to what Lewis Mumford was telling us

So far GM has been little more than a devise by which companies like Monsanto hope to gain a patented monopoly over what are currently public domain food crops. The hope is that by inserting some genes into that public domain food plant they can patent that 'plant'.

Cannola is a good example of how little value to the public there is in this intention'.Cannola is a member of the Cabbage/mustard tribe (Brassicaceae), this tribe cross hybridizes very easly. There are lots of weeds in the family , some are quite poisonous .

The coding for making the toxin produced by Bacillus thuringiensis and for resistance to Glyphosate'roundup/zero' herbicides have been inserted into the genome of Cannola.

The genes for Resistance to glysophospate and resistance to the caterpillar that loves to eat brassicaeae will quickly spread to weed species .

The caterpillars will develop resistance to Dipell ( brand name of a spray composed of Bacillus thuringiensis spores)of much more quickly and the usefulness of the safest herbicide yet developed will be seriously reduced.
All of this is simply so Monsanto can have a monopoly over the supply of canola seed .

Geoff,

While Monsanto may be in financial strife, I don't think its accurate to blame it on GMO technology. I'm sure you understand that any organism can easily be genetically modified, and your claims that they are 'static' are untrue, as if given free reign, they will evolve too. This very fact is one of the main concerns of environmentalists.

While you condemn the entire technology after such a short period of time, perhaps you should compare your views to those criticizing organ transplantation ain the early development of that technology. The two technologies have alot in common, technically as well as ethically. Organ transplantation had its own failings, and its critics, which were ultimately proven wrong.

Although I don't agree with all the article, I agree with the main thrust that if activists admited that they are wrong every now and then, when they are wrong, it would help their overall credibility..

GM foods is a good case in point, because the evidence against GM foods is and always was virtually non-existent, and now its been in use for a decade with no-one being able to point to any ill effects..

Even now most activists do not realise that GM technology is not much more than an extention of good old fashion selection of traits through breeding..

.. and then activists ask to be taken seriously on other matters..

Nice piece Max.

And Monsanto's GM cotton, grown in Australia now for over 10 years, has resulted in a more than 90 percent reduction in pesticide use, plus a reduction in water use with the shorter season.

And of course most of France's baseload electricity is from nuclear. With much/some of the uranium from Australia?

And for those interested Jennifer Marohasy from the Australian Environment Foundation with be debating John Williams from the Wentworth Group in Sydney next Monday at the Centre for Independent Studies, see AEF website for more details.

Excerpt from Genome by Matt Ridley:
"In the same way, geneetic engineering is as safe and as dangerous as the genes that are engineered. Some are safe, some are dangerous. Some are green, some are bad for the environment. Roundup-resisant rape may be eco-unfriendly to the extent that it encourages herbicide use or spreads its resistance to weeds. Insect-resistant potatoes are eco-friendly to the extent that they require fewer insecticide applications, less diesel for the tractors applying the insecticides, less road use by the trucks delivering the insecticides and so on. The opposition to genetically modified crops, motivate more by hatred of new technology than love of the environment, largely chooses to ignore the fact that tens of thousands of safety trials have been done with no nasty surprises; that gene swapping between different species, especially microbes, is now known to be far more common than was once believed, so there is nothing 'unnatural' about the principle; that before genetic modification, plant breeding consisted of deliberate and random irradiation of seeds with gamma rays to induce mutations; that the main effect of genetic modification will be to reduce dependence on chemical sprays by improving resistance to diseases and pests; and that fast increases in yields are good for the environment, because they take the pressure off the cultivation of wild land."

And yes, France generates most of its power from nuclear fission - cleanly, safely and economically. I believe they generate so much power that they are a net exporter of electricity to other European nations. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't have a thriving nuclear industry in this country, save for the whingeing of NIMBYs.

RIZ.

Yes good call. Australia would benefit greatly by following Frances lead, and No-doubt is the smartest way to fuel our energies needs for the coming future.

Just look at these figures.

