Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[freedombecki]

THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..

I think you need to check your sources.

Read the quote in my footer AGAIN.. Why is it that you don't believe what people tell you?

Is it because you lie a lot --- or are woefully misinformed on the topics you choose to champion??

THey are gonna DAM OFF a large portion of coastal habitat.. THAT'S what a reliable Tidal power project looks like..

IT'S a fu-king ENVIRONMENTAL SCAR on the landscape..

Just like mountain-top mining... Only MORE species die....

They have to dam off coasts. The detritus dredged up from the ocean water is so muddy, no sunlight can get through to the areas where sea life depends on a semblance of clarity to avoid calamity. Also, the water turns brown all around the turbines and litters the coast with detritus. You've heard the cheerful sound when someone says, "It's all good?" This sound is a knell for the death it routs up from the sea floor because it's all bad.

 

[PMZ]

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

Yes, there is a lot of low level (low radioactivity) waste.
That's not why we were working on Yucca Mountain.

The dangerous stuff is the spent fuel and can be reprocessed

Here's what the nuclear industry says about waste nuclear fuel. Compare it to what Todd wishes was true.

'' High-level Waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste separated from reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.''

''On the other hand, if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, all the highly-radioactive isotopes remain in it, and so the whole fuel assemblies are treated as high-level waste. This used fuel takes up about nine times the volume of equivalent vitrified high-level waste which is separated in reprocessing. Used fuel treated as waste must be encapsulated ready for disposal.''

''Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactive and people handling them must be shielded from their radiation. Such materials are shipped in special containers which shield the radiation and which will not rupture in an accident.''

''Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste, or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.''

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

Yes, there is a lot of low level (low radioactivity) waste.
That's not why we were working on Yucca Mountain.

The dangerous stuff is the spent fuel and can be reprocessed

Here's what the nuclear industry says about waste nuclear fuel. Compare it to what Todd wishes was true.

'' High-level Waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste separated from reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.''

''On the other hand, if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, all the highly-radioactive isotopes remain in it, and so the whole fuel assemblies are treated as high-level waste. This used fuel takes up about nine times the volume of equivalent vitrified high-level waste which is separated in reprocessing. Used fuel treated as waste must be encapsulated ready for disposal.''

''Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactive and people handling them must be shielded from their radiation. Such materials are shipped in special containers which shield the radiation and which will not rupture in an accident.''

''Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste, or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.''

Quick, point out the part of your post that refuted anything in my post.

 

[PMZ]

We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels.

Yes we will. LOL!

You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you? On top of that, you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate. Or, you can close your eyes, and keep your head in the dark place.

The problem little boy is you can't point to anything that says climate change is occurring. In fact quite the opposite is true. I understand that you are following the Goebbels method of propaganda but just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.

There are 4 IPCC reports that say climate change is occurring. The fact that you are incapable of understanding them is irrelevant. You have a problem. They don't.

 

[flacaltenn]

We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.

We could reprocess it, but that would make sense.

Tell the troll that "we don't have a solution" for mercury, lead, cadmium or other materials who's toxic half-life is just as long or LONGER than nuclear waste. Except segregating them best we can from the landfills..

How long is mercury toxic --- compared to a discarded Barium Enema??

 

[flacaltenn]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

 

[westwall]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

Yes, there is a lot of low level (low radioactivity) waste.
That's not why we were working on Yucca Mountain.

The dangerous stuff is the spent fuel and can be reprocessed

Here's what the nuclear industry says about waste nuclear fuel. Compare it to what Todd wishes was true.

'' High-level Waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste separated from reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.''

''On the other hand, if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, all the highly-radioactive isotopes remain in it, and so the whole fuel assemblies are treated as high-level waste. This used fuel takes up about nine times the volume of equivalent vitrified high-level waste which is separated in reprocessing. Used fuel treated as waste must be encapsulated ready for disposal.''

''Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactive and people handling them must be shielded from their radiation. Such materials are shipped in special containers which shield the radiation and which will not rupture in an accident.''

''Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste, or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.''

Where's the link silly person?

