The end of the empire of Japan

[Saipan]

How much uranium do Japan and France have?

For heating (the main bill in recent climate cool down and oil cost) I use strictly renewable energy and it cost me practically nothing.

[TimG]

How much uranium do Japan and France have?

They can stock pile years of supply within the country for minimal cost. There is really nothing better for countries concerned about supplies of fossil fuels.

Nuclear is also the only scalable and credible zero-emssion source. France now has per capita (yes I said per capita) emissions that are less than China thanks largely to its nuclear power. If you care about GHGs nuclear is really the only choice. If you don't there is always coal.

For heating (the main bill in recent climate cool down and oil cost) I use strictly renewable energy and it cost me practically nothing.

Great. Except it won't work for the 90% of people who don't have access to reliable renewable power source. Edited May 15, 2011 by TimG

[Saipan]

Nuclear is also the only credible zero-emssion source.

They are very concerned with that in Japan right now. And more places in the future.

France now has per capita (yes I said per capita) emissions that are less than China

Most all countries do, except maybe India.

If you care about GHGs nuclear is really the only choice.

If it really creates warm up then I would like to produce more. But the problem is in the 70's GHG were creating "equivalent of nuclear winter" and "we had to do something before we all freeze" during the Jimmy Carter "energy crisis" because other problem was that "we will be out of oil by mid 80's"

[TimG]

They are very concerned with that in Japan right now. And more places in the future.

And they will abandon GHG targets in order to find alternatives. Same with Germany.

Most all countries do, except maybe India.

I said per capita - not total emissions. The argument that the rich should be forced to pay more for CO2 reductions has always been based on per capita CO2 emissions. That argument no longer has much merit now that China's per capita emissions exceed the French.

[Saipan]

I said per capita - not total emissions.

Yes, per capita. China and India are probably the highest. It used to be some East European countries, worst possibly Romania. And before that whole of Europe, specially Geramny and UK towards the end of 19th century.

[GostHacked]

More from Gunderson.

[TimG]

Yes, per capita. China and India are probably the highest.

I suggest you do some research. It is clear you do not have a clue what I mean by per capita emissions. India has tiny per capita emissions because it has so many people. Same used to be true for China.

[Bonam]

Yes, per capita. China and India are probably the highest. It used to be some East European countries, worst possibly Romania. And before that whole of Europe, specially Geramny and UK towards the end of 19th century.

Naw China and India are pretty low per capita. Generally, Arab countries top the list of emissions per capita, followed by Western countries. France is way down lower than almost any other advanced economy (only Sweden and Switzerland were lower as of 2007) because of their predominant use of nuclear energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Edited May 15, 2011 by Bonam

[GostHacked]

Nuclear is also the only scalable and credible zero-emssion source.

Maybe you can explain what you mean by zero-emissions for nuclear energy?

[Saipan]

If there was zero emission they wouldn't be looking desperately for places to store waste. And vehement resistance of local population to any such storage.

[Bonam]

If there was zero emission they wouldn't be looking desperately for places to store waste. And vehement resistance of local population to any such storage.

They only need to store the waste cause idiotic politicians and the equally idiotic public have made the construction of breeder reactors which can use the waste impossible.

[WIP]

And they will abandon GHG targets in order to find alternatives. Same with Germany.

I said per capita - not total emissions. The argument that the rich should be forced to pay more for CO2 reductions has always been based on per capita CO2 emissions. That argument no longer has much merit now that China's per capita emissions exceed the French.

How about if we include legacy costs? China has only been a major CO2 producer for a few years now, while the U.S. and England have been major contributors since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Besides, China is moving rapidly to the top of development and production of windmills and solar panel technology. They are going to radically reduce the size of their carbon footprint, not because they are forced to meet targets, but because they don't take orders from oil company executives and coal producers!

[WIP]

Nuclear is also the only scalable and credible zero-emssion source. France now has per capita (yes I said per capita) emissions that are less than China thanks largely to its nuclear power. If you care about GHGs nuclear is really the only choice. If you don't there is always coal.