Some 435 nuclear power plants operating around the world generate about 345,000 MWe of electricity in 32 countries, about one-sixth the world’s electricity supply. Some countries depend vitally on the electricity generated by nuclear energy. France generates 76% of its electricity from nuclear power plants; Belgium–56%, South Korea–36%, Switzerland–40%, Sweden–47%, Finland–30%, Japan–33%, and the United Kingdom–25%. Bulgaria generates 46% of its electricity from nuclear power, Hungary–42%, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia combined–20%. Although the United States is not a leader in percentage, it has the largest total electric output from nuclear power: 98,000 MWe from 105 plants, generating around 20% of US electric power.

The only problem I have with this is,is the threat for 3 world or worse getting their hands on weapons grade material. Waste is another huge problem. ( dirty bombs ETC )

We need to bring terrorist active to a full stop.

That way, we can all live in peace without the threat of these fools doing the un-thinkable.

BLUE

Anyone remember the predictions of the continuous drought? Greenpeace was touting this on their website and it was constantly on the news ....before the recent torrential FLOODING of the continent. Do they say they were wrong?..Never.

What about the 'tipping point' which never seems to come? The threat of the coming 'ice age' at the First Earth Day celebrations in 1969. Ehrlich's predictions that millions of Americans would die of starvation by 1990 and that England "would not exist" by 2000! David Suzuki also once claimed that 3 species went extinct per hour. This was completely incorrect and virtually impossible.They never take responsibility for their wildly inaccurate lies. They just go on and make up something else.

The environmental movement is not that interested in the environment. Its agenda is driven by the Marxism inspired de-industrialisation of the West using the environmental movement as a vehicle. Lies and exaggeration doesn't matter, because they are never held to account.

Being wrong about climate change has caused the greenies to be right about something. There is no problem about human emissions except in their deluded minds.

However, if it causes them to do something sensible, like endorse nuclear power, then that is a welcome outcome. Their ratbaggery caused legislation to be passed in Australia prohibiting the building of nuclear plants, so it would be nice to see this reversed, and a start made to the years of lead time it will take before we have the plants producing power.

The bull headed ignorance which underpinned the opposition to GM crops, has caused harm to vulnerable levels of humanity, mitigated by the industry which resolutely pushed this impressive, and beneficial technology.

The greens persist in their baseless demonising of carbon dioxide, in the face of the fact that the only basis for assertion of AGW, is the discredited IPCC, with its “summaries” based on slogans from Greenpeace, WWF, and works of university students. They have no basis in science, just an unscientific guess that it is “very likely”.

The lack of any scientific proof makes it very unlikely. Their predicted “hot spot” in the troposphere, to be demonstrated by readings from the stellite instruments, which would be the “signature” for AGW, does not exist.

We have a long way to go. This is too little, too late.

"The only problem I have with this is,is the threat for 3 world or worse getting their hands on weapons grade material."
-Deep-Blue

Worry ye not: a massive expansion of fission power generation will not make it more likely that weapons grade radioisotopes fall into the wrong hands. Weapons grade radioisotopes are far more highly enriched than fuel grade radioisotopes. Expanding the nuclear power industry will make it easier to illegally obtain fuel grade material, but will have no effect on the availability of weapons grade material.

"Waste is another huge problem. ( dirty bombs ETC )"
-Deep-Blue

A lie spread by Greenpeace and their vile ilk... waste isn't the problem they pretend it is. We have the resources and the technical capability to dispose of it safely; the only obstacles are political and sociological in nature.

The security issue is just a furphy. There is plenty of waste out there for the nicking, but it's so well guarded that nobody has managed to nick any yet (as far as we know). Even if they did, they'd probably find that turning high-level waste into a weapon of terror requires a lot more technical knowledge than they possessed.

So we need to look to source science to determine the validity of various arguments on important issues. It seems that some they get wrong and some they get right and that's not unique to environmental advocacy groups. On GM the science seems to show that fears are exaggerated. On civilian Nuclear energy and waste storage the fears are exaggerated. On nuclear weapons proliferation the fears have genuine basis. On climate change the fears have strong scientific basis supported by the world's leading scientific organisations.

