Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest
- Thread starter circle-5
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 1,218
bobbymike said:
Really poor science there:
So us pumping up CO2 levels now, increasing global temperatures, will avert a catastrophe due to hit the Earth in 2 million years? Given the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere of around a thousand years, I suspect Dr Moore may not be very numerate!
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 1,218
Kadija_Man said:
Climate Change. Big issue. Biggest issue the world faces.
Why is it happening?
Fossil fuel burning producing CO2, a greenhouse gas.
What should we do?
Displace fossil fuels.
What with?
Sources of energy which are low emitters of CO2.
How about replacing sources of energy which are low emitters of CO2 with sources of energy which are low emitters of CO2?
No.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
starviking said:
Ignoring of course the real dangers that radiation has for all life on Earth...
I wonder who'd be screaming loudest if a reactor near where they live starts leaking radiation into the atmosphere or ground water?
Personally, I am glad I live in a nation that has only two small, research reactors in it and they are on the opposite of the continent to where I reside...
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 1,218
Kadija_Man said:
What danger would that be? The Irish Sea is much more radioactive than the Pacific, and Britain and Ireland are fine. The radiation released from Fukushima Daiichi was nothing compared to the residual radiation from the bomb tests of the early Cold War. And, of course, Chernobyl is now a nature reserve.
Kadija_Man said:
Not me, I live 70 miles from Fukushima Daiichi.
Kadija_Man said:
A country which burns a lot of coal, yes?
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
starviking said:
And yet no one lives in Fukashima nor Chernobyl...
What? You haven't moved next door to the reactors? Why ever not, if they are as safe as you seem to be claiming...
Unfortunately, yes but that is changing. Renewables are replacing coal fired power stations.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,986
- Reaction score
- 11,282
Really, anybody who's still terrified of nuclear power ought to hang their heads in shame. It's the best, most cost effective, viable source for bridging the gap between fossil fuels and fusion. (Though given that fusion is also nuclear we'll no doubt have the same group of luddites in hysterics over that.) I can only imagine what kind of eye sores the landscape would be converted to if we were to plaster it with windmills and solar power arrays large enough to replace fossil fuels. The countryside would likely begin to resemble a Borg cube.
M
Mike1158
Guest
OK, so I am new here, if I say something daft tell me but. My big problem with nuclear power is the storage and dealing with waste that we still have not sorted.
That and this fracking that results in some folk being able to ignite what comes out of their drinking water tap and I would say we are messing up this planet pretty well.
Perhaps we could do something to really reduce the problem by reducing - us. Cut at least our population and a lot of the issues facing us now will at least be reduced and we will have more time to find cold fusion as an alternative or zero point energy. Just my ten pence worth.
That and this fracking that results in some folk being able to ignite what comes out of their drinking water tap and I would say we are messing up this planet pretty well.
Perhaps we could do something to really reduce the problem by reducing - us. Cut at least our population and a lot of the issues facing us now will at least be reduced and we will have more time to find cold fusion as an alternative or zero point energy. Just my ten pence worth.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 1,218
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
And yet no one lives in Fukashima nor Chernobyl...
[/quote]
People do live in Fukushima, and near Chernobyl.
Even if they didn't, what you're saying it that it is better to get rid of a low-carbon power source because it can, in extraordinary cases, damage the local environment. The fact that low-carbon power sources help fight Global Disaster is lost in the Green anti-nuclear dogma.
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
[quote author=starviking]
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
I wonder who'd be screaming loudest if a reactor near where they live starts leaking radiation into the atmosphere or ground water?
[/quote]
Not me, I live 70 miles from Fukushima Daiichi.
[/quote]
What? You haven't moved next door to the reactors? Why ever not, if they are as safe as you seem to be claiming...
[/quote]
Sorry, I normally do not use this word, but that is the most stupid comment I have ever come across on these boards. Let me turn it around for you, so maybe you'll spot the flaw in your reasoning:
What? You haven't uprooted your family, left your job, to move 70 miles and sneak into an evacuation zone to make a political point?
And as for reactors in general, which was your point, I would be willing to live next door to an operating reactor - no problem.
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
[quote author=starviking]
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
Personally, I am glad I live in a nation that has only two small, research reactors in it and they are on the opposite of the continent to where I reside...
[/quote]
A country which burns a lot of coal, yes?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, yes but that is changing. Renewables are replacing coal fired power stations.
[/quote]
And when will these coal plants all be shut down?
And yet no one lives in Fukashima nor Chernobyl...
[/quote]
People do live in Fukushima, and near Chernobyl.
