Frightening simulations of global warming and the planet's future

[wtmusic]

In Mark Lynas's The God Species he describes how the Earth's ecosystems are self-correcting when perturbations occur over a long period of time: orbital "wobble", evolution of species, etc. When they are sudden, the entire dynamic changes and mass extinctions occur. The industrial age of homo sapiens is already inducing one of the most rapid changes in the earth's history.

"This time lag effect was cleverly demonstrated in a modeling simulation undertaken by two British researchers, Hywell Williams and Tim Lenton. In a computer-generated world - entirely populated by evolving microorganisms living in a closed flask - Williams and Lenton found that the closing of nutrient loops (self-correction) emerged as a robust property of the system nearly every time the model was run. As in the real world, the emergence of self-regulation came about because evolution allowed new species to appear that could use the waste of one species as food for themselves, recycling nutrients and leading to a stable state. Moreover, the more species that evolved, the greather the amount of recycling and the greater the overall biomass the system could support. "Flask world" had discovered the value of biodiversity.

But this world also had a dark side, for several simulations illustrated that the flaw in self-regulation - the time gap between a disturbance and the evolved correction - might occasionally be fatal. In just a few model runs, an organism appeared that was so spectacularly successful at mopping up nutrients that its numbers exploded and its wastes built up to toxic levels before other organisms were able to evolve a response. Williams and Lenton dubbed these occasional rogue species "rebel organisms". They were unusual, but their impact was invariably catastrophic: the explosive initial success of the rebels changed the simulated global environment so suddenly and dramatically that their compatriots were killed, and - with no other life-forms around to recycle their wastes - they were themselves condemned to die too. As the last lonely rebels perished, their whole bioshpere went extinct, evolution ceased, self-regulation failed and life wiped itself out."

<>

"The truth of the Anthropocene is that the Earth is far out of balance, and we must help it regain the stability it needs to function as a self-regulating, highly-dynamic, and complex system. It cannot do so alone.

This means jettisoning some fairly sacred cows. Nuclear power is, as many Greens are belatedly realizing, environmentally almost completely benign. (The Fukushima disaster in Japan did nothing to change this sanguine assessment, and perhaps more than anything confirmed it; more on that later). Properly deployed, nuclear fission is one of the strongest weapons in our armory against global warming, and by rejecting it in the past campaigners have unwittingly helped release billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as planned nuclear plants were replaced by coal from the mid-1970s onward. Anyone who still marches against nuclear today, as many thousands of people did in Germany following the Fukushima accident, is in my view just as bad for the climate as textbook eco-villains like the big oil companies. (German's over-hasty switch-off of seven of its nuclear power plants after the Japanese tsunami will have led to an additional 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in just three months.)..."

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/god-species-mark-lynas/1100089065?ean=9781426208911&itm=1&usri=the%2bgod%2bspecies

[villager]

1. ah, all comes down to an apologia for the nuclear power lobby...

n/t

[wtmusic]

2. No apology needed.

Yours?

[villager]

12. well, none possible, really...

n/t

[kristopher]

3. You mean you don't think Fukushima proved that nuclear power is environmentally friendly?

It didn't look like the aftereffects of Hiroshima so we can conclude it isn't an environmental or health disaster!
Have you ever heard such a load of unmitigated bullcrap?

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

And to make it even worse, it doesn't even do the job of addressing climate change worth a damn.



Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

[ixion]

4. Nuclear power is environmentally almost completely benign.

:rofl:

Yeah, right. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

5. How many people have died from radiation at Fukushima?

How many have died from breathing coal smoke since then?

Yes, nuclear power is environmentally almost completely benign.

[ixion]

7. Neither TEPCO nor the government has been forthcoming in that regard

but I think you can look to the aftermath of Chernobyl and the devastation caused in that area as a guide.

Further, if it's so benign, why do we spend millions of dollars building and burying toxic waste, and why is it called toxic?

It's benign, if you happen to be a cockroach. Otherwise, not so much.

[wtmusic]

8. Agreed.

Neither have been forthcoming, and if they had been it would not have been half the issue it is. Similar to the Vermont Yankee leaking pipe story.

Nuclear waste is not benign, but it is microscopic in volume compared to the coal ash that we freely spew into the atmosphere - ash that is even more radioactive.

The perspective anti-nuclear activists harbor is a relic of the cold war and atomic bomb testing (which to this day has contributed more radioactivity to the environment than all nuclear accidents combined). Time to reset our priorities to the things that matter most, and global warming will kill us all before environmental radiation from power generation makes a dent in global background levels.

[ixion]

11. I'm glad we can find common ground.

I'm not completely anti-nuke, but I do have issues with the way they're handled currently. Also, I agree with you completely that coal-based power plants pollute like crazy.

My problems with nuclear power are:

1) Although it may be microscopic, nuclear waste is a real problem, and our current methods of containment and/or disposal are inadequate, at best. Further, as nuclear power plants increase, the amount of waste produced increases. If we are going to increase the number of plants, it is imperative we improve and tightly regulate what we do with the waste, at the very least. Personally, I'd like to see more research done in the area of making waste benign or even recyclable, if we plan to use nuclear power long term.

2) The regulatory agencies (NRC, etc) tend to favor the business over what's best for We, the People. That must change. There should be complete transparency and tight regulation.

3) This is a personal peeve, but still... when nuclear power started to gain traction in the 70's, one of the selling points was that it would reduce electric bills to pennies. That never materialized. Instead, we've seen increases that have been pocketed by privatized power companies.

4) This ties into item #2: Aging plants, cover-ups, poor construction and poor oversight have rendered them far more dangerous than they ought to be.

If we could solve these issues, I would tend to be less adverse to nuclear power.

[Nihil]

13. Not to reply on anyone else's behalf ...

... but I agree with you on every single one of those points.
:toast:

[Terry in Austin]

6. Even if it were benign

Nuclear power just ain't gonna happen.

Costs too much, does too little.

[wtmusic]

10. It's happening all over the world. nt

[Terry in Austin]

14. Trivially correct; substantively, no

There are indeed instances of nuclear power happening at more than one place around the world.

But scale is what matters here. So, not gonna happen.

[Kennah]

9. "almost completely benign"

So, if one were incarcerated, and getting ass fucked but didn't contract HIV, that too would be "almost completely benign".

Oy.