Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 595

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #476
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    6,442
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    We are talking about something so benign a passerby wouldn’t even know they were near it but for the signs. Truck the waste there in the super safe containers that are purpose built just for this and able to withstand a 80 mph crash. I’ll take the odd nuclear waste cleanup every 100 years over constant pollution from coal, natural gas, batteries etc.
    cough cough Japan cough cough cough. It's only as safe as our ability to predict and prevent earthquakes..
    Last edited by SumJongGuy; 10-16-2021 at 10:58 AM.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  2. #477
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    4,093
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    We are talking about something so benign a passerby wouldn’t even know they were near it but for the signs. Truck the waste there in the super safe containers that are purpose built just for this and able to withstand a 80 mph crash. I’ll take the odd nuclear waste cleanup every 100 years over constant pollution from coal, natural gas, batteries etc.
    So what are you? A nuclear waste management expert? I doubt it.

    Why not store that shit in your home town? Nevada has all kinds of geo-thermal and earthquake activity.

    Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter son. You don't know anything more than the rest of us on how safe nuclear really is or what possible catastrophic disaster may or may not occur going all in with nuclear.

    My gut says fuck that. Humans screw things up regularly, it's part of being human. Nuclear fuck ups aren't easily fixable.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
    dirtbag, not a dentist

  3. #478
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,157

  4. #479
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,768
    That tunnel actually crosses the entire Pacific and pops up in Utah, refilling the GSL.

  5. #480
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    der town, WA
    Posts
    128
    Fun fact, coal plants release at least 100 times more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants for the same amount of energy.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nuclear-waste/

  6. #481
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    6,442
    Quote Originally Posted by d542east View Post
    Fun fact, coal plants release at least 100 times more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants for the same amount of energy.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nuclear-waste/
    By design, absolutely... Ask Chernobyl and Fukushima about when it doesn't go as planned..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  7. #482
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,373
    It's strange that Fukushima still receives so much attention since not one death can be attributed to the nuclear accident.

    Whereas the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed +20,000 people cost billions in damage and displaced more people than the radiation leakage. Yet, people still rebuild in tsunami zones, earthquake zones, and flood plains.

    Of course the obvious problem with Fukushima is the same as the long term waste disposal problem. Let's not be dismissive of that. But let's also keep it in perspective. Research shows fossil fuel air pollution causes nearly 1-in-5 deaths worldwide each year. More than 8 million people worldwide die each year from breathing polluted air containing particulates from burning fossil fuels.

  8. #483
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    6,442
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's strange that Fukushima still receives so much attention since not one death can be attributed to the nuclear accident.

    Whereas the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed +20,000 people cost billions in damage and displaced more people than the radiation leakage. Yet, people still rebuild in tsunami zones, earthquake zones, and flood plains.

    Of course the obvious problem with Fukushima is the same as the long term waste disposal problem. Let's not be dismissive of that. But let's also keep it in perspective. Fossil fuel air pollution causes nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide each year, research shows. More than 8 million people worldwide die each year from breathing polluted air containing particles from fossil fuel emissions.
    Short of worst case scenario nuclear is the cleanest of everything.. Problem is worst case disaster movie bad. I'm still down with having Musk and Bezos send the nuclear waste to Mars There's a nuclear plant about 30 miles from my house. I keep some potassium iodine pills tucked away in the prepper stuff but there have only been a few minor ALMOST incidents there. No actual issues ever..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  9. #484
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Problem is worst case disaster movie bad.
    Is it that bad in reality? The media made Fukushima look bad and HBO put together an excellent miniseries on Chernobyl, both captured popular imagination. But how bad is nuclear power compared with the alternatives given otherwise safe nuclear power continually generates around 10% of the world's electricity?

    It seems like anti-nuke sentiment is ideologically motivated, like most bad ideas in politics. I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe Hollywood scared the hell out of everyone because otherwise it doesn't make sense.

  10. #485
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    6,442
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Is it that bad in reality? The media made Fukushima look bad and HBO put together an excellent miniseries on Chernobyl, both captured popular imagination. But how bad is nuclear power compared with the alternatives given otherwise safe nuclear power continually generates around 10% of the world's electricity?