It's already been asked, but again where do you get the statement that nuclear is zero emissions from? Uranium mining is not zero emission; neither is the production of tons of concrete for the containment buildings....nevermind that we have that other nagging problem of having a slowly unfolding disaster that will drag on for decades after the ones who have caused the mess have all died off.

[Saipan]

They only need to store the waste cause idiotic politicians and the equally idiotic public have made the construction of breeder reactors which can use the waste impossible.

Hmmm, being idiot, they apparently enjoy the waste.

[Sir Bandelot]

They only need to store the waste cause idiotic politicians and the equally idiotic public have made the construction of breeder reactors which can use the waste impossible.

What's their argument against using it?

[Bonam]

What's their argument against using it?

It's "nuclear". That's all the argument it takes. No new nuclear reactor has been built in North America in decades. Hence, no new technology that can alleviate the issue of older reactors has been put in place.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's "nuclear". That's all the argument it takes. No new nuclear reactor has been built in North America in decades. Hence, no new technology that can alleviate the issue of older reactors has been put in place.

That's quite sad. From what I read Jimmy Carter had something to do with it. The breeder reactor produces alot of plutonium, more than the current conventional, and there was fear that this could lead to it getting stolen and used by terrorists/ enemies of the US. But the plutonium produced is not suitable for making bombs, not pure enough and no one has had much success in purifying it. So the reluctance to use these reactors for this reason is unfounded. Too scientific for most people.

[TimG]

How about if we include legacy costs? China has only been a major CO2 producer for a few years now, while the U.S. and England have been major contributors since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

So what? Do you think China could have developed as much as it has in 20 years without stealing technologies developed by the US and the UK over 200 years? The only thing that matter is total future emissions and China needs to starting cutting its emissions if it actually cares about climate change.

Besides, China is moving rapidly to the top of development and production of windmills and solar panel technology.

China makes solar panels and wind mills to sell to idiotic western politicians. They do not use them for their own energy sources. China is building new coal plants faster than it builds its token wind and solat installations. The idea that China cares about GHGs is quite risable. Edited May 17, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

That's quite sad. From what I read Jimmy Carter had something to do with it. The breeder reactor produces alot of plutonium, more than the current conventional, and there was fear that this could lead to it getting stolen and used by terrorists/ enemies of the US. But the plutonium produced is not suitable for making bombs, not pure enough and no one has had much success in purifying it. So the reluctance to use these reactors for this reason is unfounded. Too scientific for most people.

Yes, it is very sad. The breeder reactor is just one example, there are many other technologies that alleviate the radioactive waste issue, which I've mentioned here numerous times. Most of the time they are ignored here, just as they are in the public consciousness. Maybe when we finally get fusion working people will start coming around to using advanced energy sources, but until then, I fear nuclear energy just has far too much opposition in the Western psyche, and the events in Japan do not help.

[dre]

Yes, it is very sad. The breeder reactor is just one example, there are many other technologies that alleviate the radioactive waste issue, which I've mentioned here numerous times. Most of the time they are ignored here, just as they are in the public consciousness. Maybe when we finally get fusion working people will start coming around to using advanced energy sources, but until then, I fear nuclear energy just has far too much opposition in the Western psyche, and the events in Japan do not help.

It probably was a bad decision to ban FBR's outright, but they arent the panacea you claim. They are more dangerous than normal reactors because most of them are cooled with liquid sodium which explodes when it comes into contact with air or water... so you cant use water to cool stuff down like they did in Japan.

They have also been huge financial disasters all around the world.

Jimmy Carter didnt ban Breeder reactors world wide... he banned them in the US where it makes no damn sense to build nuclear plants anyways and where the nuclear industry hasnt sold a plant for 30 years because private investors would rather put money into coal and gas.

[Bonam]

It probably was a bad decision to ban FBR's outright, but they arent the panacea you claim. They are more dangerous than normal reactors because most of them are cooled with liquid sodium which explodes when it comes into contact with air or water... so you cant use water to cool stuff down like they did in Japan.

They have also been huge financial disasters all around the world.