When it comes to advocacy organisations environmentalist ones don't appear to be universally bad or unique in misrepresenting some areas of science in order to cater to the prejudices of their perceived core supporters. Check the antiscientific positions of leading think tanks like Cato, Competitive Enterprise Insitite, Heartland on issues like climate and tobacco. Ultimately these issues are not decided by such groups and the rise of the Greens merely reflects the abrogation of responsible policy based on science by mainstream politics in some of these areas. I don't believe the rise of the Greens is due to their position on GM food but on the much more solidly scientifically grounded concerns about climate and energy.

Riz
I do sort of agree the dangers are somewhat exaggerated. However the point that needs remembering is that neither GM or Nuclear are that good an answer either . They have their uses buts that's all.

Some of the greens (as do the likes of the tea party) exhibit a sort of religious/cult personality profile ; words and slogans become simply signs that you belong to the 'right' side.

That very weird(and dishonest) ad on SBS by some 'grand master' exhorting us to "save our planet - go veg" exemplifies 'greens' as a cult.

RIZ.

Harnessing the power of the atom has propelled humanity forward at an astonishing rate since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. However ( see no use of the word BUT ), the proper disposal and storage of nuclear waste leaves an incomplete equation. Nuclear waste comes from nuclear power reactors and byproducts of military-grade bombs. This waste can come in the form of spent nuclear fuel rods or even toxic sludge. Perhaps the greatest danger of nuclear energy is the long-term investment in waste disposal that will be passed to future generations.
Some radioactive materials are broken down into toxic, heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. The mining of uranium ore also produces a heavy medal byproduct called uranium mill tailings. These scrap metals are found at old mining sites and endanger the environment with toxic arsenic and lead. These heavy metals have no half-lives, and their danger to humanity and the environment is a permanent one. Toxic heavy metals are absorbed by the cells and tissues of the body and cause cancer and genetic damage for generations to come.

See the risks are there RIZ and are there for a very long time. The greens don't like it at all, and I share in the obvious environment and genetic damages ( and I'll use the but just one more time ) BUT! the fossil fuel we use has to also stop, because of the simple fact that man-kind is changing the climate so fast with it, unclear power is the only one I think can be used, so the world can still get to play in its sand-box for just a few centuries longer.

BLUE

Ken,” On climate change the fears have strong scientific basis supported by the world's leading scientific organisations.”

This is incorrect. The last time this assertion was made, on OLO, I asked that someone come up with the so-called “science”.

You did not and neither did anyone else, because there is no such science.

The effect of human emissions is not measurable, and its effect is negligible.

If there were any such science the IPCC would be telling us, instead of coming up with attempts to mislead people by characterising it as “very likely”.

That is not a scientific statement, but a guess, and based on an estimate by the IPCC which, if it had been correct, would have resulted in the satellite instruments showing a “hotspot”, in the troposphere, which they did not.

The basis of the guess is gone, but the IPCC, dishonestly, simply wondered if there were some problem with the satellites, rather than facing the truth.

As to the prestigious scientific bodies making baseless announcements, this is being corrected as the members, horrified at this travesty, regain control, and retract.

So where is your “strong scientific basis”, Ken?

Yes, environmental groups should admit mistakes, and so should conservatives or anyone else when the weight if scientific evidence is clear. Certainly some 'environmental groups' have made mistakes, however they are sometimes right.

It has become increasingly apparent though that many commentators are not so much 'pro-science' as they are 'anti-greenie'. These people only use/believe science when it agrees with their politics and god help you if it doesn't. Motes and beams.

Ho Hum, are you actually citing 'Dr.' Joseph Mercola, the guy with a rap sheet like this?

http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=mercola

The website you referred to also garnered this glowing recommendation:

'Each of these sites provides a huge amount of information, most or all of which promotes unsubstantiated theories and/or methods. They may be useful to researchers seeking descriptions of these theories and methods from their proponents. However, they should be avoided by persons seeking high-quality information on which to base a health-related decision.'