    It seems like anti-nuke sentiment is ideologically motivated, like most bad ideas in politics. I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe Hollywood scared the hell out of everyone because otherwise it doesn't make sense.
    I could toss out the same argument for having a handgun in a household with toddlers. If it's properly managed and secured what's the problem??

    Name:  homer.jpg
Views: 452
Size:  23.6 KB

    You have way more faith and confidence in the Antivaxer and Q'Anon rich human race society can ensure this is done safely than I do..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  11. #486
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,157
    If a forest fire hit the fallout zone in Chernobyl, the radiation release would be almost as bad as the original
    https://www.mic.com/impact/a-forest-...there-22811922

  12. #487
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,373
    Who said anything about perfectly safe?

    There is nothing where the risk is zero. Existence is inherently risky. The idea that something is only a good idea, or can only be done, if the risk is zero isn't an argument; it's an attempt to shut down the conversation by demanding an impossible standard.

    In reality nuclear power, even when you consider the handful of disasters, is remarkably safe compared to other forms of electricity production.


    Take for example k2skier112's article above: "Air pollution was already a growing issue in Kyiv long before the latest spate of fires started near Chernobyl. Last summer, the country's emergency service reported that air pollution had exceeded five times its normal levels — the result of burning fossil fuels, along with the city's hot weather and lack of wind. The situation got so bad last fall that smog caused extremely low visibility and forced flights to be delayed out of the city's Boryspil International Airport"

    Now there's also potential increased risk from radionuclides but Kyiv, along with the rest of the world, is already suffering very hazardous levels of air pollution. So isn't the biggest health problem in Kyiv still air pollution in spite of the fact the city is downwind from a forest fire near Chernobyl?

  13. #488
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    der town, WA
    Posts
    128
    Something getting lost in this discussion is that reactor design is several orders of magnitude safer now than it was when the vast majority of the currently operational plants were built.

    They never even used concrete containment for the RBMK reactors like Chernobyl. Nuclear accidents look and sounds scary because it's alien to our understanding. Chernobyl was undeniably horrific, but is statistically impossible with current reactor design.

    Category 6+ hurricanes and the other shit coming down the pipeline from climate change will cause mass death and suffering on a scale that should scare us far more than it does, but one radioactive frog is scarier than millions of slowly boiling ones.

    Another thing getting lost in this discussion is that it will take too long to build nuclear plants to make the kind of difference we need right now.

    Mass scale wind and solar can be done now. The factories aren't hard to build, the machines aren't hard to build and maintain, the workforce can be easily trained, we can build enough transmission lines to move all the power where it needs to go. We can implement demand based power pricing where it's cheaper to charge your Tesla when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. What's stopping us is that there needs to be a big tax put on fossil fuels phased in starting twenty years ago. The externalized cost of releasing CO2 needs to stop.

    All of the things we like that use a lot of petroleum and coal to make are going to get more expensive, and that's unfortunate, but it's a lot less unfortunate than what's coming without a big change.

  14. #489
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,157
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Who said anything about perfectly safe?

    There is nothing where the risk is zero. Existence is inherently risky. The idea that something is only a good idea, or can only be done, if the risk is zero isn't an argument; it's an attempt to shut down the conversation by demanding an impossible standard.

    In reality nuclear power, even when you consider the handful of disasters, is remarkably safe compared to other forms of electricity production.


    Take for example k2skier112's article above: "Air pollution was already a growing issue in Kyiv long before the latest spate of fires started near Chernobyl. Last summer, the country's emergency service reported that air pollution had exceeded five times its normal levels — the result of burning fossil fuels, along with the city's hot weather and lack of wind. The situation got so bad last fall that smog caused extremely low visibility and forced flights to be delayed out of the city's Boryspil International Airport"