Jimmy Carter didnt ban Breeder reactors world wide... he banned them in the US where it makes no damn sense to build nuclear plants anyways and where the nuclear industry hasnt sold a plant for 30 years because private investors would rather put money into coal and gas.

The breeder isn't there to make money, it's there to burn the radioactive waste produced by other reactors. It would be an expense, like paying to bury the waste, but you'd be burning the waste in a reactor instead of burying it. It would only take a few such reactors to reprocess all the world's nuclear waste. The problem of how they are cooled are technical issues that would be easily solved had these things ever been built in reasonable numbers, more than just prototypes.

And, like I said:

The breeder reactor is just one example, there are many other technologies that alleviate the radioactive waste issue, which I've mentioned here numerous times.

These alternatives don't reprocess waste like the breeder does, but they are reactors which don't produce waste in the same way in the first place, thus eliminating the need to use national infrastructure to bury it.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Bonam

[WIP]

So what?

I'll tell you what! The human contribution to CO2 levels that are now over 393 ppm, have been steadily growing since the Industrial Revolution. That means we have to look at the total contributions made, and not just who produced the most last year!

Do you think China could have developed as much as it has in 20 years without stealing technologies developed by the US and the UK over 200 years?

Not that that has anything to do with anything we've been talking about, but the fact that western multinational corporations have set up shop in China after searching for the cheapest labour and the cheapest locations for making stuff - does not qualify as "stealing."

The only thing that matter is total future emissions and China needs to starting cutting its emissions if it actually cares about climate change. China makes solar panels and wind mills to sell to idiotic western politicians. They do not use them for their own energy sources. China is building new coal plants faster than it builds its token wind and solat installations. The idea that China cares about GHGs is quite risable.

Do you have something to back up your statement that China isn't building windmills for their domestic needs? This article from the NY Times says that wind energy will produce 8% of their total electricity needs by the end of this decade, and is part of a national plan to reduce dependence on coal:

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html

After seeing the rapid increase in air pollution in recent years...especially the need to shut down all of the factories in central China during the 2008 Olympics, do you think they are too stupid to realize that the rapid development of coal and oil wasn't sending their country towards an environmental disaster?

[TimG]

Not that that has anything to do with anything we've been talking about

Sure it does. You are the one trying to make the bogus argument that past emissions means something. The counter argument is the entire world has benefited from those emissions and are therefore complicit.

Do you have something to back up your statement that China isn't building windmills for their domestic needs?

According to recent data from the China Power Union, only 72% (8.94 GW) of Chinas total wind power capacity was connected to the grid.[18] In addition, increasing China's wind power capacity means increasing coal use as well, to provide power when the wind isn't available. "China will need to add a substantial amount of coal-fired power capacity by 2020 in line with its expanding economy, and the idea is to bring some of the capacity earlier than necessary in order to facilitate the wind-power transmission," according to Shi Pengfei, vice president of the Chinese Wind Power Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

The idea that China is doing more for GHGs because it builds a few windmills is nonsense.

China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the worlds largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China is huge in every way so green tokenism adds up to big numbers and does not negate the fact that china is expanding coal and nukes as fast as possible because they know renewables are jokes. Edited May 17, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

Sure it does. You are the one trying to make the bogus argument that past emissions means something. The counter argument is the entire world has benefited from those emissions and are therefore complicit.

Past emissions do mean something, since they've added to the present levels that are higher than anything we've had to deal with in human history: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

And the entire world has not benefited from the high use of fossil fuels over the last two centuries. The concept of climate debt is based on the sad fact that the areas of the world which are the most undeveloped...usually in the tropics, are also the areas being most adversely affected by the changes we are making to the climate. The negative external costs of using oil and coal have largely been dumped next door on those who have not benefited from their use!

Edited May 17, 2011 by WIP

[Saipan]

Not that that has anything to do with anything we've been talking about, but the fact that western multinational corporations have set up shop in China after searching for the cheapest labour and the cheapest locations for making stuff - does not qualify as "stealing."

Companies like Norinco etc. are ALL Chinese. And they all make copies of our products. They consider stealing "internal affairs".

Edited May 17, 2011 by Saipan