You include them then.
What part is that Dale?
Hereās a question I think Iāve raised before, but donāt recall hearing any answer for: wouldnāt any revolutionizing energy source that makes energy cheap or free for everyone be an unmitigated disaster for climate change? I mean - yeah - on the one hand, non-fossil fuel sources like nuclear help reduce the CO2 contribution, and that is significant. But would it also turn out to be significant that they are adding lots of energy to the atmosphere that otherwise would have remained comparatively insulated inside the earthās interior for much more time yet? If we imagine (just to irritate @Klax if nothing else 
) that cold fusion energy suddenly materialized making virtually free unlimited energy available - this would most definitely not just stop with every African family having a fridge and we all call it a day. Humans have never thought that way and never will. We will each suddenly want our flying cars and to be building all manner of new things everywhere with all this new found capacity. And if we thought the heat contribution from humanity was insignificant before - wouldnāt all that suddenly propel it into quite problematic global-warming levels even without the additional CO2?
2 Likes
How? When? Why?
Sorry, Klaxon old boy. Your baiting isnāt working.
1 Like
Just fission will do just fine. Cars will never fly, like hot or cold running fusion. I cannot see how a stable, post-scarcity global population of 10 billion, only using fossil fuel for aviation and hybrid tractors, trucks and cars, a couple of billion tons of cement a year from electric kilns generating no more CO2 than today, electrically fixing nitrogen for fertilizer, electrically desalinating water, would generate significant heat it couldnāt capture.
Why would there be a major or even local nuclear exchange? What nuclear powers have been that stupid? Ever? Why would they ever be?
In other words you havenāt the faintest rational idea.
Reread what I wrote. I will acknowledge that you have an opinion.
It would change nothing.
Exactly. They increase carbon emissions multiply by requiring massive gas backup and preventing the free market of nuclear. Solar generates immense toxic waste, wind is exterminating bird, bat and insect species: causing extinction faster per terawatt than fossil.
Itās not the āpowersā that are worrisome ā¦ itās nearly everyone else of this or that terroristic group or mindset that is already in a āweāve got nothing to loseā mindset. All the big powers had to do was make all the stuff - in stupidly absurd quantities (and now itās all out there, aging, there in potential mishaps, there to fall into wrong hands - probably more in some nations than others ā¦ and even the big āresponsibleā nations are not moving in any direction of āmore competencyā right now. I wish you were right - but ā¦ you donāt seem able to show any warrant for your certainty.
2 Likes
What is needed is sensible cooperation, but when there are statements like that demonstrating our common condition, the probability of the aforementioned is more than unlikely.
The aluminum nitrate in Beirut is symptomatic.
No terrorist is ever going to be given a nuke or just pick one up. No nuclear power is ever going to attack another conventionally. Period. Why would they? Let alone nuclearly. Itās all apocalyptic fantasy, like the excellent Peacemaker, the lesser The Sum Of All Fears let alone the best of them all, Failsafe (and Crimson Tide and On The Beach andā¦). Nuclear power makes you reeeeally sober, responsible, careful, thorough, a tad security conscious, grown up. So much so that Nixon could not have launched no matter how drunk. Keeping half the planet in the dark ages and impoverishing the rest is far more dangerous.
Letās get back to topic here. The little one liner responses are tiresome, and off-topic here in any case.
3 Likes
Youāre the boss Mervin, but what is the topic? What is the claim? What is the question?
Take those same people on an airplane flight with a Geiger counter, and flip it on when you reach altitude. That should freak them out. 
1 Like
Looking at some of the websites on the use of algae for biofuelā¦
This one is quite optimistic and provides a basic overview.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152439/
This one above is even more pessimistic about the likelihood of reducing emissions particularly from fossil fuels. I definitely think this use of fossil fuels has to change and I would suggest that one driving motivation for individual countries would be the preservation of their own resources which are only going to become increasingly valuable as time goes on.
This one is more focused on research. They want to bio-engineer diatoms to accumulate lipids at a faster rate. This would increase the fuel production from that algae and thereby reduce the cost per barrel produced.