Comments on: The Atomic Show #52 - Climate change controversy http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/ A show about atomic energy Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:20:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: t7 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28797 t7 Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:49:04 +0000 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28797 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 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

]]> By: Shane Brown http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28266 Shane Brown Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:35:44 +0000 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28266 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 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

]]> By: David Walters http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28193 David Walters Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:51:49 +0000 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28193 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 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

]]> By: tom p http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28143 tom p Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:07:44 +0000 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/03/21/the-atomic-show-52-climate-change-controversy/#comment-28143 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 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

]]>