Even if they didn't, what you're saying it that it is better to get rid of a low-carbon power source because it can, in extraordinary cases, damage the local environment. The fact that low-carbon power sources help fight Global Disaster is lost in the Green anti-nuclear dogma.
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
[quote author=starviking]
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
I wonder who'd be screaming loudest if a reactor near where they live starts leaking radiation into the atmosphere or ground water?
[/quote]
Not me, I live 70 miles from Fukushima Daiichi.
[/quote]
What? You haven't moved next door to the reactors? Why ever not, if they are as safe as you seem to be claiming...
[/quote]
Sorry, I normally do not use this word, but that is the most stupid comment I have ever come across on these boards. Let me turn it around for you, so maybe you'll spot the flaw in your reasoning:
What? You haven't uprooted your family, left your job, to move 70 miles and sneak into an evacuation zone to make a political point?
And as for reactors in general, which was your point, I would be willing to live next door to an operating reactor - no problem.
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
[quote author=starviking]
[quote author=Kadija_Man]
Personally, I am glad I live in a nation that has only two small, research reactors in it and they are on the opposite of the continent to where I reside...
[/quote]
A country which burns a lot of coal, yes?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, yes but that is changing. Renewables are replacing coal fired power stations.
[/quote]
And when will these coal plants all be shut down?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,986
- Reaction score
- 11,282
Mike1158 said:
Newer reactor technology can use what used to be considered "waste" for fuel.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste
Thorium reactors are also promising. The thing is, even CURRENT reactor technology is much safer than things like coal, and FAR more cost efficient than solar power and windmills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
starviking said:
People do live in Fukushima, and near Chernobyl.
[/quote]
Small numbers only, particularly compared to their relative populations before the accident occurred. I'd suggest those that do live there are either uncaring about their possible risk from increased likelihood of contracting cancer or they have a considerable death wish.
The point that is being made that the "extraordinary cases" are becoming less than "extraordinary" and are becoming more likely because of human accident. When they do occur, they cause considerable problems for humanity and the environment, whereas if a low-carbon, renewable energy source had been chosen in the first place, there wouldn't have been an accident on the same scale as say, Fukashima or Chernobyl.
Not me, I live 70 miles from Fukushima Daiichi.
[/quote]
What? You haven't moved next door to the reactors? Why ever not, if they are as safe as you seem to be claiming...
[/quote]
Sorry, I normally do not use this word, but that is the most stupid comment I have ever come across on these boards. Let me turn it around for you, so maybe you'll spot the flaw in your reasoning:
What? You haven't uprooted your family, left your job, to move 70 miles and sneak into an evacuation zone to make a political point?
And as for reactors in general, which was your point, I would be willing to live next door to an operating reactor - no problem.
[/quote]
Yet, as I pointed out in my original statement, the case was, as you put it, "extraordinary" in that the reactor had suffered an accident or was poorly designed in the first place. You have, as I have also pointed out, failed to move closer to that extraordinary event which is closest to you, not because it was dangerous but because it was inconvenient. It makes me question your commitment to your beliefs...
A country which burns a lot of coal, yes?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, yes but that is changing. Renewables are replacing coal fired power stations.
[/quote]
And when will these coal plants all be shut down?
[/quote]
Not as quickly as I would like...
Would you prefer them shut down and not replaced with nuclear power stations which would take my nation over a decade or longer to tool up for? We would need to establish an entire nuclear industry, from whoa to go. We would need to establish enrichment industries, we would need to train nuclear engineers. We would need to build all the support industries from scratch. We would need to build the reactors.
Renewables are available now, based on common civil and industrial engineering concepts and of course they work. Guess which I'd prefer?
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 902
So-called "renewable energy" works in the sense that you can pay a lot of dollars and get some electricity made with free and endless fuel (fuel is not energy) but apart from legacy hydropower it is hardly a realistic source of energy for our society. Australian windpower generated about 15 terrawatt hours of electricity last year. Which is 40% of installed capacity and not bad for wind but since almost all Aussie windfarms are located to catch the Roaring 40s from the south no surprise. However since most windfarms are new the bad end of their lifetime efficency has not yet had a chance to play a part. Plus not many people live near the Roaring 40s winds and once their needs are meet their would be huge loses in electricity if an attempt was made to tranship any surplus to users.
