Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

[bobbymike]

AG - Great post !! It is tangential to an article I read about insects being the perfect food. The Sun feeds all these inedible plants that get eaten by the earth's greatest by volume life form who turns it into pure protein (I'm paraphrasing) while other food stocks do this, cows, pigs, etc., they do it very poorly compared to insects. However, I will not be trading my New York strip loin for grasshopper pate anytime soon.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420

 

[sferrin]

Are you kidding? Ground maggot will be replacing Kobe beef any day now.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Are you kidding? Ground maggot will be replacing Kobe beef any day now.

 

[bobbymike]

https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/03/17/a-better-way-of-scrubbing-co2/

 

[Rickshaw]

"excellent alternative" implies "superior". By almost any measurable metric, nuclear is far superior to either solar or wind. (BTW, where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)

From the sun? From the temperature differential it produces in our atmosphere? :

Try again?

Nope. You've missed the point. Solar supplies all but the initial source of energy, to produce the materials which are used to make use of that energy, be it Solar or Wind or Tidal or Ocean energies... :

 

[Rickshaw]

USA Makes Pressure on Norway about Anti-Nuclear Initiative

Taiwan's Anti-Nuclear Rallies Witness 45,000 Protesters

Anti-nuclear activists in Chennai seek cancellation of India-US nuke deal

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nope. You've missed the point. Solar supplies all but the initial source of energy, to produce the materials which are used to make use of that energy, be it Solar or Wind or Tidal or Ocean energies...

But if you need to spend a lot more to produce those "materials" to tap the energy what's the point that the fuel is free? I mentioned before how uneconomic batteries are so electricity can replace petroleum as an energy source for cars and other vehicles. It would cost more than the GDP of the world to replace internal combustion with electricity for ground vehicles.


Solar, tidal, thermal and wind require massive investment in machines to tap that free fuel to create energy. While the fuel is free the cost of these machines is not. Life time costs are not competitive which is why solar and wind cost more than other forms of electrity. Despite having free 'renewable' sources of fuel.


Fuel is only part of the equation when it comes to generating energy. People seem to assume that renewable energy uses machinery as cheap and simple to build and operate as fossil fuels. They don't.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/china-and-us-molten-salt-nuclear.html

 

[Abraham Gubler]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/china-and-us-molten-salt-nuclear.html

Molten Salt reactor technology was one of those paths that should have been followed in the past. Not just for ultra high levels of redundant nuclear safety (which you can get via CANDU but in a much larger system) but also for compact nuclear power for vehicle propulsion.


http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5045591/bmtdsl-molten-salt-reactor-confpaper-inec-may12.pdf
BMT study into using molten salt reactors for destroyer propulsion.


PS Is it just me or does all the posting of hyperlinks to articles or reports without at least a sentence describing what it is really annoy everyone else? The http doesn't always have enough information in it to determine the content of the link.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/china-and-us-molten-salt-nuclear.html

Molten Salt reactor technology was one of those paths that should have been followed in the past. Not just for ultra high levels of redundant nuclear safety (which you can get via CANDU but in a much larger system) but also for compact nuclear power for vehicle propulsion.


http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/5045591/bmtdsl-molten-salt-reactor-confpaper-inec-may12.pdf
BMT study into using molten salt reactors for destroyer propulsion.


PS Is it just me or does all the posting of hyperlinks to articles or reports without at least a sentence describing what it is really annoy everyone else? The http doesn't always have enough information in it to determine the content of the link.

I will include a brief description in the future

 

[bobbymike]

Three Schemes to Revolutionize Nuclear Power

The future of nuclear energy could lie with supersmall reactors and alternative technologies

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/three-schemes-to-revolutionize-nuclear-power?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrum+%28IEEE+Spectrum%29

 

[bobbymike]

MagLIF with DT cryo layer could achieve ten thousand times net gain nuclear fusion and it would be very good for fusion space propulsion

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/maglif-with-dt-cryo-layer-could-achieve.html

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I will include a brief description in the future

Thanks. Your link above is not quite the guilty party I was thinking. The http address "china-usa-molten-salt-reactors" was pretty specific. But some forum members will just post a link to a paper at DTIC or the NASA archive that is just a bunch of numbers.pdf. Now that is irritating!

