Fossil fuel on Earth enough to melt Antarctic

[+DieChecker]

The Chinese will do their part. Even India is beginning to clean its act. The problem is the changes take time and money, and we may not have it. The damage that will happen fifty years from now may already be locked in. Still no reason to do what we can.

Interestingly, in my view, the environmental movement has done more harm to this than help, by stirring fear in labor unions and economic conservatives instinctively hostile to government regulation and suspicious of claims that it is needed. The solution, such as it may be, is coming from economics and technology and people after a profit -- costs for solar and wind and so on are dropping much faster than predicted.

I'll believe China is moving toward the Good when I see it.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I think if Global Warming and Climate Change are to be halted, the first step is to convince China. Even if the US, and Europe, and Japan all cut output by 50%, China is going to keep the thing going.

Look at that per capita emissions rate. The USA has double that of China. This needs addressing as seriously as Chinas total emissions.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

I think if Global Warming and Climate Change are to be halted, the first step is to convince China. Even if the US, and Europe, and Japan all cut output by 50%, China is going to keep the thing going.

China is working on it. That's what those big hydro-electric dams are for.

If the US has the political will, we can get China to go along - ban products from countries that don't meet pollution standards. But right now, we are buying China's products and China is lending us the money to buy more. Does anybody else see a problem here?

Doug

[Doug1029]

I'll believe China is moving toward the Good when I see it.

Look at the Three Gorges Dam. All you have to do is oipen your eyes.

Doug

[Doug1029]

I think there's an argument for one or two fast breeders with the sole purpose of eating down the waste pile, but on economic grounds they have little to offer on past form.

They represent a very specific solution to a very specific problem - not the solution to the energy crisis.

http://e360.yale.edu...r_panacea/2557/

Br Cornelius

The Detroit Fermi plant proved that fast breeders are cost effective. Safe is another question.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

Look at the Three Gorges Dam. All you have to do is oipen your eyes.

Doug

I'll still only believe it when it happens. Who's to say that their energy usage will not simply go up?

China is working on it. That's what those big hydro-electric dams are for.

If the US has the political will, we can get China to go along - ban products from countries that don't meet pollution standards. But right now, we are buying China's products and China is lending us the money to buy more. Does anybody else see a problem here?

Doug

I'd like to see the US have the political will to really do something here first.

[+DieChecker]

Look at that per capita emissions rate. The USA has double that of China. This needs addressing as seriously as Chinas total emissions.

Br Cornelius

And China has FOUR times the people. Making them double the problem.

[Frank Merton]

Each country has its own responsibility and has no leverage if its own house is not in order. The Americans can preach all they want but we all know there is much more they could be doing in their own house.

And China has FOUR times the people. Making them double the problem.

So does India, and soon so will Africa.

[Doug1029]

I'll still only believe it when it happens. Who's to say that their energy usage will not simply go up?

It will, like everybody else's. Conversion needs to be fast enough to overcome that. I don't know what China's wind capacity is, but they should be able to fit a lot of windmills into the Gobi Desert.

I'd like to see the US have the political will to really do something here first.

Political rhetoric notwithstanding, the US is converting to wind power. Florida will convert in late 2017 or early 2018. Southern California is in the process and New England has signed the contracts. There are over 200 wind farms in Iowa that I assume are selling power to the Chicago area. Admittedly, we could move a lot faster, but at least we're going in the right direction.

Doug

[Doc Socks Junior]

Brother: I dug up an actual review (by scientists!) of the reports. It seemed like the more scientific option than The Telegraph. I mean, even the government UK site has more reports. Look here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-onshore-exploration-and-production#annexes

You might be interested into some of the more specific findings of the report by Green, Styles, and Baptie (2012).

The reports from these studies conclude that the earthquake activity was caused by direct fluid injection into an adjacent fault zone during the treatments, but that the probability of further earthquake activity is low.

Such a mechanism further confirms that the event was caused by shear-slip on an existing fault, i.e. the event was caused by the release of energy stored at a critically stressed fault, rather than tensile failure during opening of a hydraulic fracture.

Oh my. Is that a case of lubricated fault slip? (I like that phrase, by the way.)

Based on the induced seismicity analysis done by Cuadrilla and ourselves, together with the agreement to use more sensitive fracture monitoring equipment and a DECC agreed induced seismic protocol for future operations, the authors of this report see no reason why Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. should not be allowed to proceed with their shale gas exploration activities and recommend cautious continuation of hydraulic fracture operations, at the Preese Hall site.

Oh my. Do the experts "see no reason why Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. should not be allowed to proceed with their shale gas exploration"? (Remember, 2 negatives make a positive.)

Or are we going to ignore the experts we don't agree with?