 

[westwall]

You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you? On top of that, you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate. Or, you can close your eyes, and keep your head in the dark place.

The problem little boy is you can't point to anything that says climate change is occurring. In fact quite the opposite is true. I understand that you are following the Goebbels method of propaganda but just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.

There are 4 IPCC reports that say climate change is occurring. The fact that you are incapable of understanding them is irrelevant. You have a problem. They don't.

Wrong again as usual. I see reading at a fourth grade level is beyond you. A shame really, the dumbing down of the population thanks to the Public Schools. They used to be good.

 

[westwall]

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

You can always tell who the ignorant are when they spout off about how bad nuclear waste is and they don't know the difference between high level and low level. They think they are the same and they are so very different. I'm still waiting for our newest "geologist" to educate us on the subject...

 

[PMZ]

The problem little boy is you can't point to anything that says climate change is occurring. In fact quite the opposite is true. I understand that you are following the Goebbels method of propaganda but just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.

There are 4 IPCC reports that say climate change is occurring. The fact that you are incapable of understanding them is irrelevant. You have a problem. They don't.

Wrong again as usual. I see reading at a fourth grade level is beyond you. A shame really, the dumbing down of the population thanks to the Public Schools. They used to be good.

You're saying that the IPCC ARs don't claim AGW? That's really bizarre.

 

[Abraham3]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

You can always tell who the ignorant are when they spout off about how bad nuclear waste is and they don't know the difference between high level and low level. They think they are the same and they are so very different. I'm still waiting for our newest "geologist" to educate us on the subject...

I'm still waiting for you to tell us something that might indicate you have any education at all. So far, the only qualification I've seen from you is being a world class asshole.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, there is a lot of low level (low radioactivity) waste.
That's not why we were working on Yucca Mountain.

The dangerous stuff is the spent fuel and can be reprocessed

Here's what the nuclear industry says about waste nuclear fuel. Compare it to what Todd wishes was true.

'' High-level Waste may be the used fuel itself, or the principal waste separated from reprocessing this. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds 95% of the radioactivity. It contains the highly-radioactive fission products and some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling, as well as special shielding during handling and transport. If the used fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass which is sealed inside stainless steel canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.''

''On the other hand, if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, all the highly-radioactive isotopes remain in it, and so the whole fuel assemblies are treated as high-level waste. This used fuel takes up about nine times the volume of equivalent vitrified high-level waste which is separated in reprocessing. Used fuel treated as waste must be encapsulated ready for disposal.''

''Both high-level waste and used fuel are very radioactive and people handling them must be shielded from their radiation. Such materials are shipped in special containers which shield the radiation and which will not rupture in an accident.''

''Whether used fuel is reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste, or 25-30 tonnes of used fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.''

Where's the link silly person?

I see that Google is beyond you too.

Radioactive Waste Management | Nuclear Waste Disposal

 

[PMZ]

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

You can always tell who the ignorant are when they spout off about how bad nuclear waste is and they don't know the difference between high level and low level. They think they are the same and they are so very different. I'm still waiting for our newest "geologist" to educate us on the subject...

I'm still waiting for you to tell us something that might indicate you have any education at all. So far, the only qualification I've seen from you is being a world class asshole.

I've been waiting for quite a while, and no indication yet. I keep hoping to learn that he was educated in Nowhereistan and only through 4th grade but he keeps the details secret.

 

[PMZ]

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

Depends on whether you're considering volume or hazard level.

 

[westwall]

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

You can always tell who the ignorant are when they spout off about how bad nuclear waste is and they don't know the difference between high level and low level. They think they are the same and they are so very different. I'm still waiting for our newest "geologist" to educate us on the subject...

I'm still waiting for you to tell us something that might indicate you have any education at all. So far, the only qualification I've seen from you is being a world class asshole.

What ya want to know?

 

[Abraham3]

Less of what you've shown us since I got here. A lot less.

 

[Abraham3]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

 

[gslack]

PMZ in drag^^^^^

 

[Saigon]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

That is a VERY good question.

I hope we see some similarly on-topic answers.

 

[PMZ]

There is only one real source of heat on earth.