 

[bobbymike]

CSIS study on the nuclear fuel cycle management and nuclear energy

http://csis.org/publication/new-approach-nuclear-fuel-cycle

 

[bobbymike]

AG - Great post !! It is tangential to an article I read about insects being the perfect food. The Sun feeds all these inedible plants that get eaten by the earth's greatest by volume life form who turns it into pure protein (I'm paraphrasing) while other food stocks do this, cows, pigs, etc., they do it very poorly compared to insects. However, I will not be trading my New York strip loin for grasshopper pate anytime soon.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420

http://www.popsci.com/i-ate-bugs?dom=fb&src=SOC

 

[Hot Breath]

ANTI-NUCLEAR activists are mounting a two-wheeled protest against Trident.

Fukushima's long shadow

 

[Hot Breath]

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon to address anti-nuclear protesters calling for the scrapping of Trident

Law changed so nuclear waste dumps can be forced on local communities

Annual Easter peace march held in Berlin

 

[Rickshaw]

Japanese man arrested for landing drone on PM's official residence in nuclear protest

 

[bobbymike]

The continued revolution is fossil fuel energy production.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11563761/US-to-launch-blitz-of-gas-exports-eyes-global-energy-dominance.html

"Mr Mueller said it had taken his company 17 days to drill a 2,600 ft well as recently as 2007. It has just drilled a 5,400 ft well in six days. "The new technology is amazing. We have a drill-bit with a chip inside that makes its own changes," he said."

"What is remarkable is that US drillers can produce a third more natural gas today with 280 rigs than they did in 2009 with 1,200 rigs. Total shale output has soared to over 350 BCM from almost nothing a decade ago. It now makes up half of US gas production."

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The continued revolution is fossil fuel energy production.

150 years ago humans used to think the best way to get oil was by killing whales and rendering their blubber. People were worried that a growing shortage of whales was going to lead to oil shortages.


It is ridiculous for people to say today that we are going to run out of oil based on the means we used to produce oil 50 years ago. We have 650 million years of anaerobic decomposition on this world. Which has produced a huge amount of hydrocarbons in the form of fossil fuels.

 

[Hot Breath]

Missing the point? The reality is that the amount of easily accessible oil has been reduced considerably and deeper wells in more inacccessible places need to be drilled to find sufficient oil to fulfill the increasing demands of a rapidly developing planet's population. Much easier to build renewables which won't run out of resources until the sun expands and swallows them up.

 

[Orionblamblam]

With water, heat, electricity and biomass/garbage/sewage we can *make* oil. Thermal depolymerization plants hooked up to nuclear reactors would be a fabulous way to turn nuclear energy into something that can drive a car or fly a plane... *without* the need to replace the car or the airplane. Take some nuisance weed like kudzu that merrily converts atmospheric carbon dioxide into plant matter and put it to use.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Missing the point?

No I think you’ve missed the point.

The reality is that the amount of easily accessible oil has been reduced considerably and deeper wells in more inacccessible places need to be drilled to find sufficient oil to fulfill the increasing demands of a rapidly developing planet's population.

The point of course being what we think is accessible today is not what they think is accessible tomorrow. Case in point being my whaling example. Sailing from Nantucket to the Pacific Ocean to harpoon whales used to be the most accessible way to find oil 150 years ago. What you may think is inaccessible today will not be inaccessible tomorrow.

Much easier to build renewables which won't run out of resources until the sun expands and swallows them up.

Fuel is only part of the production of energy. Fossil fuels were created by solar radiation but require far simpler machinery to use for energy than converting solar radiation emitted recently by the sun into energy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

With water, heat, electricity and biomass/garbage/sewage we can *make* oil.

We can already make fossil fuels out of algae, water and sunlight. The only problem is the algae is not yet resilient enough for outdoor production and requires tubing to be protected from biological interference. However this is the hot ticket in bioengineering at the moment and once a resistant fossil fuel producing algae is developed we can use pools of salt water in the desert to mass produce oil.

 

[Hot Breath]

With water, heat, electricity and biomass/garbage/sewage we can *make* oil. Thermal depolymerization plants hooked up to nuclear reactors would be a fabulous way to turn nuclear energy into something that can drive a car or fly a plane... *without* the need to replace the car or the airplane. Take some nuisance weed like kudzu that merrily converts atmospheric carbon dioxide into plant matter and put it to use.

Nuclear power plants aren't wanted by most of the world's population. I know that is an unpopular message but it's a true one.

 

[Hot Breath]

With water, heat, electricity and biomass/garbage/sewage we can *make* oil.

We can already make fossil fuels out of algae, water and sunlight. The only problem is the algae is not yet resilient enough for outdoor production and requires tubing to be protected from biological interference. However this is the hot ticket in bioengineering at the moment and once a resistant fossil fuel producing algae is developed we can use pools of salt water in the desert to mass produce oil.

Until something evolves to eat the algae...

