tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post8064679301402954958..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Scott Brown on Nuclear EnergyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-58545606512973197272010-01-21T12:25:02.134-05:002010-01-21T12:25:02.134-05:00so, is the "logic" here that, if we can&...so, is the "logic" here that, if we can't completely eliminate every source of every greenhouse gas, we shouldn't do anything? I'd rather be Chicken Little than an ostrich.<br /><br />Second, whether water vapor is a big variable in climate is not the point. The question is whether previous large warming or cooling trends correlate with correspondingly large changes in water vapor emissions, in a way that might suggest these emissions control climate variability. THAT'S not evidence you've provided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-86096250539089746362010-01-21T07:06:41.885-05:002010-01-21T07:06:41.885-05:00george, the oceans evaporate about 4x10^14 tons of...george, the oceans evaporate about 4x10^14 tons of water every year. That's 400,000 billion tons every year. So, I don't think your manmade "billions of tons over the course of history" amounts to a hill of beans. Innumeracy, and lack of appreciation for magnitudes, are leading us inexorably to unnecessarily destructive outcomes. We are doomed.gmax137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-30917517513684248652010-01-20T21:13:40.573-05:002010-01-20T21:13:40.573-05:00Sulfur Dioxides, particulates, and ash are polluta...Sulfur Dioxides, particulates, and ash are pollutants. <br />CO2 is plant food.<br />Water Vapor is just water vapor, and a larger indicator of the greenhouse effect than CO2. Over the course of human history we have pumped into the atmosphere billions of tons of water vapor. Somehow the AGW crowd does not run around screaming "Look at all that water up in the air! Somebody should do something! Expensive! Now!"<br /><br />It's nice that we have at least one Senator in DC who has a bit of common sense. Hope he can Change the Chicken Littles.Georg Felishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03550333227450728733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-68631109595503645352010-01-20T20:32:58.709-05:002010-01-20T20:32:58.709-05:00Yeah, lip service about support for alternative en...Yeah, lip service about support for alternative energy sources in general (nuclear merely included in a comprehensive list), but a specific statement saying that he opposes any policies (i.e., carbon pricing) that would actually cause a shift away from fossil fuels to occur.<br /><br />Loan guarantees and tax credits may result in construction of a few plants, but w/o a price on CO2, nuclear is not going to go anywhere. Fossil fuels (mainly coal) are, and will remain, at least somewhat cheaper. Most utility interest in nuclear is due to one thing alone, the expectation of hard CO2 limits (or taxes).<br /><br />For us, CO2 limits are far more important than any subsidies. Besides, subsidies make us look bad. W/o cap-and-trade or a CO2 tax, all that will be left in our energy policies are massive renewables subsidies and govt. fiat requirements for renewables use (RPS). That along with bogus carbon offsets. No non-emitting energy market. Not a good environmment for nuclear to compete in.<br /><br />Like health care, this election dramatically reduces the likelihood of meaningful climate change policy happening, for several years at least. This is pretty much disasterous.<br /><br />Jim HopfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-12375615973484559132010-01-20T16:20:17.427-05:002010-01-20T16:20:17.427-05:00Might we be in a chicken-egg situation? Emissions...Might we be in a chicken-egg situation? Emissions legislation won't go through without nuclear provisions, but congress won't support nuclear until it's clear emissions control will require it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com