Croaker, without disagreeing that the opposition to nuclear power has at times been hysterical and irrational, there is still reason to oppose it in preference for improved efficiency combined with renewable sources.

Also, it wasn't environmental opposition that put the lid on nuke power so much as concern for safety, which required many measures increasing cost of construction and operation. If you think those concerns were excessive and misplaced, compare the disasters at Three Mile Island and at Chernobil. Even with those extra expenses in place, nuclear power would have been competitive in this country but for the $20 billion annual subsidy the federal government grants to fossil fuels -- and that, not environmentalism, is the real culprit in most everything energy-wise.

Brian, could you describe "the disaster at Three Mile Island"?

In truth, there was none. Both that event and the one at Brown's Ferry were relieved of any "disaster" by good nuclear engineering. But Russia didn't have that, and there certainly was a mess left by Chernobl. I'll grant you that. Every nuke scientist I know thinks it was an incredible chain of events. The worst damn thing for a nuclear NIMBY to see!

But there was no disaster at Three Mile Island. OK? No need for that hysteria.

I'll be ready to join your econo-world and save the environment when I see people ready to give up happy capitalism. I have more plastic than food in my refrigerator, and I don't expect that ratio to improve very soon.

--Croaker

Croaker, that's exactly my point. The same basic problem -- meltdown -- developed at TMI and at Chernobil. In the U.S., we had multi-redundant safety measures in place that the industry often thought unreasonable. In the USSR, they did not. TMI was a near-disaster. Chernobil was an actual disaster. Seems to me the safety measures aren't so unnecessary after all.

Politics will certainly be important up to and including Regeneracy. The choices made will affect how society responds to the Crisis. *** ***

I reccommend The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear by Dr. Petr Beckmann. *** ***

Brian,

I have to throw-in with croaker. Nuclear energy has the potential of solving our enegy needs. Conservation doesn't, and, while we might get a viable solution from them, we may regret relying on renewables.

If you go as far as you can with tidal power (of course, not where it spoils the view ... or surfing) and wind (except it's also pretty ugly) and solar (in the few places it actually makes sense), you're left with bio-renewables and nuclear.

Nuclear and nuclear alone makes the hydrogen option viable. Hydrogen is the only long-term combustible that makes sense. Any bets on the impact of buring a lot of corn-based products?

Originally Posted by RadioHead

Any bets on the impact of buring a lot of corn-based products?

Except that, in a real sense, the CO2 emitted in burning corn-based products had been fairly recently sequestered from the atmosphere in the first place (it's where corn gets the carbon to build new cells from, after all...) So one could reasonably argue that "growing our own fuel" will not add to the net atmospheric CO2 level.

(alternately, one could argue that CO2 is no big problem, as far as atmospheric pollutants go, and that efforts would be much better spent worrying about stuff like heavy metals and NOx that aren't painlessly reabsorbed into the biosphere)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Croaker, that's exactly my point. The same basic problem -- meltdown -- developed at TMI and at Chernobil. In the U.S., we had multi-redundant safety measures in place that the industry often thought unreasonable. In the USSR, they did not. TMI was a near-disaster. Chernobil was an actual disaster. Seems to me the safety measures aren't so unnecessary after all.

Meltdown never ocured at TMI, but a failure did. While not pooh-poohing the seriousness of the issue - no one died or even got exposed to radiation above the level in the local environment. The safety systems worked as designed, and they would be considered primitive by todays technology standards. How much better could we do now?

BTW, the redundant systems were always considered a must. What raised a lot of ire was the never-ending series of law suits on ever issue imaginable. The delays drove costs through the roof, especially when you are building to the standards required in nuke plants. Safety systems, on the other hand, were always popular. In fact, they may have been given more credit than they were due.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by RadioHead

Any bets on the impact of buring a lot of corn-based products?

Except that, in a real sense, the CO2 emitted in burning corn-based products had been fairly recently sequestered from the atmosphere in the first place (it's where corn gets the carbon to build new cells from, after all...) So one could reasonably argue that "growing our own fuel" will not add to the net atmospheric CO2 level.