    Now there's also potential increased risk from radionuclides but Kyiv, along with the rest of the world, is already suffering very hazardous levels of air pollution. So isn't the biggest health problem in Kyiv still air pollution in spite of the fact the city is downwind from a forest fire near Chernobyl?
    My point of the article had NOTHING to do with pollution.
    it was about the increase in radiation
    How many have been killed by wind farms, hydro damns, solar collectors?
    Until we have a usable permanent nuclear storage facility, nukes should be off the table, period!!!
    PS-ask some folks in the Fukushima prefecture how harmless the meltdown was. Maybe no one was killed directly from the meltdown, but how about displacement, mental and physical issues

    The Chernobyl nuclear accident happened 34 years ago this month, and now a new disaster could be bearing down on the region. A few weeks ago forest fires started burning inside the exclusion zone, and the flames are burning dangerously close to the abandoned nuclear plant. Radiation in the area has already skyrocketed due to the fires, prompting considerable concerns about what might happen if they continue to progress toward the most radioactive regions of the disaster site.

  15. #490
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,157
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    My point of the article had NOTHING to do with pollution.
    it was about the increase in radiation
    How many have been killed by wind farms, hydro damns, solar collectors?
    Until we have a usable permanent nuclear storage facility, nukes should be off the table, period!!!
    PS-ask some folks in the Fukushima prefecture how harmless the meltdown was. Maybe no one was killed directly from the meltdown, but how about displacement, mental and physical issues

    The Chernobyl nuclear accident happened 34 years ago this month, and now a new disaster could be bearing down on the region. A few weeks ago forest fires started burning inside the exclusion zone, and the flames are burning dangerously close to the abandoned nuclear plant. Radiation in the area has already skyrocketed due to the fires, prompting considerable concerns about what might happen if they continue to progress toward the most radioactive regions of the disaster site.
    PPS-the article is mainly about radiation releases. one paragraph mentions pollution
    and that's your focus. too many other options out there to put all your energy eggs into 1 basket, especially one with catastrophic consequences if something goes wrong



    According to a report from CNN, the fire first started near the village of Vladimirovka on April 4, believed to be lit by a single suspect who set grass on fire "for fun" but lost control of the flame. While fires in the region are relatively common, this one poses a unique threat as it burns closer to the radioactive areas near Chernobyl’s former plant and nuclear waste sites. The wildfire started to spread quickly, aided by winds that carried it into the exclusion zone. Nearly two weeks later and the flames have yet to be put out, despite messaging from the Ukrainian government suggesting the situation was under control.

    Ukraine's emergency services claimed to have contained the main fire just one day after it began, but the flames have scorched more than 8,600 acres of land since then. Kateryna Pavlova, the head of an organization that oversees Chernobyl, told the New York Times over the weekend, “At the moment, we cannot say the fire is contained.” As the fire has burned, it has set off fear about increased radiation levels in the region. A video posted on social media by Yegor Firsov, the head of Ukraine’s state ecological inspection service, showed radiation at 16 times above normal levels near the fire.

    The initially optimistic interpretation of how well the fire has been controlled has created a standoff between activists and concerned citizens who are watching the flames press dangerously closer to areas central to the Chernobyl nuclear plant, which remains highly radioactive over three decades after the disaster occurred. Environmental watchdogs tracking the fire, including Greenpeace, warn that the flames are now just over one mile away from Pripyat, an abandoned town that once served the plant and stored dangerous waste, and is moving “rapidly,” according to experts in the region. A second fire that splintered from the original as winds carried the flames is also believed to be within about a half-mile of the defunct plant itself. According to a report from Reuters, others in the region — including a Chernobyl tour operator — have also described the situation as harrowing, claiming the fire is rapidly expanding and pushing closer to “the most highly active radiation waste" found in the exclusion zone.

    As the fires continue to push toward the radioactive landmarks, the Ukrainian government has told its citizens not to worry. "There is no threat to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, waste fuel storage or other critical facilities," Volodymyr Demchuk, a senior official in Ukraine's emergency service, said in a video statement Monday. Despite these assurances from the government, experts are less convinced that the fires and potential radiation has fully been contained.


    "I suspect the radiation levels may be raised mostly locally due to the responded residual radioactivity," Shih-Yew Chen, of the Master's Health Physics program at the Illinois Institute of Technology, tells Mic. He notes that it's unclear if radiation will spread over a "large area" far beyond the areas surrounding Chernobyl — though there are heavily populated cities that could potentially be at risk.