Anyway nice to see that radiation phobia lives on in the minds of the ignorant. Living near ( a few km) Chernobyl could be dangerous if you were by chance to come into contact with an irradiated particle. But chances of that would be in the one in billions stakes
Anyway nice to see that radiation phobia lives on in the minds of the ignorant. Living near ( a few km) Chernobyl could be dangerous if you were by chance to come into contact with an irradiated particle. But chances of that would be in the one in billions stakes
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
Nuclear royal commission: Protesters voice opposition to SA waste dump outside citizens' jury. One of the major problems with nuclear energy is waste disposal IMHO.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 902
The only problem with HLW is politics. Virtually all HLW can be reprocessed into nuclear fuel and consumed leaving very small levels of remaining waste. This needs deep geological burry to be completely safe. But no one has yet built such a site thanks to the politics of radiation phobia. Finland is set to open the first such site in 2023 and problem solved.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
You mean we're swimming in the stuff? How has mankind survived this radiation horror?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uranium-extraction-from-seawater-takes-a-major-step-forward/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_FEAT
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uranium-extraction-from-seawater-takes-a-major-step-forward/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_ENGYSUS_FEAT
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 902
bobbymike said:
Most natural hot springs have higher radiation levels than front page news leaks at nuclear power plants.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,157
- Reaction score
- 12,317
bobbymike said:
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2016/07/secnav-when-youve-lost-vicenews.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
Grey Havoc said:
Biofuels need to be created from something, and according to a report released last year by the nonpartisan World Resources Institute, a Washington, DC-based research group, meeting 20 percent of global energy demand using plant-based biofuels by 2050 "would require humanity to at least double the world's annual harvest of plant material in all its forms.... Therefore, the quest for bioenergy at a meaningful scale is both unrealistic and unsustainable."
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,986
- Reaction score
- 11,282
New form of carbon capture actually creates power, rather than consuming it
"A new form of carbon capture could solve one of the major problems facing the most efficient versions of the technology: energy. Whether through the direct input of electricity or the use of expensive and delicate catalysts, carbon capture tends to be quite a burden on energy companies, limiting its potential impact without legal requirements. Now, researchers have created an electrochemical cell that can sequester carbon without the need for expensive catalysts or electrode materials, and it actually generates electricity as it works.
An electrochemical cell can be run in two directions: either input electricity to drive a chemical reaction, or use a chemical reaction to produce electricity. In this case, what we want is the reaction of chemicals in a waste gas, for instance from a power plant, to “sequester” any CO2 in a solid while driving the production of electricity. In the past, electrochemical cells useful for condensing CO2 into a solid have used reactive electrode materials like lithium or sodium, and gotten less useful products like carbonates out at the other end — most promising among those applications is a sort of power plant-born limestone."
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/232244-new-form-of-carbon-capture-actually-creates-power-rather-than-consuming-it
"A new form of carbon capture could solve one of the major problems facing the most efficient versions of the technology: energy. Whether through the direct input of electricity or the use of expensive and delicate catalysts, carbon capture tends to be quite a burden on energy companies, limiting its potential impact without legal requirements. Now, researchers have created an electrochemical cell that can sequester carbon without the need for expensive catalysts or electrode materials, and it actually generates electricity as it works.
An electrochemical cell can be run in two directions: either input electricity to drive a chemical reaction, or use a chemical reaction to produce electricity. In this case, what we want is the reaction of chemicals in a waste gas, for instance from a power plant, to “sequester” any CO2 in a solid while driving the production of electricity. In the past, electrochemical cells useful for condensing CO2 into a solid have used reactive electrode materials like lithium or sodium, and gotten less useful products like carbonates out at the other end — most promising among those applications is a sort of power plant-born limestone."
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/232244-new-form-of-carbon-capture-actually-creates-power-rather-than-consuming-it
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,157
- Reaction score
- 12,317
bobbymike said:
And throwing yet more good money after bad: http://gcaptain.com/where-is-the-us-navy-going-to-get-enough-biofuel-to-power-half-the-fleet-australian/
:
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 606
Grey Havoc said:bobbymike said:
And throwing yet more good money after bad: http://gcaptain.com/where-is-the-us-navy-going-to-get-enough-biofuel-to-power-half-the-fleet-australian/
:
I suppose the USN could simply go all Nuke as an alternative?
As that isn't realistic, where do you suppose they get the fuel for their ships? :
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/08/tesla-model-s-france-battery-fire/
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/14/infiniti-vc-t-engine-variable-compression-official/
Good old internal combustion technology keeps ticking along.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/14/infiniti-vc-t-engine-variable-compression-official/
Good old internal combustion technology keeps ticking along.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/scientist-accused-of-crying-wolf-on-climate-change-with-claim-that-arctic-sea-ice-would-vanish
Only off by 4.14 MILLION sq km. As Maxwell Smart would say "Missed it by that much"
Only off by 4.14 MILLION sq km. As Maxwell Smart would say "Missed it by that much"
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,157
- Reaction score
- 12,317
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/19/the-facts-about-wind-power-are-more-awkward-than-obama-would-adm/
- Status
