Bernie Sanders releases a REAL Climate Change Plan

[OverVolt]

..

 

[Moonbeam]

5-10C? Lol

So in 1962 a county near me used to be an 800-acre cherry orchard. Now its an 8-lane highway. 12-lane highway in some sections including the toll expressway. It has 3 feeder routes, each 4-lane 55mph roads. Strip malls, suburbs, the works.

All that development, asphalt especially, retains heat. Replacing trees with parking lots and such. I'm pretty sure the climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 forcing as they think it is. I think in the land temp record it is biased by the rapid development of the last few decades. I think the climate is changing/warming but 10C is a joke I'm sorry. About as credible as a NYC the end is near hobo.

China is warming significantly lately too. Its because of their rapid development. CO2 forcing would indicate global warming and not a collection of local warming from development. I think their CO2 forcing assumptions are too high. Which is why you can expect the models to still overshoot.

I'm all for using less fossil fuels and being efficient but this doom and gloom shit needs to stop.

The suffering children of the future will thank you from the bottom of their suffering for the fact that the doom and gloom they are experiencing was too much for your ego.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Storing power isn't a realistic option. The key is to diversify the grid, and to use more reliable power sources as backups to pick up the slack during down times. New nuclear reactors would likely be best conventional power method to fill this role.

So who's going to foot the bill to build the 1,000+ nuclear power plants that will be required to replace the coal and natural gas fired power plants in use now?

 

[bradly1101]

Let’s be clear: the reason we haven’t solved climate change isn’t because we aren’t doing our part, it’s because a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action.

I'm a big Bernie fan, but I totally disagree. "Our part" is huge, and millions can do something about it right now by travelling more efficiently. We're not doing our part if we buy big vehicles to feel safe. We're not doing our part until we utilize the most efficient cars, and only use them when absolutely necessary. We're not doing our part if we eat beef, which has horrible consequences to our air and water supply.... "We" could do A LOT more.

[He's also going to need all of us for other proposals, but that's another story.]

I think politicians are afraid to ask their voters for anything. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." is just an historic phrase, it doesn't mean anything to anyone anymore.

My partner and I rarely use our cars except to get groceries once a week. Our consciences won't allow for anything else. It's a microscopic dent in the whole climate change problem, but if billions around the world did their part instead of acting like they're not a huge part of the problem, we'd have a much easier and more sustainable path for this unsustainable population.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[flexy]

So who's going to foot the bill to build the 1,000+ nuclear power plants that will be required to replace the coal and natural gas fired power plants in use now?

This is made a political topic - but IT IS NOT.

"Fossil fuels: Yes or No?" is not a choice because all fossil fuels WILL at some point be depleted. Maybe not in 30 years, maybe not in 100. I don't know. But at some point there MUST be alternatives.
It makes therefore sense to invest in R&D of "alternative" energy today.

Nuclear energy - not so much. Obviously people don't remember Chernobyl?

Ever looked at a map of the US and how some nuclear power plants are in direct vicinity of large cities, like Chicago? Let ONE nuclear plant fail, ONE major accident and it would be a catastrophe which would make Chernobyl look like a joke.

The other problem with nuclear is that burnt-out radioactive materials must be disposed-off (aka stored-away) for CENTURIES/MILLENIA, due to half-life of radioactive materials).

So if anything, nuclear can also only be temporary.

The question "who is funding this?" is irrelevant since, as a I said, at some point you won't get around needing other energy sources. Fossils won't last forever. There will come the day where there is NO oil, gas etc. to be had anymore.

 

[Moonbeam]

Realistically what I think doesn't really matter. I'm just a realist. You aren't going to convince the developing world to give up their fossil fuels after we already had our cake with the industrial revolution. And its my fault for recognizing it?

But that is actually a different issue. More of a human behavior phenomenon.

The data is indeed likely tainted by development. The Urban heat island effect is the wrong term for it. That is averaged out of the data by assigning a grid. It is the grand sum total of all development over the past few decades that throws off the data. Every temperature station has a local story no matter if it is classified as rural or urban. A local dam will lower the temperature. Development will increase it. Population increases and its associated development basically. Particularly new population centers where there wasn't one before. India for example probably doesn't show as marked warming as China. Is it global warming or local warming? I think a collection of local warming phenomenon is being mistaken for global CO2 forcing. CO2 forcing still exists, its just that realistically they are overshooting.