    Tim Mousseau, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina, tells Mic that people living south of Chernobyl, including the nearly three million people living in Ukraine's capital city of Kyiv, could experience air pollution and potentially be exposed to radioactive contaminants. "Given prevailing winds ... Kyiv is suffering very hazardous levels of air pollution in addition to any risks associated with the radionuclides that are undoubtedly also being blown towards populated regions," he says.

    Air pollution was already a growing issue in Kyiv long before the latest spate of fires started near Chernobyl. Last summer, the country's emergency service reported that air pollution had exceeded five times its normal levels — the result of burning fossil fuels, along with the city's hot weather and lack of wind. The situation got so bad last fall that smog caused extremely low visibility and forced flights to be delayed out of the city's Boryspil International Airport. Mousseau notes that because of the poor air conditions in the city, "N95 masks were rarely available even before the COVID-19 pandemic," so new concerns about air pollution resulting from the Chernobyl fires are likely to put people even more at risk. "Air quality in the city has become dangerous to anyone with any kind of lung issues and could be extremely hazardous for anyone infected with the SARS-Cov-2 virus," he says.

    The ongoing attempts to deal with coronavirus may also hamper the ability to fully address the fires, according to Mousseau, who explains that the pandemic "has paralyzed much of the country's infrastructure." He says it's "unclear what impact ongoing self-quarantine and sheltering-in-place policies have had on the already short-staffed Chernobyl fire fighting infrastructure," though notes that firefighters are likely to experience more hazards than others, potentially "inhaling the radioactive contaminants" as they are tasked with fighting the flames.

    Mousseau notes that the current fires pressing toward the abandoned Chernobyl power plant "pose an especially dangerous threat" because of events from previous years, including other fires, large fuel loads present in the region, and dry winters that have created conditions that make it easier for the fire to spread. Professor Chen warned that even if these fires are contained, they are unlikely to be the last. "In general, the unfinished cleanup areas from a nuclear disaster tend to be forgotten by the society until something stirs it up again to serve as an unpleasant reminder," he says. "These cases including the Chernobyl fire likely will recur repeatedly over time. Not sure what the authorities can or will do."

  16. #491
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    My point of the article had NOTHING to do with pollution.
    it was about the increase in radiation
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    PPS-the article is mainly about radiation releases. one paragraph mentions pollution
    and that's your focus. too many other options out there to put all your energy eggs into 1 basket, especially one with catastrophic consequences if something goes wrong
    What's getting ignored is even when something goes wrong with nuclear power, even downwind of Chernobyl, it's still less bad than air pollution from fossil fuels.

    Electricity demand is outpacing renewable energy supply, with fossil fuels filling the gap. With a lot of effort about half of new demand can be met by renewable sources with fossil fuels making up most of the remainder. That's just for the new demand and doesn't address existing demand.

    There's a paradox at play here: renewables symbiotically increase fossil fuel use. So the question isn't whether nuclear power is preferable to renewables, it's whether nuclear power is preferable over fossil fuels.


    FWIW, Researchers find few adverse health effects in wildlife exposed to low levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear accident

  17. #492
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,157
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    What's getting ignored is even when something goes wrong with nuclear power, even downwind of Chernobyl, it's still less bad than air pollution from fossil fuels[/URL]
    That is arguable and ignorant. Ask some folks, downwind of NV and Chernobyl. BTW, most of the radiation release from Fukushima was in the water, not the air
    https://world-nuclear.org/informatio...-exposure.aspx
    https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean...rom-fukushima/

    Again, my point was the radiation from Chernobyl will still be a problem for 10's of thousands of years

    Now if we had an open and permanent UNF repository, and if nuclear was cost ineffective, I'd be all for it

    I guess we have a difference of opinion of shitting in our own nest for instant gratification

    When Japan starts releasing the radioactive water in the ocean, that's insanely criminal. We have no respect for the planet, especially our oceans

    Yes fossil fuels, mainly coal, is killing and maiming people, but to jump to nuclear as the only option is shortsighted and ignorant

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...till-dominate/
    Lobbyists, money, government and oil subsidies are why we aren't moving fast enough to get off of oil and into more renewables

    An analogy, flying is the safest form of transportation until something goes wrong, then it's catastrophic. Same with a nuclear accident
    It's far from over in Fukushima, there'll be consequences for thousands of years

  18. #493
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,373
    I think commercial air travel is a good analogy. From a safety standpoint nuclear energy is to air travel as commuting on a motorcycle is to fossil fuel energy.