So, Deep-Blue, whose website did you copy that little gem from? I am familiar with all the facts you have presented. They were covered in my course on nuclear physics. Unlike a lot of the greenies who go on at length about nuclear power, I am actually fairly well versed in the science.

"It has become increasingly apparent though that many commentators are not so much 'pro-science' as they are 'anti-greenie'."
-Bugsy

I'm generally (but not always) anti-greenie precisely because I am so fanatically pro-science. As a member of the Skeptics, I have an unusually low tolerance for quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists - which an awful lot of greenies are. Many of them have no scientific background, and they are not ashamed about making use of pseudo-scientific claims if it will further their political agenda.

Here, here Riz - someone after my own heart.

Too often, I've had people assume I'm some sort of conservative pawn, because I take greens to task.

I'm all for a clean environment, like any sensible person (and it bugs me up the wall when that condescending bint, Tanya Ha, offers such sterling wisdom as composting one's scraps - which I've been doing all my life!), but I simply will not tolerate 'quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists', as you say.

Indeed Riz, I agree with you.

On the other side of the coin though, I have seen a disturbing tendency by a number of 'conservative' (for want of a better word) commentators to label scientists they do not agree with as quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists. In this manner they attempt to dismiss valid concerns as so much mumbo-jumbo. All they need is to quote a dissenting viewpoint and voila! 'That guys a nutter/wrong/whatever.'

We must all be careful that we do not dismiss valid scientific data as 'junk', simply because we do not agree with it. The quality of the data and experience of the researcher is important. Environmentalists are not the only ones to use ' pseudo'(or 'junk')-scientists to further their cause. There are some in the anti-GM crowd that wouldn't even consider themselves 'environmentalists'.

RIZ

So, Deep-Blue, whose website did you copy that little gem from? I am familiar with all the facts you have presented. They were covered in my course on nuclear physics. Unlike a lot of the greenies who go on at length about nuclear power, I am actually fairly well versed in the science.

Thats nice. Now can you answer the questions on storing the spent fuel in future?

BLUE

It's interesting to read of people decrying 'scientism', or scientific theory in this day and age.
It's all about prophecy, really.
One of the oldest and most widely distributed books in history, the Jewish/Christian Bible, is based on 'scientism'; inasmuch as it was the abilities of the Prophets which made it credible -to the people of the day, and even to some people today.
The first and most important lesson in business studies is that the most successful businesses are those which most accurately predict the future; and plan their budgets accordingly.
The most successful farmers are the one's who accurately predict the coming year's climate, and plan and plant accordingly.
The 'theory' of evolution -and Darwin's natural selection- is so widely accepted by 'hard' scientists because it can and has made accurate predictions; whereas in the field of Intelligent Design, who can credibly claim (in this age) to be able to predict the mind of God?
It's hardly a mystery that the arguably 2 most important 'sciences' to the human condition, Climate and Economics, are so frustratingly unpredictable. They're simply too complex for our present understanding.
Does that mean we should just walk away from the challenge?
In the absence of reliable predictions (I don't know that if I drive at 160k per hour I will definitely have an accident), we have to choose a sensible course. Because I don't know that I will have an accident, does that mean I should drive at 160 kph? Or should I drive at a lower speed for the (dare I use the word) 'collective' good? Recognising of course that if I allow myself the right to speed, I must logically allow everyone the same right.
To me it comes down to a simple question: “What does it matter?”
Will anyone argue the dirty brown haze hanging over every city in the world is a good thing?
That hunting any food species to total extinction is intelligent?
That by the same token, using any valuable resource -oil, coal or uranium- to total depletion is the smart, responsible thing to do?