(alternately, one could argue that CO2 is no big problem, as far as atmospheric pollutants go, and that efforts would be much better spent worrying about stuff like heavy metals and NOx that aren't painlessly reabsorbed into the biosphere)

My concern is not CO2. I'm more concerned about the many esters that are created in making corn into a fuel. They don't break down so nicely.

I recall a book that considered the aesthetics of wind turbines. Suggested was a design resembling airplane propellers. The design had three blades and, just for the sake of appearances, a spinner. Also, it was suggested that in a given area that a single design be used to avoid a cluttered look. *** ***

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Suggested was a design resembling airplane propellers. Featured were three blades and a spinner (which was just for the sake of appearance).

The 'chopped up bird' angle makes propeller-type design less-than desireable... This continues to be a significant problem for wind farms, not yet seriously mitigated by design.

J-66 Wrote:

A few months back, I came across a couple of scientific reports about oceanography (of all things) talking abou the worrisome trend of changes in the Gulf Stream and potential impact on other major ocean currents. (see http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/...uptclimate.htm if you really want to go to bed and not sleep well...) Shortly before that, I chanced upon a fascianting book about El Nino; the ties were scary between the two. Now, I'm wondering... What if the Crisis we face is the predicated "Abrupt Climate Change" that Woods Hole scientists are starting to be worried over? Before dismissingit out of hand, stop for a minute to consider the impact to our society if most of Nothern Europe was under permanent fall/winter conditions, the upper two-thirds of the north American continent turned into a high, dry and cold desert. Would we face a crisis that could threaten our entire existence? Would the society that emerged out of the other side of the crisis be vastly different from anything we've imagined to date? I'd say that "yes" is a conservatively safe answer to both questions. Food for thought at least...

I have been thinking about climate since 1990, when, as part of my Ph.D. work, I took a course in Paleoclimatology. Even then, we were aware that climate is like a quarter spinnng in one of those charity vortexes. Usually changes are in the path and velocityof the quarter, but sometimes something can happen that flips the quarter into an entirely different bowl.

That is what we are talking about here.

The earth's climate has changed abruptly before--such as during the little ice age--which was caused by a change in the flow of the Gulf stream. This had different consequences throughout the northern hemisphere.
However, it did not end civilization or the saeculum. However, certain major global climate changes could be catastrophic to our civilization.
Someone suggested that it could end life on earth. I don't think so. Major extinction events have not done that--and we have had them during the Permian and again at the K-T boundary, for example.
However, if the change causes enough havoc to civilization, we could be looking at the end of saeculum. Strauss and Howe discuss that in Generations. If this were the case, we would be facing a catastrophe, not a crisis.

It really doesn' matter if such abrupt change happens due to human activity, global cycles or a combination of both.

Originally Posted by elilevin

J-66 Wrote:

A few months back, I came across a couple of scientific reports about oceanography (of all things) talking abou the worrisome trend of changes in the Gulf Stream and potential impact on other major ocean currents. (see http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/...uptclimate.htm if you really want to go to bed and not sleep well...) Shortly before that, I chanced upon a fascianting book about El Nino; the ties were scary between the two. Now, I'm wondering... What if the Crisis we face is the predicated "Abrupt Climate Change" that Woods Hole scientists are starting to be worried over? Before dismissingit out of hand, stop for a minute to consider the impact to our society if most of Nothern Europe was under permanent fall/winter conditions, the upper two-thirds of the north American continent turned into a high, dry and cold desert. Would we face a crisis that could threaten our entire existence? Would the society that emerged out of the other side of the crisis be vastly different from anything we've imagined to date? I'd say that "yes" is a conservatively safe answer to both questions. Food for thought at least...

I have been thinking about climate since 1990, when, as part of my Ph.D. work, I took a course in Paleoclimatology. Even then, we were aware that climate is like a quarter spinnng in one of those charity vortexes. Usually changes are in the path and velocityof the quarter, but sometimes something can happen that flips the quarter into an entirely different bowl.

That is what we are talking about here.

The earth's climate has changed abruptly before--such as during the little ice age--which was caused by a change in the flow of the Gulf stream. This had different consequences throughout the northern hemisphere.
However, it did not end civilization or the saeculum. However, certain major global climate changes could be catastrophic to our civilization.
Someone suggested that it could end life on earth. I don't think so. Major extinction events have not done that--and we have had them during the Permian and again at the K-T boundary, for example.
However, if the change causes enough havoc to civilization, we could be looking at the end of saeculum. Strauss and Howe discuss that in Generations. If this were the case, we would be facing a catastrophe, not a crisis.

