Actually professor you might want to take a second look at those figures. A nuclear plant relies entirely on *already produced electricity* for safe operation. With a normally functioning grid, this is not an issue. Take that out of the picture (in a scenario like a CME hit) and it will have to fall back on site generators (the local turbine generation is likely to go down with the grid) which hopefully will have been isolated from the effects of the CME and can be instantly switched in to the site system to take over and shut the plant down. However, if any of those switching components went bad during the CME hit, it could be hours before they are repaired, which starts to push the cooling safety margins to the limit (the plant is, after all, still producing heat as if it had a job to do). There are certainly good disaster plans in effect at nuclear plants for situations similar to this, but do you really want to test them all at once? There are bound to be holes. Mushroom cloud style explosions are out of the question, but we know from experience with Fukushima that all kinds of bad things can happen (including lots of little explosions of errant hydrogen) when plants go dark and can't be shut down safely.
I'll update a couple of points, when a plant loses off-site power, it immediately scrams and they have to remove decay heat (the neutrons stop reacting), which drops exponentially from 6-7% core power to less than 1% in about a day, and far less than 1% in 10 days. The generators are normally sized to handle shutdown cooling until power could be restored (but your comments are true, everything can fail, in the case of Fukushima, the entire emergency generator system was destroyed by the tsunami). I would also note that most plants are designed to react the hydrogen in a more controlled manner, the Fukushima 'explosions' were actually by design, although granted the videos don't appear that way.
But now it's getting scary because the PTB don't have to watch me, the digital monitoring, and more importantly the digital analysis, has made it to where they can keep tabs on everything you do without spending human resources to do it. There is no longer safety in numbers because the algorithms can build the list and it can be executed efficiently.
So what's next? I'm not thrilled with some of my activities prompting which browser ads that I see, but I am bothered that companies could change their pricing strategy based on whether or not I'm motivated enough to change to another vendor when I'm not satisfied. I'm even more bothered that insurance companies know my private health records and could deny me coverage because of them, even if they were obtained with the expressed statements that conversations with your doctor are private.
Crap, I always used to roll my eyes at the Wearers of the Tin Foil Hats, but maybe technology has caught up to their paranoia. It's not going to be long before a fly lands in a printer and someone mistakes my name for someone else and my life is ruined.
Remember before criticizing the US Army, it's considered the best in the world, largely because of quartermaster capabilities.
It is a pretty fun game if you're into that genre though.
why are so many people her suckered by pundits?
Pay attention: 5) CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Falsifiable, and tested. 6) The VAST majority of excess CO2 in the air is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.
That's it. That is global warming. If you disagree with that, then you need to prove where the science is wrong. I look forward to your noble prize winning paper. If you read that and still think it doesn't impact the climate(climate change) then you need to show where the absorbed energy is going.
Some of you are very disappointing, falling into ad hom attacks and bad science. Scien that can trivally be checked out. But no, some of ypu moron keeps spouting the same crap. AGW is a scientific fact.
Re 5: The CO2 concentration is controlled by the temperature and pH of the oceans. The pH is not driven by CO2 as it's a weak electrolyte, and the overall pH of the ocean is about 8.0 (which is alkaline). CO2 equilibrated water pH is about 5.5. If air CO2 concentration is rising, it's because the ocean (which may be warming from something like undersea volcanic activity or dozens of other natural phenomena) belches it out.
Re 6: False. Check the data (http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/the-carbon-cycle_a224#). Natural sources are 90 gigatons from the ocean interactions, 60 gigatons from land based sources. 10 gigatons at most from human interaction. There are 750 gigatons in the air.
Nobody said the climate isn't warming, we're in a 10,000 year warming period compared to recent history. The question is what humans have done to influence it, and that question is far from resolved. I agree it warrants further study, and the overall the effects of reducing pollution are positive, but let the questions be answered by the scientific method, not rhetoric and politics.
Regarding inventories: The ocean inventory is 155,000 gigatons with 1,000 gigatons in the thermocline, and there is 150 gigatons annually of exchange. Human contribution is 10 gigatons annually, which would be in the measurement error of the other sources.
We need to reduce pollution, so if the climate change arguments will drive a large population that is generally uninformed towards greater efficiency, then great. But don't slaughter legitimate scientists for being appropriately skeptical. That is, after all, the fundamental tenant of the scientific method.