The age of computers -and computer fallibility- has taught us the wisdom of triple redundancy -if basic biology has failed (for some) to demonstrate the inadvisability of 'putting all one's eggs in one basket' (diversity).
Nothing is more important to our civilisation than electricity, yet where is our triple redundancy?
The idea that base load power can't be supplied (with multiple redundancy, wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal...) through non reducible resources is nonsense. Energy can be stored very easily in a number of ways, starting with simply pushing water up hill. This is particularly sensible in Australia, where the vast bulk of Ozzies live between the Dividing Range and the sea. Compressed air is another very simple technology, with zero side effects.
As to the premise of this article, of course environmentalists should admit their mistakes. Everyone should. The beauty of the scientific method is that even failures increase our understanding. This does not in any way invalidate the method, or justify not rising to the challenge of increasing our understanding.
The current strategy of not taking responsibility for our own excesses, and not paying the full price for our lifestyles is simply selfish, and massively irresponsible.
BTW, I refuse to accept that tapping into a non reducible, endless resource must necessarily be more expensive than depleting an irreplaceable resource. That simply doesn't make sense.

"Now can you answer the questions on storing the spent fuel in future?"
Deep-Blue

What questions? So far, all you've made are a bunch of statements - the above quote is the first question you've asked me. I can tell, 'coz questions come with these: ? whereas statements end like this.

"The idea that base load power can't be supplied (with multiple redundancy, wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal...) through non reducible resources is nonsense."
-Grim

Not entirely. The only proven renewable technologies which generate base-load power are hydro & geothermal.

"Energy can be stored very easily in a number of ways, starting with simply pushing water up hill."
-Grim

Yes, they do this with the Snowy Mountains hydro system. But they do the pumping using excess power from base-load sources at times of low demand. So insufficient base-load generation capacity precipitated by a shift to entirely renewable energy sources is going to create some headaches. Also, pumped storage systems require suitable reservoirs both above and below the generator, which almost always means building dams. Up here in sunny Newcastle there is presently much wailing and gnashing of teeth from greenies over the construction of a dam for water supply, and they do have some valid points. Certainly the greenies who opposed the Franklin dam had some valid points. Dams can lead to habitat destruction and significant disruption to local ecosystems. Can you really see all the NIMBY greenies of this fair land getting behind a pumped storage system of the massive scale which would be required?

"I refuse to accept that tapping into a non reducible, endless resource must necessarily be more expensive than depleting an irreplaceable resource."
-Grim

Good for you. Using renewables isn't necessarily more expensive than using non-renewables. It simply is more expensive. Which might seem like a rather meaningless distinction, but it matters to logicians.

What questions? So far, all you've made are a bunch of statements - the above quote is the first question you've asked me. I can tell, 'coz questions come with these: ? whereas statements end like this.

Ok. Now I will ask you. ( and remember I support nuclear power ) Its just one of my concerns, since you are the person to ask.

1...In the long term, can the spent-fuel-rods and tailings etc, be safely stored for all time?

2...And what are their plans that include the concerns of the environments since ground water contamination and earth movement are always an on-going event?

Your answers please.

BLU

Hey Riz, the significance of mountains close to the sea is that salt water can be pushed up hill using wave action. The salt water is stored in reservoirs, completely independent of natural water courses, and thereby having minimal environmental impact. The salt water can then be dropped through osmotic filters, and then led through hydro electric turbines. The fresh water can then be inserted into our ailing western rivers. And of course, the salt water reservoirs can be used for fish farming, and restocking the oceans with species humans are driving to extinction.
The idea is not original; the technology exists and is being used (on a tiny scale) in West Aus., where it was invented.
As to "it just is more expensive" you're basically suggesting that having a cake and eating it (to total depletion) is less expensive than having a cake, eating it and still having your cake.
Do your 'logicians' find this logical?
Clearly this highlights an egregious failing in economic calculation -which is probably why RW libertarians are invariably climate denialists.
The irreplaceable 'cake' in the first instance is simply undervalued, as the unborn children of future generations (who will be denied these valuable resources) cannot bid in our marketplace.