It really doesn' matter if such abrupt change happens due to human activity, global cycles or a combination of both.

The last comment is exactly the point here: regardless if human activity has any effect on climate, do you want to drink even slightly polluted water or breathe "moderately" polluted air? Too much of the environmentalist movement depends on debatable science and slouches toward hysteria, and not enough on this "common sense" attitude.

But another more important point: if there is a large global climate change coming, and if it comes fairly quickly, i.e. over 2-3 generations, it might be the catalyst for a great leap forward in science and technology, so that civilization can survive. We might finally see some of the futurists' predictions come true. The Crisis could be an amazing creative goad to invent the future right now today, rather than studying the expense involved to death with bureaucrats in charge!

And if the south becomes uninhabitable with 125 - 135 degree summers, I will be quite happy here by Lake Erie!

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Sean Love

A little speculation never killed anyone (or has it?).

Ivar Kreugar

Hah, hah, hah. 8)

But another more important point: if there is a large global climate change coming, and if it comes fairly quickly, i.e. over 2-3 generations, it might be the catalyst for a great leap forward in science and technology, so that civilization can survive. We might finally see some of the futurists' predictions come true. The Crisis could be an amazing creative goad to invent the future right now today, rather than studying the expense involved to death with bureaucrats in charge!

Cato, having spent a winter and a half on the shores of Lake Ontario, I'll take a few years of 120F summers -- might be the only way my other half ever gets warm again...

More seriously, the abrupt climate change I was talking about could theoretically happen in as little 2-3 years, not 2-3 generations, if the hypothesis turns out to be correct. Lookinga t my previous post, I can see I was guilty of making a huge leap in my thoguth process with little expalnation, so I'll back up for a minute. If I were trying to put together a cause and event chain that I thought was both plausible and defendable, I'd start by saying that a sudden climate shift would not be "the Crisis", but it sure would be a major contributing factor. Imagine for a moment that the Gulf Stream simply stopped flowing. Northern European nations become much colder, no longer capable of sustaining agriculture and feeding their own populations. This would into the Ukraine, bread basket of central Europe. The northern 2/3 of the United States sees a drop of 5-10F in average temp, and a drastic reduction annual rainfall (cold, dry desert?) Food to feed all the affected people has to come from somewhere... And, with the drop in average temps, winters are longer, meaning more energy to heat homes and businesses.

The resulting scramble to secure natural resources seen as necessary for survival by the affected countries is where the real Crisis would occur. The Middle Eastern countries would pretty much have us over a barrel (how's that for bad pun?); new average weather conditions in the North Sea would render the oilfields there practically unexploitable. We would see it as absolutely critical to the National Interest to gaurantee our access to energy and food, no matter what we had to do. Any attempt to block that access would result in harsh reaction, up to and including a full scale, all-out war. We would do whatever we thought necessary to ensure our society survived. It's like a bad doomsday movie out of the 80s, but it could happen.

Originally Posted by J-66

But another more important point: if there is a large global climate change coming, and if it comes fairly quickly, i.e. over 2-3 generations, it might be the catalyst for a great leap forward in science and technology, so that civilization can survive. We might finally see some of the futurists' predictions come true. The Crisis could be an amazing creative goad to invent the future right now today, rather than studying the expense involved to death with bureaucrats in charge!

Cato, having spent a winter and a half on the shores of Lake Ontario, I'll take a few years of 120F summers -- might be the only way my other half ever gets warm again...

More seriously, the abrupt climate change I was talking about could theoretically happen in as little 2-3 years, not 2-3 generations, if the hypothesis turns out to be correct. Lookinga t my previous post, I can see I was guilty of making a huge leap in my thoguth process with little expalnation, so I'll back up for a minute. If I were trying to put together a cause and event chain that I thought was both plausible and defendable, I'd start by saying that a sudden climate shift would not be "the Crisis", but it sure would be a major contributing factor. Imagine for a moment that the Gulf Stream simply stopped flowing. Northern European nations become much colder, no longer capable of sustaining agriculture and feeding their own populations. This would into the Ukraine, bread basket of central Europe. The northern 2/3 of the United States sees a drop of 5-10F in average temp, and a drastic reduction annual rainfall (cold, dry desert?) Food to feed all the affected people has to come from somewhere... And, with the drop in average temps, winters are longer, meaning more energy to heat homes and businesses.