There are plenty of points the report raises that would be interesting to discuss. You got a little too excited with the quote in the telegraph, and the fracking boogeyman. Please, feel free to discuss the report with me. But I'd lay off on the questioning of my motives or abilities as a geologist. You're really not in a position to actually assess them.

[Doc Socks Junior]

So here we are, back at the original question: how do we keep nuclear waste INSIDE the mountain? And how do we get it there without endangering the public?

I mean, it's the "most studied real estate" on the planet. I'm sure a lot of engineers have spent a lot of time coming up with the answer to your question.

A couple quotes from Winograd et al, really cut to the heart of this one (2008).

In the ensuing decades, a voluminous body of knowledge of the geology, hydrology, geochemistry, and paleoclimatology of YM and the surrounding southern Great Basin was acquired and documented in hundreds of studies by federal, state, university, and industry scientists.

We suspect that even in the absence of technical questions regarding YM, it would still be opposed by segments of the public.

In other words (and you're continually proving it) certain people are never going to be satisfied. Of course, it would be more intellectually honest if those people (cough) would just say that they will never be satisfied.

P.S.: if we go to fast breeders, we may have a lot less waste to store.

Yeah, go for it. Sure thing. Cuts down on labor and construction costs, too, if we can get those plants reproducing .

[Doug1029]

name='socrates.junior' timestamp='1442609681' post='5635011']

Or are we going to ignore the experts we don't agree with?

Or we could play dueling experts:

http://srl.geoscienc.../83/2/250.short

http://www.fe.doe.go...th_Abstract.pdf

http://www.sciencema...5/6195/448.full

Doug

Edited September 18, 2015 by Doug1029

[Doc Socks Junior]

Or we could play dueling experts:

http://srl.geoscienc.../83/2/250.short

http://www.fe.doe.go...th_Abstract.pdf

http://www.sciencema...5/6195/448.full

Doug

I mean, they're not actually dueling. I mean, by all means, continue posting about induced seismicity as a result of wastewater injection. This is fun.

[Doug1029]

In other words (and you're continually proving it) certain people are never going to be satisfied. Of course, it would be more intellectually honest if those people (cough) would just say that they will never be satisfied.

Yeah, go for it. Sure thing. Cuts down on labor and construction costs, too, if we can get those plants reproducing .

But why run any risk at all when wind is cheaper and we have barely begun to tap it?

Doug

[Doug1029]

I mean, they're not actually dueling. I mean, by all means, continue posting about induced seismicity as a result of wastewater injection. This is fun.

So what's the problem here? Injection causes earthquakes. Only the gas and oil people are still trying to argue that it doesn't.

Doug

P.S.: They're not really arguing that it doesn't. It's the old "the research is inconclusive" line. I posted the links; you tell me if there's enough research. Of course, we could always use some more.

Even my daughter is coming around.

Doug

Edited September 18, 2015 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

But I'd lay off on the questioning of my motives or abilities as a geologist. You're really not in a position to actually assess them.

That cuts both directions. You've made a couple snide comments about what I think when you haven't read enough of my posts to know what I think.

Doug

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Brother: I dug up an actual review (by scientists!) of the reports. It seemed like the more scientific option than The Telegraph. I mean, even the government UK site has more reports. Look here:

https://www.gov.uk/g...duction#annexes

You might be interested into some of the more specific findings of the report by Green, Styles, and Baptie (2012).

Oh my. Is that a case of lubricated fault slip? (I like that phrase, by the way.)

Oh my. Do the experts "see no reason why Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. should not be allowed to proceed with their shale gas exploration"? (Remember, 2 negatives make a positive.)

Or are we going to ignore the experts we don't agree with?

There are plenty of points the report raises that would be interesting to discuss. You got a little too excited with the quote in the telegraph, and the fracking boogeyman. Please, feel free to discuss the report with me. But I'd lay off on the questioning of my motives or abilities as a geologist. You're really not in a position to actually assess them.

The point here is that Fracking demonstrably has been shown to cause earthquakes directly. it happened on the first Frack in the UK and they are drawing conclusions that its unlikely to happen again - how convenient. Of course a report produced by the industry for the industry to clear the industry should be treated as been totally impartial on this matter.

However the reality is that earthquakes follow fracking wherever it goes and that is just a demonstrable correlation from a cursory look at the increase in earthquakes across the most fracked country in the world, the USA.

The reality for the Uk, and many parts of America is that the frackzone is relatively shallow and overburdened with highly faulted karstifed surface rock which means that lubricated fault slipping is a highly probable outcome for those areas. How could a seemingly expert impartial report miss this basic geological fact. Maybe because both the geological sector and the UK government are highly biased towards the Fracking industry. The fact that these earthquakes have all but stalled the UK Fracking industry is just about the last thing that the UK government wanted.