Hey Deep Blue, James Lovelock -the creator of the 'Gaia Hypothesis' addressed your concerns in terms of pure bulk.
Whereas Carbon sequestration would require storage in terms of cubic kilometres, depleted fuel rods require storage of only a few cubic metres.
You would have to say the logistics are favourable. Also, recent evidence from Chernobyl tends to indicate that the natural world is far more resilient when it comes to radioactivity than anyone ever imagined.
I'm not a great advocate of nuclear energy, mind you; although immensely abundant, uranium is still a finite and irreplaceable resource. In a society that prays so fervently (at least in lip service) to the great god 'efficiency', to use up irreplaceable resources when they are so many replaceable ones, is just dumb.

n a society that prays so fervently (at least in lip service) to the great god 'efficiency', to use up irreplaceable resources when they are so many replaceable ones, is just dumb.

Yes grim... I agree. Its all been done backwards, and in the end solar-power and such will replace the finite situations. The new tec's are in the pipe-line as we speak. But at the moment.....the band-aid game with all what the earth has will just have to continue.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nce.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fenergy%2Ffirst-nuclear-store-is-on-track%2F8603522.article&rct=j&q=first%20nuclear%20store%20is%20on%20track&ei=hBjfTPqPBYu4vgPzovnzDg&usg=AFQjCNGrOK3W_1SoO3HMYr9hkaLbo9ZGVQ&cad=rja

And then we have

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnuclear-news.net%2F2010%2F11%2F03%2Fdangers-weapons-spread-and-mounting-unsolved-problem-of-nuclear-wastes%2F&rct=j&q=%20Nuclear%20waste%20storage%20dangers%202010&ei=3hnfTP6AG4HuvQOq8MXjDg&usg=AFQjCNEc6QsVPOFXkpXoHfmNaO02HUfDRg&cad=rja

and

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.greenpeace.org%2F~comms%2Fno.nukes%2Fwaste01.html&rct=j&q=%20Nuclear%20waste%20storage%20dangers%202010&ei=3hnfTP6AG4HuvQOq8MXjDg&usg=AFQjCNHoQWKJXlzINsiqXbwTE5dMtsy3wg&cad=rja

These are some of the things Iam reading. Its a little disturbing because the reasons that nothing can be guaranteed.

However, thanks for the information.

I'll look at it more closely.

Thanks

BLU

"1...In the long term, can the spent-fuel-rods and tailings etc, be safely stored for all time?"
-Deep-Blue

Before I answer your question, I'd kust like to say that I feel the stipulation 'for all time' is rather unreasonable, given the countless other industries that generate toxic waste (the non-radioactive kind, i.e. the stuff with an infinite half-life, that never decay into less toxic substances) who are not required to ensure that their waste is stored safely for all time, merely to take appropriate measures to prevent environmental contamination.

In answer to your question: high-level waste (the really nasty stuff that everyone worries about) can be safely stored until its radioactivity has decayed to very low levels (i.e. comparable to background levels). The non-radioactive toxins will not decay, as I said before.

"2...And what are their plans that include the concerns of the environments since ground water contamination and earth movement are always an on-going event?"
-Deep-Blue

First, you wrap up your waste really well. There a few methods for achieving this: vitrification (not so great), synroc and copper encapsulation (both quite good). Then you dump it. There are a few promising methods for doing this. In my opinion the best is making use of subduction trenches - ocean trenches where one tectonic plate is sliding under another. You drop the waste into a subduction trench, where it is forced down into the Earth's mantle, completely and safely removing it from the biosphere. The only downside is that there are treaties and agreements which prohibit dumping into the ocean.
to be continued...

...continued
The option most considered is underground dumping. This should of course be done in geologically stable site, of which there are plenty in the world - Australia currently holds the record, with rock provinces in the northwest of the continent having been dated at nearly 4 billion years old. Earth movement may always be ongoing, but it doesn't all move at the same time or the same rate. There are plenty of suitable sites where tectonic activity is not of concern.

When discussing underground waste disposal it is encouraging to look at the case of the Oklo reactor - a natural nuclear reactor in Africa which dumped its waste about two billion years ago. The fission products from the uranium were formed in the presence of flowing water, which would have removed the radioactive gases and some of the more soluble species. Most of the other fission products remained within the reaction zone. This fascinating case study suggests that groundwater will not be as big a problem as envisaged when disposing of high-level waste.