 

[Hot Breath]

Missing the point?

No I think you’ve missed the point.

The reality is that the amount of easily accessible oil has been reduced considerably and deeper wells in more inacccessible places need to be drilled to find sufficient oil to fulfill the increasing demands of a rapidly developing planet's population.

The point of course being what we think is accessible today is not what they think is accessible tomorrow. Case in point being my whaling example. Sailing from Nantucket to the Pacific Ocean to harpoon whales used to be the most accessible way to find oil 150 years ago. What you may think is inaccessible today will not be inaccessible tomorrow.

Much easier to build renewables which won't run out of resources until the sun expands and swallows them up.

Fuel is only part of the production of energy. Fossil fuels were created by solar radiation but require far simpler machinery to use for energy than converting solar radiation emitted recently by the sun into energy.

Still ignoring the problems of pollution and CO^2 production...

 

[CJGibson]

As smart humans we can deal with slow warming from CO2 etc. This is what you really want to worry about.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5953.msg48446.html#msg48446

Chris

 

[bobbymike]

Missing the point?

No I think you’ve missed the point.

The reality is that the amount of easily accessible oil has been reduced considerably and deeper wells in more inacccessible places need to be drilled to find sufficient oil to fulfill the increasing demands of a rapidly developing planet's population.

The point of course being what we think is accessible today is not what they think is accessible tomorrow. Case in point being my whaling example. Sailing from Nantucket to the Pacific Ocean to harpoon whales used to be the most accessible way to find oil 150 years ago. What you may think is inaccessible today will not be inaccessible tomorrow.

Much easier to build renewables which won't run out of resources until the sun expands and swallows them up.

Fuel is only part of the production of energy. Fossil fuels were created by solar radiation but require far simpler machinery to use for energy than converting solar radiation emitted recently by the sun into energy.

Still ignoring the problems of pollution and CO^2 production...

And yet by far the largest contribution to pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what the EPA redefines it as other wise why are they not banning green houses that usually have levels of 1200 to 1700 ppm of CO2 because it enhances plant growth yet humans work in these conditions without effect) causing health problems and poor air quality is from those parts of the world still burning wood and manure WITH NO access to fossil fuels.
-------------------------------------------------------
And where we effectively and efficiently use fossil fuels the air has never been better

http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2010/03/40-years-later-air-quality-has-never.html

"Here we are 40 years later, the U.S. population has increased by more than 50%, traffic volume (miles driven) in the U.S. has increased 160%, and real GDP has increased 204%; and yet air quality in the U.S. is better than ever - nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead have all decreased between 46% and 92% between 1980 and 2008 (see chart)."

 

[bobbymike]

Missing the point?

No I think you’ve missed the point.

The reality is that the amount of easily accessible oil has been reduced considerably and deeper wells in more inacccessible places need to be drilled to find sufficient oil to fulfill the increasing demands of a rapidly developing planet's population.

The point of course being what we think is accessible today is not what they think is accessible tomorrow. Case in point being my whaling example. Sailing from Nantucket to the Pacific Ocean to harpoon whales used to be the most accessible way to find oil 150 years ago. What you may think is inaccessible today will not be inaccessible tomorrow.

Much easier to build renewables which won't run out of resources until the sun expands and swallows them up.

Fuel is only part of the production of energy. Fossil fuels were created by solar radiation but require far simpler machinery to use for energy than converting solar radiation emitted recently by the sun into energy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I stated in this thread somewhere that the great fallacy of the anti-fossil fuel crowd is that they insist on a static model for technology they don't agree with and an incredibly dynamic/miraculous advancement in the technology they support.

 

[Rickshaw]

As smart humans we can deal with slow warming from CO2 etc.

Smart, rich humans might be able to deal with slow warming from CO2 but what about all the animals, plants and the rest of humanity?

 

[Hot Breath]

As smart humans we can deal with slow warming from CO2 etc. This is what you really want to worry about.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5953.msg48446.html#msg48446

Chris

What I worry about is handing to my children and grandchildren a degraded Earth, with all the resources used up. With a massive collapse of the food chain caused by acidification of the oceans because of too much CO^2 in the atmosphere and water levels rising because of the melted ice in the Arctic. With them living with increasing and more violent storms and higher temperatures. While that may sound pleasant to some, those that think about these issues seem to disagree. Fossil fuels belong in the ground!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Nuclear power plants aren't wanted by most of the world's population.

Lots of people are idiots.