Here in Ireland, when the EPA commissioned a preliminary report on Fracking, they employed a geologist from Aberdeen University (where all of the North Sea Oil staff are trained) and it concluded there was no risk of surface water contamination. This was despite the report showing an industry diagram of the Frack zone, culled from America, which showed cracking up to one kilometer either side of the horizontal bore - and with the target shales been just 600meters down in Ireland with a karstified overburden above. So are we to take that geologists word as trustworthy when by his own report he gave evidence that the Frack zone must enter the water table and up to the surface. It was laughable to say the least.

So I think your showing quite well my point that geologists report what their employer needs to hear.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 18, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[robinrenee]

So I think your showing quite well my point that geologists report what their employer needs to hear.

Br Cornelius

Hmmm ... Surely you're not suggesting that it's a conspiracy ?

I do believe I've heard you overuse that term with me. When you agree with something and I disagree (or vice versa), you call me a CT.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Hmmm ... Surely you're not suggesting that it's a conspiracy ?

I do believe I've heard you overuse that term with me. When you agree with something and I disagree (or vice versa), you call me a CT.

There is a nice study which shows that geologists who are employed by the fossil fuel industry are the most likely to deny climate change.

The point is that any scientist who works for a particular industry tends to produce science which supports their industry, now there's a real surprise.

It becomes a bit of a CT when you then go on to claim that any scientist who produces evidence for climate change must be working for a global one world government conspiracy - which is what you believe.

And before you bleat that Governments want climate change to create such a one world government and so only pay for climate change confirming research - the US, UK, Canadan and Australian governments have all encouraged their own scientists to play down climate change as an issue and the Bush Administration spent 8 years suppressing the science in all government reports. However it didn't work because despite government suppression research confirming climate change - every single one of those countries scientific bodies has confirmed and warned about the dangers from climate change. So if their is a government conspiracy regarding the climate it has tended to be to deny the evidence.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 18, 2015 by Br Cornelius

[robinrenee]

There is a nice study which shows that geologists who are employed by the fossil fuel industry are the most likely to deny climate change.

The point is that any scientist who works for a particular industry tends to produce science which supports their industry, now there's a real surprise.

It becomes a bit of a CT when you then go on to claim that any scientist who produces evidence for climate change must be working for a global one world government conspiracy - which is what you believe.

You don't have a clue what I believe... except that I'm a globalist.

And before you bleat that Governments want climate change to create such a one world government and so only pay for climate change confirming research - the US, UK, Canadan and Australian governments have all encouraged their own scientists to play down climate change as an issue and the Bush Administration spent 8 years suppressing the science in all government reports. However it didn't work because despite government suppression research confirming climate change - every single one of those countries scientific bodies has confirmed and warned about the dangers from climate change. So if their is a government conspiracy regarding the climate it has tended to be to deny the evidence.

From that statement, you obviously don't know what a globalist believes.

You also sound absolutely like a conspiracy theorist.... sheez... nations suppressed climate data so they could have a one world government???

Are you daft?

[Guest Br Cornelius]

You also sound absolutely like a conspiracy theorist.... sheez... nations suppressed climate data so they could have a one world government???

Are you daft?

Again it is you who have stated that Governments are promoting climate change for their "globalist agenda", yet I was pointing out that some of the most influential governments were actively surpressing climate change science - which hardly fits with your contention that they want it to promote a one world government.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

There are earthquakes and there are tremors. I dislike calling tremors earthquakes when the purpose is to frighten people into not using something that could be part of the solution.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

There are earthquakes and there are tremors. I dislike calling tremors earthquakes when the purpose is to frighten people into not using something that could be part of the solution.

Its hardly scaremongering when house's are been damaged and it effects both insurance and house values.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

Its hardly scaremongering when house's are been damaged and it effects both insurance and house values.

Br Cornelius

It's scaremongering and you should do better. I'm sure the responsible party will pay for any such damage, both real and left over from last winter's storms.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

It's scaremongering and you should do better. I'm sure the responsible party will pay for any such damage, both real and left over from last winter's storms.

Are you certain they will ? Having to go to a large company and prove that they caused the damage rather than been able to use your own insurance. I am certain that many of the people effected in the USA will be reassured by your sentiments.

When Fracking becomes commonplace and the spotlight is off the "pioneering" first Fracks" home owners rapidly find themselves at the bottom of the pile. The UK Government's own survey of the likely impacts on home owners highlighted that house values would be adversely effected by Fracking. This was not what they wanted to hear so they refused to issue the report to the public until forced to by multiple freedom of information requests.

Br Cornelius