"As to "it just is more expensive" you're basically suggesting that having a cake and eating it (to total depletion) is less expensive than having a cake, eating it and still having your cake."
-Grim

No, I was making a statement of fact: renewables are more expensive than non-renewables. That's why you pay more on your electricity bill if you go for the green power option (well, that and profiteering by electricity providers). They're not necessarily more expensive, which implies that one day they might not be more expensive. Logic... why don't they teach logic in these schools?

"Do your 'logicians' find this logical?"
-Grim

They're not my logicians - they're everybody's, and we can all benefit from their wisdom. And they devote themselves to a nobler pursuit than economics.

"They're not my logicians - they're everybody's, and we can all benefit from their wisdom. And they devote themselves to a nobler pursuit than economics."
According to dictionary.com:
"Economics- the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind."
Which nobler pursuits are you referring to, Riz?
Perhaps trying to justify the logic that a-b=0, > a-b=a?
The only reason fossil fuels are 'cheaper', is because they are massively subsidised -by us. In 2007, the US spent $44 billion protecting middle east oil fields. Their allies probably threw a bob or two into the tin also.
How much have they spent on the military acquisition of Iraqi oil fields?
And I have already pointed out, not only are fossil fuels massively subsidised, they are also massively under costed, as people yet to be born can't bid in the marketplace.
And the people who can, obviously don't care about the people who can't.

"According to dictionary.com:
"Economics- the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.""
-Grim

Yeah, quoting sources who are demonstrably incorrect doesn't actually help your case much. And dictionary.com is demonstrably incorrect, as economics is not a science.

"Which nobler pursuits are you referring to, Riz?"
-Grim

Umm... logic, Grim. I rather thought that that was implied by the term 'logician'. My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines logic thusly:
Logic: 1. The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and esp. of inference and scientific method.

Sounds pretty noble to me.

"Perhaps trying to justify the logic that a-b=0, > a-b=a?"
-Grim

Firstly, this is a mathematical expression. Mathematics and logic are close bedfellows, and laymen like yourself may not always appreciate the difference, but logical expressions don't really have any need for zero - that's something mathemeticians worry about.

Even as a mathematical expression it doesn't make sense. "a-b=0" makes sense, but "> a-b=a?" makes no sense. This symbol: > means 'greater than', but your expression doesn't have anything in front of the >. If you meant nothing, you should have typed 0.

"The only reason fossil fuels are 'cheaper'..."
-Grim

Is completely beside the point. The point is that fossil fuels are 'cheaper'. And that no amount of sagely elucidating the reasons for their 'affordability' will make them any more or less 'expensive'. Logic... why don't they teach logic in these schools?

According to the Oxford dictionary:
Economics -
“1. the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth”
“2. the condition of a region or group as regards material prosperity:he is responsible for the island's modest economics”
Logic -... “the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument...”
Noble - “having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles:the promotion of human rights was a noble aspiration”
A lioness will protect her cubs -up to the point where her own life is threatened. This is logical; she can always have more cubs. Abandoning her cubs to save herself is not Noble.
It really doesn't matter whether 'they' teach logic, Riz; some people just don't get it.
Riz:
“Firstly, this is a mathematical expression.”
Riz:
“Even as a mathematical expression it doesn't make sense.”
Ergo, it is not in fact a mathematical expression. It is an exercise in logic.
An apple, minus an orange, is still an apple. (a-b=a)
Oil, burnt for energy, is no longer oil. (a-b=0)
A wave, -if the energy is extracted at the 'crash'- is still a wave (until it dies a 'natural death'). And there will always be more waves.
Riz:
“Is completely beside the point. The point is that fossil fuels are 'cheaper'”.
No Riz, they aren't. And logically, they can never be.
If a group of people decide to go on a trip worth $100.00 each, and decide to put down a $75.00 deposit in advance so they only pay $25.00 on the day, they haven't saved $75.00
We don't have to spent more than $44 billion to protect waves. We don't have to spend the very best part of a trillion dollars on the military conquest of the wind (before we even build a windmill).
Using a valuable resource to depletion can never LOGICALLY be cheaper than using a irreducible resource.
Logic. Why don't some people get it, no matter how they are taught?