The resulting scramble to secure natural resources seen as necessary for survival by the affected countries is where the real Crisis would occur. The Middle Eastern countries would pretty much have us over a barrel (how's that for bad pun?); new average weather conditions in the North Sea would render the oilfields there practically unexploitable. We would see it as absolutely critical to the National Interest to gaurantee our access to energy and food, no matter what we had to do. Any attempt to block that access would result in harsh reaction, up to and including a full scale, all-out war. We would do whatever we thought necessary to ensure our society survived. It's like a bad doomsday movie out of the 80s, but it could happen.

Kinda like the Dust Bowl was to the last crisis but X100.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by J-66

But another more important point: if there is a large global climate change coming, and if it comes fairly quickly, i.e. over 2-3 generations, it might be the catalyst for a great leap forward in science and technology, so that civilization can survive. We might finally see some of the futurists' predictions come true. The Crisis could be an amazing creative goad to invent the future right now today, rather than studying the expense involved to death with bureaucrats in charge!

Cato, having spent a winter and a half on the shores of Lake Ontario, I'll take a few years of 120F summers -- might be the only way my other half ever gets warm again...

More seriously, the abrupt climate change I was talking about could theoretically happen in as little 2-3 years, not 2-3 generations, if the hypothesis turns out to be correct. Lookinga t my previous post, I can see I was guilty of making a huge leap in my thoguth process with little expalnation, so I'll back up for a minute. If I were trying to put together a cause and event chain that I thought was both plausible and defendable, I'd start by saying that a sudden climate shift would not be "the Crisis", but it sure would be a major contributing factor. Imagine for a moment that the Gulf Stream simply stopped flowing. Northern European nations become much colder, no longer capable of sustaining agriculture and feeding their own populations. This would into the Ukraine, bread basket of central Europe. The northern 2/3 of the United States sees a drop of 5-10F in average temp, and a drastic reduction annual rainfall (cold, dry desert?) Food to feed all the affected people has to come from somewhere... And, with the drop in average temps, winters are longer, meaning more energy to heat homes and businesses.

The resulting scramble to secure natural resources seen as necessary for survival by the affected countries is where the real Crisis would occur. The Middle Eastern countries would pretty much have us over a barrel (how's that for bad pun?); new average weather conditions in the North Sea would render the oilfields there practically unexploitable. We would see it as absolutely critical to the National Interest to gaurantee our access to energy and food, no matter what we had to do. Any attempt to block that access would result in harsh reaction, up to and including a full scale, all-out war. We would do whatever we thought necessary to ensure our society survived. It's like a bad doomsday movie out of the 80s, but it could happen.

Kinda like the Dust Bowl was to the last crisis but X100.

A perfect analogy. As a matter of fact, it was an earlier post with acomment about the Okies that sparked my thought process.

Instead of the areas getting colder as was pointed out, it seems to me like the opposite situation is occurring. Here in the midwest our recent winters, with the exception of the month of December 2000(when we had record snowfall) have seen, for the most part, very little snowfall and temps considerably milder than normal.

In the southwest, areas around Phoenix this year saw 100+ temps as late as October 23, about a month longer than normal.

I have been dwelling lately on the "Silent Fourth" concept somebody bandied about a few months ago (a search proved futile in finding it). If the "tea" was definitely thrown "in the harbor" on 9/11/01, then one must admit that the time since has been an extraordinarily timid, if still very interesting, pre-regeneracy.

I agree with HC that "we ain't seen nothing yet" and, like him, I believe one major reason for this is Silent influence on our society is yet strong (or strong enough). Perhaps 9/11 was enough to start first-wave Boomers, Xers, and Millenials on their way to their new roles, but the Silent have slowed the mechanism by not "getting out of the way".