That aside, I'm not sure about the utility of your claim. Of the 7Billion or so humans, some sizable fraction have probably never *heard* of nukes. Of those who have, a large fraction probably have no opinion on them at all, and thus don't want them (but then, don't want them to not exist, either). Of those who have heard of them and who actively don't want them, most are likely terribly ill-informed.

I suggest that if you give people the option of living downwind of Three Mile Island or Shanghai... they're gonna choose the nuke.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Smart, rich humans might be able to deal with slow warming from CO2 but what about all the animals, plants and the rest of humanity?

Plants have a problem with CO2 levels and warming? LOL.

 

[xmotex]

What I worry about is handing to my children and grandchildren a degraded Earth,

Then support nuclear power and hand your grandchildren the stars.

I tend to agree - for base load power, the two realistic options we have in the near term are nuclear and coal.
Solar and wind are great - when they're available, which is only part of the time, and only in some places.


While nuclear scares people (generally the people who know the least about it), there is little doubt now that burning coal is FAR more environmentally harmful in real-world terms.


Until fusion or orbital solar power become practical, nuclear fission is our best bet to supply the power our civilization requires without potentially screwing up the planet's atmosphere and climate.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Fact of the matter is that there is a remarkable amount of scaremongering when it comes to nuclear power. Talks of radiation poisoning and potential danger are so grossly overstated it's not even funny. Yes, there is a certain amount of risk associated with them, but reactors are generally very safe with multiple redundancies built into them. And quite frankly they are far more preferable to conventional coal power plants.

As for other non-fossil fuel energy sources, like wind and solar, those are way too situational to be used as primary source of power generation.

Frankly, as xmotex implied, in the near term nuclear fission is one of the most effective methods of curbing carbon emissions and give our climate a much needed reprieve, but it's truly frustrating how so many people are lead to belief the exaggerated dangers of nuclear power. Look at what happened in Germany.

 

[bobbymike]

Fact of the matter is that there is a remarkable amount of scaremongering when it comes to nuclear power. Talks of radiation poisoning and potential danger are so grossly overstated it's not even funny. Yes, there is a certain amount of risk associated with them, but reactors are generally very safe with multiple redundancies built into them. And quite frankly they are far more preferable to conventional coal power plants.

As for other non-fossil fuel energy sources, like wind and solar, those are way too situational to be used as primary source of power generation.

Frankly, as xmotex implied, in the near term nuclear fission is one of the most effective methods of curbing carbon emissions and give our climate a much needed reprieve, but it's truly frustrating how so many people are lead to belief the exaggerated dangers of nuclear power. Look at what happened in Germany.

I think it was the founder of Greenpeace, who now has gone on to tell of the enviro movement being completely hijacked by far left radicals, who said if you believe in man made global warming and not nuclear power you're a fraud not to be taken seriously.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think it was the founder of Greenpeace, who now has gone on to tell of the enviro movement being completely hijacked by far left radicals, who said if you believe in man made global warming and not nuclear power you're a fraud not to be taken seriously.

Religious movements have never had much problem with inherent logical contradictions. One could argue that it is actually the contradictions that make the religion. If you don't have enough faith to believe in it all despite the logical failures then you aren't really an adherent and just along for the ride.

 

[Hot Breath]

Nuclear power plants aren't wanted by most of the world's population.

Lots of people are idiots.

Fortunately they still have votes and their votes outnumber your sorts'.

That aside, I'm not sure about the utility of your claim. Of the 7Billion or so humans, some sizable fraction have probably never *heard* of nukes. Of those who have, a large fraction probably have no opinion on them at all, and thus don't want them (but then, don't want them to not exist, either). Of those who have heard of them and who actively don't want them, most are likely terribly ill-informed.

I suggest that if you give people the option of living downwind of Three Mile Island or Shanghai... they're gonna choose the nuke.

You ever been to Shanghai? How about downwind from Fukashima or Chernobyl or Sellefield? How about downwind from Pine Ridge or in the Nevada desert or Moruroa? How about Emu Fields or Nova Zemyla? You willing to take the risk? I'm not and nor are most other people if given a choice.

 

[Hot Breath]

What I worry about is handing to my children and grandchildren a degraded Earth,

Then support nuclear power and hand your grandchildren the stars.

I tend to agree - for base load power, the two realistic options we have in the near term are nuclear and coal.
Solar and wind are great - when they're available, which is only part of the time, and only in some places.

Such as Germany or say, Antarctica? The reality is that Solar or Wind or other alternative means of producing electicity are available where people make them available. Just like Nuclear powerplants, alternative power plants don't grow by themselves. People build them.

Instead of Governments subsidizing fossil fuel or nuclear power plants, they should be subsidizing alternative power plants.