"Abandoning her cubs to save herself is not Noble."
-Grim

I didn't say it was. I've never said that logical action is necessarily noble. I said that the study of logic is necessarily noble. Not because it shows 'high moral principles', but rather because it shows 'fine personal qualities'.

"Ergo, it is not in fact a mathematical expression. It is an exercise in logic.
An apple, minus an orange, is still an apple. (a-b=a)
Oil, burnt for energy, is no longer oil. (a-b=0)"
-Grim

Except if you'd studied symbolic logic, you'd know that you can't use 'a' to mean an a apple and oil, and 'b' to mean an orange and combustion in the same exercise. It doesn't work that way, and just causes confusion. The nice thing about logic is that you can write logical expressions in short-hand with symbols, or in long-hand so everyone understands your argument. I'd suggest you stick with the latter until you have a proper grasp of symbolic logic.

"No Riz, they aren't."
-Grim

Well, according to Wikipedia, coal costs about $28-38/KWh. The cheapest renewable I could find was hydro, at $55/KWh. But yeah, I can see how you'd think that means fossil fuels are more expensive. If you're an idiot.

"Using a valuable resource to depletion can never LOGICALLY be cheaper than using a irreducible resource."
-Grim

Very well, if you insist (you're actually wrong, but I can't be bothered explaining the finer points of logical possibility/necessity to you, as you're apparently too slow to understand it anyway). It is quite apparent, however, that it can be ARITHMETICALLY cheaper to use non-renewables over renewables (unless the powers that be have decided 55 < 38, which seems unlikely). And when it comes to paying their power bill, folk tend to rely on arithmetic rather than logic.

"Logic. Why don't some people get it, no matter how they are taught?"
-Grim

I really wish I knew.

"Not because it shows 'high moral principles', but rather because it shows 'fine personal qualities'."
No it doesn't. It merely shows an interest in logic. There is absolutely no reason to suggest anyone interested in logic must have 'fine personal qualities'. As a general, Hitler would have been interested in logic, and all dictators interested in 'ethnic cleansing' would justify their actions on the basis of logic. Logic is a tool, just like a spade or a gun. It is only the application which determines it's moral content.
"Except if you'd studied symbolic logic...blah, blah."
This is a logical expression you could plug into any spreadsheet.
IF(a-b=(0a)),"TRUE"; where 'a' is the set of all energy sources, be they chemical, nuclear or 'natural'-irreducible, and 'b' is the total extractable energy, which subset makes the statement work? Chemical, yes; Nuclear, yes; natural, no.
"...in long-hand so everyone understands your argument." Yes I tried that first, remember, "If you have your cake and eat it..." Apparently it was too complex for you.
I have pointed out twice now that pricing is arbitrary, depending on accurate costing and subsidies. Clearly you need to check your Oxford dictionary for the word 'subsidy'.
Let me guess. You can't understand what all the fuss is about in America concerning Obama's health policy, can you? After all, it will be free, right? Free < 1, so who would argue against 'free' health care?
I congratulate you in advance, Riz. You will have the last word on this one.
You have managed to bore me.

"I congratulate you in advance, Riz. You will have the last word on this one."
-Grim

Yes, I will, 'coz you just demonstrated the validity of Godwin's law:

"As a general, Hitler would have been interested in logic, and all dictators interested in 'ethnic cleansing' would justify their actions on the basis of logic."
-Grim

And thereby conclusively proved yourself an idiot and handed the argument to me on a silver platter. Yay me.

But just for the record:

"There is absolutely no reason to suggest anyone interested in logic must have 'fine personal qualities'."
-Grim

Yes there is - it's tautological. An interest in logic is a fine personal quality. 'Fine personal qualities' does not necessarily refer to morality, which is why it is possible for folk to have the fine personal quality of an interest in logic and still be an immoral genocidal maniac. And why you can be a decent, upstanding and moral chap with the ufortunate personal quality of being a halfwit.