In this view, the Phony Fourth is "phony" because it is "Silentized": A Silent Fourth.

In my reading of S&H the pre-regeneracy period is something of a "meltdown". Though I agree with Alex that the theory does not absolutely call for this, I think there is a very high probability that 3T/4T transitions would involve briefly uncontrollable "vertiginous spirals" lasting 1 to 4 years where all bets are off. We have definitely not seen this yet. Maybe we won't, or maybe it's just around the corner.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I have been dwelling lately on the "Silent Fourth" concept somebody bandied about a few months ago (a search proved futile in finding it). If the "tea" was definitely thrown "in the harbor" on 9/11/01, then one must admit that the time since has been an extraordinarily timid, if still very interesting, pre-regeneracy.

At the same time, if you look at all that has happened since then, it makes a lot more sense to be in early (or even "silent") 4T, than 3T "business as usual."

Originally Posted by 1972 Oh

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I have been dwelling lately on the "Silent Fourth" concept somebody bandied about a few months ago (a search proved futile in finding it). If the "tea" was definitely thrown "in the harbor" on 9/11/01, then one must admit that the time since has been an extraordinarily timid, if still very interesting, pre-regeneracy.

At the same time, if you look at all that has happened since then, it makes a lot more sense to be in early (or even "silent") 4T, than 3T "business as usual."

Very little of major significance has happened since 911, with the limited exception of the Iraq War and the conquest of Afghanistan. Even they aren't as big a deal as they look like at first glance.

Hello, I'm a newbie Nomad here who has just finishing The Fourth Turning and has gotten my family and co-workers on the 4T train.
Regarding whether this is a "Silent" 4T. January 2005 has been the date suggested on these boards when it will become apparent whether we're in a 4T or when the crisis will hit.
January 2005 is also when our next president (not Bush hopefully!) will be inaugurated. Maybe the catalyst was the stealing of the 2000 election. The crisis could hit if 2004's is rigged again.
Regardless, if this Fourth Turning has come early and that's comparable to the Civil War. The country currently is so divided by politics, religion, and affluence. I think the real crisis will be another Civil War or a secession of states.

Originally Posted by Boean

Hello, I'm a newbie Nomad here who has just finishing The Fourth Turning and has gotten my family and co-workers on the 4T train.
Regarding whether this is a "Silent" 4T. January 2005 has been the date suggested on these boards when it will become apparent whether we're in a 4T or when the crisis will hit.
January 2005 is also when our next president (not Bush hopefully!) will be inaugurated. Maybe the catalyst was the stealing of the 2000 election. The crisis could hit if 2004's is rigged again.
Regardless, if this Fourth Turning has come early and that's comparable to the Civil War. The country currently is so divided by politics, religion, and affluence. I think the real crisis will be another Civil War or a secession of states.

You, too, huh? I also tend to think that another Civil War is at least a very distinct possibility, though I tend to see such an event unfolding more like the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s than like our first one, in the 1860s. Also, I can only see secessions occurring this time as the result of Civil War II ending in a bloody stalemate, with neither side able to decisively defeat the other. Thus, the two sides would end by formally pulling apart that which had already been sundered.

Well. . .suppose Kerry wins fairly decisively. Suppose the Democrats, with the help of a defection or two, get control of the Senate. (The House is hopless.) How will the ideological Republicans react, especially if civil unions pop up around the country and Kerry gets to nominate a Supreme Court Justice? (Well, that one, obviously, will be filibustered.)
Which reminds me--it's clear none of the Republicans who voted Bush into office dare quit the Supreme Court and let him name a successor until he's actually been elected. Quite ironic, really.
I do think we could have long-term trouble from the right wing, if Bush is defeated, and it could get violent. Too many guns around out there.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

How will the ideological Republicans react, especially if civil unions pop up around the country and Kerry gets to nominate a Supreme Court Justice? (Well, that one, obviously, will be filibustered)

What the poster is saying here is that he would fully expect the Democrats to get the same filibustering treatment they themselves have perfected.

It's called escalating the "politics of personal destruction" until finally the destruction envelopes much more than just the "personal." Hey, I say, "bring it on," dude! Let's just get on with it. The sooner the real shootin' starts the sooner it will end.