    And who said anything about jumping to nuclear as the only option? Didn't I argue for a mix of nuclear and renewables in the post above?

    Anyway, studies indicate the health consequences of Chernobyl over the past 35yrs were small. About 7,000 excess thyroid cancers spread over the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, but no convincing evidence for an increase in leukemias and no increase in solid cancer. Those effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the health consequences associated with air pollution which is now the biggest environmental risk for early death not only for Ukrain but also worldwide.


    The bottom line: there is no short-term replacement for fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. That's not a difference of opinion. It's a fact. The UK, for example, pursued a net zero strategy mainly of wind and solar generation before ultimately conceding they need to include nuclear in the future mix.

    Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable. According to the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Finland’s pro-nuclear lobbying marks a U-turn within the Green Party.

    The reason why all those countries are embracing nuclear is because so far, even the most committed countries to introduced wind and solar power have not achieved high enough growth rates, despite their generally speedier progression through the technology adoption cycle, required for global climate targets:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00863-0
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 10-20-2021 at 09:04 PM.

  19. #494
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    cough cough Japan cough cough cough. It's only as safe as our ability to predict and prevent earthquakes..
    Did you know there was a station in Japan. Loser to the epicenter that kept functioning through the entire emergency?

    Do you know how many people died from radiation exposure at Fukushima Daiichi? 0-1.

    Do you know how many people died from the (irrational) fear of radiation exposure? Hundreds.

    Do you know how many people will die if we continue to use coal to generate electricity because of your irrational fears? Tens of thousands, may e hundreds of thousands.

    Do you know how many people will die of radiation exposure if commerical grade spent fuel is stored inside Yucca Mountain? Zero.

    #facts

    Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk

  20. #495
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I think commercial air travel is a good analogy. From a safety standpoint nuclear energy is to air travel as commuting on a motorcycle is to fossil fuel energy.

    And who said anything about jumping to nuclear as the only option? Didn't I argue for a mix of nuclear and renewables in the post above?

    Anyway, studies indicate the health consequences of Chernobyl over the past 35yrs were small. About 7,000 excess thyroid cancers spread over the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, but no convincing evidence for an increase in leukemias and no increase in solid cancer. Those effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the health consequences associated with air pollution which is now the biggest environmental risk for early death not only for Ukrain but also worldwide.


    The bottom line: there is no short-term replacement for fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. That's not a difference of opinion. It's a fact. The UK, for example, pursued a net zero strategy mainly of wind and solar generation before ultimately conceding they need to include nuclear in the future mix.

    Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable. According to the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Finlandís pro-nuclear lobbying marks a U-turn within the Green Party.

    The reason why all those countries are embracing nuclear is because so far, even the most committed countries to introduced wind and solar power have not achieved high enough growth rates, despite their generally speedier progression through the technology adoption cycle, required for global climate targets:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00863-0
    I like you. No homo but there is nothing wrong with that. Clean and safe nuclear power for errbody.

    Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk

  21. #496
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Mountains, Trees, and a Big Blue Lake
    Posts
    461
    We are going to need another source of energy to make a difference. My bet is Atomic.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	im-408684.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	69.6 KB 
ID:	389832

    Yes, the chart shows we are at 82% derived from FF and if we all hit the Paris goals it will become 70%. Get comfortable with glowing shit.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-l...on-11632943155
    I'm cool with this, as long as you Kirkwood Bro Brah's stay away from Heavenly when 88 closes- TahoeBc

  22. #497
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Skrilla Gorilla View Post
    I like you. No homo but there is nothing wrong with that. Clean and safe nuclear power for errbody.

    Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk
    The big problem with nuclear remains the expense. That shit is wildly expensive compared to any other source of power generation right now. But that's not a good reason to decommission an existing power plant. The expense is all capex: operating costs are not high. It's also far safer than burning fossil fuels, any way you measure it.

    Also, you guys know that strapping nuclear waste to a rocket is probably the dumbest place to put it on the planet, right? Because rockets sometimes explode and disperse their contents throughout the atmosphere? We have to deal with the waste here, on this planet, one way or another.

    Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

  23. #498
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    On the beach somewhere
    Posts
    612
    News Flash! They want you to talk about nuclear that you will never implement.

    Electrify your fucking homes for the love of ULLR...and your whips if you can find a way to afford it. As of roughly 2010, any additional dollar spent on a gas furnace or water heater is like throwing trash out the window of a moving F-350, rolling coal, and driving over baby seals.

    https://saulgriffith.medium.com/one-...s-48a7c3cf0694

    Now back to your regurlarly scheduled programming;
    • Nuclear is carbon free (except the exhorbinant embodied emission of buildings a $500b facility filled with nasty-concrete, and the associated mining operations for materials running up and down the periodic table.)
    • It is cheap
    • We don't know how to deal with the waste
    • It will never be perfectly safe
    • If we build enough capacity to handle the world's energy needs (33 times more plants just for electricity, call it 100 times more for all energy,) statistics says we'll have 100x the meltdowns. So...about 300 meltdowns every 50 years or so.


    If I find out you buy a fossil-fuel powered water heater, I'm stealing your damn quiver.

    Peace,
    shaft

    edited for Edgnar, who is the man
    Last edited by shaft; 10-26-2021 at 09:01 PM.

  24. #499
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,137
    Quote Originally Posted by shaft View Post
    [
    Now back to your regurlarly scheduled programming;
    • Nuclear is carbon free
    • It is cheap
    • We don't know how to deal with the waste
    • It will never be perfectly safe
    • If we build enough capacity to handle the world's energy needs (33 times more plants just for electricity, call it 100 times more for all energy,) statistics says we'll have 100x the meltdowns. So...about 300 meltdowns every 50 years or so.


    If I find out you buy a fossil-fuel powered water heater, I'm stealing your damn quiver.

    Peace,
    shaft
    For those who don’t know- Nuclear is not carbon free. The cement and steel required to build nuke plants is extremely carbon intensive. Sure, producing power that way doesn’t produce carbon, but building the plants require producing thousands of tons of it. It also requires decades to permit and build. The Georgia Power Vogtle nuke plant is delayed AGAIN. At last check, that puts its roughly 15 years behind schedule and billions over budget. So much for cheap.

    Definitely do electrify and insulate your home. Also put solar on the roof if you can. Call your electeds and tell them you want renewable energy and you want energy efficient buildings. Tell those assholes it’s time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. The energy transition needs to go faster.

    I should add that I’m really glad that in the 8 years I’ve been away from this place this discourse has gone from “global warmingz aren’t real” to discussions of solutions.

  25. #500
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgnar View Post
    For those who donít know- Nuclear is not carbon free. The cement and steel required to build nuke plants is extremely carbon intensive. Sure, producing power that way doesnít produce carbon, but building the plants require producing thousands of tons of it. It also requires decades to permit and build. The Georgia Power Vogtle nuke plant is delayed AGAIN. At last check, that puts its roughly 15 years behind schedule and billions over budget. So much for cheap.

    Definitely do electrify and insulate your home. Also put solar on the roof if you can. Call your electeds and tell them you want renewable energy and you want energy efficient buildings. Tell those assholes itís time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. The energy transition needs to go faster.

    I should add that Iím really glad that in the 8 years Iíve been away from this place this discourse has gone from ďglobal warmingz arenít realĒ to discussions of solutions.
    Ultimately, we need breakthroughs in lower or zero carbon ways to produce cement and steel along with other industrial products that require that kind of heat. This is an area where we need a big r&d push from Uncle Sam in addition to some sort of carbon price.

    We have the technology for carbon free transportation mostly solved. We have the technology for carbon free power generation solved. Concrete and steel production is not a problem that we are particularly close to solving.

    Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •