The Atomic Show #52 - Climate change controversy
Shane and I discuss our understanding of human activity’s effects on global climate. As two geeks not trained in climate science, but comfortable with complex systems, our approach is unique.
(MP3 - 20.6 MB - 59:39 M)
Listen to Atomic Show #052 Here!
Unless you live under a rock, you have an opinion about whether or not man’s activity is causing a coming global catastrophe. Two recent films - Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle have sparked a increasing number of heated discussions.
Shane and I wade headlong into the complex and often confusing subject and have our own kind of geeky discussion.
As you may remember, I am an atomic entrepreneur who is very interested in developing and selling atomic engines in the world market. It might appear that I have a vested interest in emphasizing the dangers of continuing to put CO2 into the atmosphere. My favorite source of power does very little of that. (I put a couple of links to a detailed studies below that attempt to show the emissions levels from a variety of energy sources including all construction, fuel production, and eventual decommissioning.)
However, I am interested in understanding and not willing to accept anyone’s “belief” system without question. Some of what is passing for climate science today has more in common with religious dogma than with facts, figures, and research. Any time people begin to be shouted down and subjected to ad hominem attacks for the simple affront of asking for data, I begin to get skeptical in reaction.
- VATTENFALL’S ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION SYSTEM -A QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE STUDY OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES THROUGHOUT THE LIFE-CYCLE
- ExternE - Externalities of energy production, a study by the European Commission
- Energy subsidies and external costs
We would like to hear from you - what do you think about the controversy, its implications for near term policy changes, and its potential for significant disruption of the world’s economic power balance?
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Al Gore recently gave testimony in front of congress. He said that the US needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by the year 2050.
Ninety percent? That sounds like an awfully big reduction. It makes me wonder if Al Gore or his people have really crunched the numbers to see what would be required to do this. At a rather modest rate of growth, we will need about 50% more electricity by 2050. A 90% reduction in greenhouse gases from here would mean a tremendous number of nuclear power or CO2-sequestering coal plants be built. But Al Gore doesn’t think nuclear power should play any major role in the future. He seems to be banking an awful lot on green power. I also wonder if he understands what base-load power is, and why solar and wind are not base-load power.
And what about the transportation sector? What are these carbon-free automobiles and trucks going to run on? Hydrogen? Then we need a bunch of hydrogen production facilities, don’t we? Nuclear power could play a role here too, but again, the Goracle doesn’t think so.
I’d like to see Gore get as supportive of the nuclear industry as, say, Patrick Moore.
tom p
March 24th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Hi guys…great show, as usual.
Some corrections/comments.
Churchill was never in the navy and he was in the army, having graduated from Sandhurst at the end of the 19th Century. His only association with the Navy was at the beginning of WWII when he was appointed as the head of the Admiralty…essentially sec’ty of the Royal Navy. This was in Chamberlin’s cabinet.
On the big forges issue for building reactors, etc…there are several around the world…France and Russia both have them and I think Japan has two. These are large factories that can poor the stainless steel into big-ass molds. The US IS building one, I think Westinghouse and/or GE are building them in Indiana. This, if only to fill foreign orders. But it’s a good sign.
Secondly, none of the other parts of the NPP are in short supply vis-a-vis turbine/generators…that’s because turbines and generators are the same for NPP as they are for conventional steam plants (coal/oil/CH4). There are *dozens* of plants that make steam and generator facilities around the world in this very competitive market. France/Germany/USA/Japan/China/S. Korea all build them and there is never a shortage of these plants that build the turbine/generator assemblies.
Yours for fission,
David Walters
leftatomics.blogspot.com
March 25th, 2007 at 12:35 am
David,
Thanks for the Churchill correction; it’s been upwards of 10 years since the last time I read any history texts about him, and it shows!
Shane
March 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Hi guys,
thanks for the great shows, the blog and such! Concerning the Swindle nonsense, check here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
and here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
for response from climate scientists debunking this “documentary”.
keep up with your great work,
cheers,
t7