They got the man made part right at least.

I guess you know more than the 97% of scientists who believe global warming is happening, that they never saw the data could be corrupted in the way you describe. I just don't get how you can have such arrogance of opinion.

There is this massive scientific effort to alert the world to a potential climate catastrophe and you're out in the parking lot with your finger in the air. Of course, I can't convince you of anything, but I think you are nuts. If my smoke alarm goes off, I may suspect a false alarm if I can't see any flames, but I'm not going back to sleep waiting for the morning to investigate. If the police say I have five minutes to clear out of building because a bomb will go off, I'm not going to fuck around.

 

[Moonbeam]

So who's going to foot the bill to build the 1,000+ nuclear power plants that will be required to replace the coal and natural gas fired power plants in use now?

Since they can't get financing without government coverage of their liabilities, they want tax subsidies. They are all a bunch of liberals.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[buckshot24]

I guess you know more than the 97% of scientists who believe global warming is happening, that they never saw the data could be corrupted in the way you describe. I just don't get how you can have such arrogance of opinion.

I don't think anybody is saying the climate isn't changing or that CO2 doesn't have some kind of warming effect.

 

[Brainonska511]

This is made a political topic - but IT IS NOT.

Nuclear energy - not so much. Obviously people don't remember Chernobyl?

Ever looked at a map of the US and how some nuclear power plants are in direct vicinity of large cities, like Chicago? Let ONE nuclear plant fail, ONE major accident and it would be a catastrophe which would make Chernobyl look like a joke.

The other problem with nuclear is that burnt-out radioactive materials must be disposed-off (aka stored-away) for CENTURIES/MILLENIA, due to half-life of radioactive materials).

So if anything, nuclear can also only be temporary.

1) Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to make more usable fuel and cut down on the amount of waste produced. This is not currently done in the US.
2) Chernobyl was a reactor design not used in the US, among many other issues. Suffice it to say, the odds of such an incident happening in the US are almost zero.

With respect to point 2, this is worth a read if you're interested: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html

After the Chernobyl accident, both government agencies and the nuclear industry were eager to investigate and learn from the experience. However, after long and careful study they finally concluded that we had very little to learn from it. The whole episode is now viewed as a vindication of the U.S. approach to nuclear power. (Essentially all nuclear power programs outside of the Soviet bloc use the U.S. approach.)
To understand this, let us review some of the problems that contributed to the accident, which would have been avoided by the U.S. approach:

1. A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water could not be licensed in the United States.
2. A reactor which is unstable against a temperature increase could not be licensed here.
3. A large power reactor without a containment could not be licensed here.
4. In contrast to the laxity at Chernobyl, regulations are strictly enforced here. Violations like operators cheating on examinations or falling asleep on the job,failing to report promptly on minor malfunctions, or failing to carry out a required inspection have brought large fines, plus lots of bad publicity to the utility. Flagrantly violating rules of reactor operation, and disabling important safety interlocks, are essentially unthinkable in U.S. plants.
5. U.S. commercial nuclear power plants would never be used for an experiment not directly relevant to their operations. Any abnormal use of the reactor would require very thorough advance analysis and approval from Washington based on government analyses. Major deviations from the plan, such as the decision at Chernobyl to run the experiment at a much lower power level, would never be considered. Presence of appropriate experts would be required. The preparations required to do such an experiment would be so massive that probably no one would even try. In the United States, experiments of this type are done at national laboratories.
6. In any severe accident in a U.S. reactor, the water would be lost, which means there would be no moderator. That would automatically stop the chain reaction. In a Chernobyl-type reactor, the moderator (graphite) is never lost, so there is no assurance that the chain reaction can be stopped in an accident. It could not be stopped in the April 1986 accident.
7. The principal way in which a reactor accident can do harm to public health is through dispersing the radioactive material as an airborne dust. A graphite fire is an efficient vehicle for doing this, provided by Chernobyl-type reactors. In essentially all accident scenarios for U.S. reactors, the bulk of the radioactive material ends up in water, and there is no reasonably probable mechanism for dispersing much of it as airborne dust.

The amount of fear of nuclear power in the US borders on irrationality.

 

[Moonbeam]

1) Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to make more usable fuel and cut down on the amount of waste produced. This is not currently done in the US.
2) Chernobyl was a reactor design not used in the US, among many other issues. Suffice it to say, the odds of such an incident happening in the US are almost zero.

With respect to point 2, this is worth a read if you're interested: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html
The amount of fear of nuclear power in the US borders on irrationality.

The faith in it is insanity.

 

[BoberFett]

The children of Chernobyl and Fukushima thank you for your pin headed ignorant opinion.

I would have no problem looking those children in their three eyes and telling them that nuclear is safe.

 

[nageov3t]

as long as he's opposed to nuclear power, I can't really take him seriously on this.

 

[K1052]

So who's going to foot the bill to build the 1,000+ nuclear power plants that will be required to replace the coal and natural gas fired power plants in use now?

The actual number would be about 400 reactors needed to entirely replace coal and NG if you only used nuclear. We currently get about 20% of our electricity from a fleet of 100 units.

 

[Subyman]

Storing power isn't a realistic option. The key is to diversify the grid, and to use more reliable power sources as backups to pick up the slack during down times. New nuclear reactors would likely be best conventional power method to fill this role.

I agree 100% with what you are saying, but that isn't what Bernie is saying. As I read it, he wants solar and wind exclusively and wants to completely shut down nuclear.

 

[Subyman]

The children of the future thank you for your skepticism. Avoiding a mistake while not educating yourself of the subject is more important to your ego than they are. Check out fuel cells and the solar leaf and save the children from more poisons that last hundreds of thousands of years.

Educating myself? I have a graduate degree in the subject...

 

[Jaskalas]

The faith in it is insanity.

How many exclusion zones are you willing to pay in order to save humanity from CO2? Some folks think it's biblical with ocean acidification and mass extinction.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Educating myself? I have a graduate degree in the subject...

No wonder your post was so spot on. I think we will see many more Combined Cycle power plants go online for quite a few years to come.

 

[TheGardener]

I looking forward to global warming. Living at 300 feet above sea level and based on extreme projections by climate change politicians (not scientists), I should living on beachfront property in 10 years. Then I can sell my property at a 10,000 percent profit. Go man made climate change.

 

[glenn1]

I looking forward to global warming. Living at 300 feet above sea level and based on extreme projections by climate change politicians (not scientists), I should living on beachfront property in 10 years. Then I can sell my property at a 10,000 percent profit. Go man made climate change.

Only problem is all the New Yorkers who would have gladly overpaid for it will be dead after they tire of treading water.

 

[Moonbeam]

Educating myself? I have a graduate degree in the subject...

In what subject?

 

[Moonbeam]

I would have no problem looking those children in their three eyes and telling them that nuclear is safe.

There was someone like you behind every nuclear facility that was ever approved and every one of them had just the same good intentions and ego. But you would blow a gasket if I tried to prevent you from ordering an extra large soft drink. You are angry that others wish to impose their beliefs on their assessment of the risks you should be permitted to take but you would happily tell children who haven't individually come to their own understandings of what is real risk is what they should think.

 

[TheGardener]

Only problem is all the New Yorkers who would have gladly overpaid for it will be dead after they tire of treading water.

Or maybe they will just stay dry and expire, when the oceans fail to rise and boil over. When that happens all the climate change hucksters will be taking bows for saving the planet. Then we can go back to worrying about The Rapture. But that is another religion.

 

[glenn1]

Or maybe they will just stay dry and expire, when the oceans fail to rise and boil over. When that happens all the climate change hucksters will be taking bows for saving the planet. Then we can go back to worrying about The Rapture. But that is another religion.

Oooh I forgot they might be killed by the hot acid oceans; Darth Vader might still have all his limbs if the citizens of Mustafar had imposed a carbon tax and banned SUVs.