Home › Forums › Political Corner › What should we do about global climate change?
This topic contains 96 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
Killmandrill 3 years, 4 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Man, you guys really proved my point. Too busy arguing over whether climate change is real or not. It doesn’t matter, the answer is the same.
Should we try to pollute less? Yes.
Should we be a little more gentle to our planet? Yes
Should we be aware of the consequences of our actions? Yes
Should we clean up the swirling pile of plastic twice the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean? Yes
Should we maybe try to stop adding the swirling pile? YesIt doesn’t matter whether climate change is real or not. We should stop being the gross f~~~ing pigs that we are and clean up every once in a while, and come up with some alternatives. If we can replace coal energy with a series of buoys that bob up and down in the ocean we should do it. Because the buoy just floats around and we aren’t polluting the climate for energy.
Keymaster said there’s less pollution in LA now than there was 40 years ago. That’s because they took active measures to reduce the pollution. Which is what we should do regardless of whether climate change is real or not.
Order the good wine
Nuclear power is better anyway.
Fact: Coal power plants produce more radiation than Nuclear Plants. This is because Nuclear Plants come equipped with heavy shielding.MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
Nuclear power is better anyway.
Tell that to people that lived in Fukushima and Pripyat (Chernobyl).Have you forgotten Harrisburg?
On the one hand you´re seemingly worried about the climate and on the other hand your willing to risk the habitability of the whole planet…contradictive a little?
Fact: Coal power plants produce more radiation than Nuclear Plants.
^^Any reliable source for this claim?
What happens to the spent fuel rods other than using them for armour piercing ammunition? It´s getting tucked away somewhere, for thousands of years!
Think that´s gonna work, pushing radiating trash under the carpet of planet earth over that kind of period? Is there any studies what happens to lead or steel concrete over this period?
Can you forsee what´s going to be in 24.000 Years (half life of plutonium), and that´s one of the lower half time´s there is with waste from a NPP, can you? No? Me neither!
Why not offer the place you live as a disposal zone, if you love it so much, hey it´s safe, come on!The way you continually propagate NPPs, gives me the impression that you must be getting paid by the AEC or some uranium lobby or you even work in a NPP and have gotten a little too much of radiation already.
Gotta hug my tree now! /s
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
Radiophobes might want to see this.
Additionally, most modern nuclear plants have strict safety protocol. They’ve improved since Chernobyl.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.
^^ That´s your source: “equal to or higher” not strictly and always higher! Too much estimations in that article! Also that is for people living “near” a coal power plant or a NPP in comparsion and not everywhere! So its not a fact as you put it.
That still does not explain why you are worried about the climate and seemingly prefer nuclear power over tidal, wind, solar, geothermal or whatever sustainable power generation.
Safety increased since Chernobyl, how much did it increase since Fukushima?
And what about the nuclear waste ?
Why not produce energy without producing waste that radiates for eons?
Are all NPPs prepared for earthquakes above a magnitude of 6.5 on the Richter Scale and can you prove it without damaging the building?
Are all NPPs prepared for an impact of a jet?
My point has nothing to do with radiophobia rather with common sense and being rational and thinking about the future. It’s clean energy today and nuclear waste tomorrow and it radiates for a loooooong time, which is as short sighted as it gets. Mara Hvistendahl (the female author of the article of your choice) possibly got paid by the NEI or some other lobby to write this, due to the way it was written (quoting others dating back to 1978, and no own research).
All in all you persist in being contradictive and that was a weak, lazy and factually negligible reply of yours, which does not add to your seriousness!
Hugging my tree real hard now to compensate! /s
P.S Have a nuclear energy drink on me, I recommend a “Fukubyl” (now with more Thorium 232 = 28 Billion years of joyful radiation).
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
Safety increased since Chernobyl, how much did it increase since Fukushima?
Lol…considering Fukushima was built in 1967, I’d say the new designs are quite a bit safer. The new designs are capable of cooling the core via natural circulation for 3 days under a total loss of power condition. They can go even longer basically as long as you can get a fire truck or some kind of pump to get water up to the top. Literally a team of guys could set up a diesel powered pump and some hoses to do that in a few hours no problem.
Plus here in the states we have vastly improved our beyond design basis capabilities as a result of Fukushima. Every nuclear facility in the country now has additional safety equipment stored on a near by offsite storage area, and there are regional storage areas that could fly equipment in short notice.
Check out the AP 1000 designs if you’d like to learn more. The big problem with the older plants is they didn’t know nearly as much about them as they do now, so there are a lot of plant designs out there with good and bad features. The newer designs learned from the older designs, worked out a lot of the bugs, and are a ton better. Its like comparing what a phone can do today compared to a phone in the 1960s…technology improves.
And what about the nuclear waste ?
We are going to have it anyhow. First of all…we already have it from all the plants that have been active from the last 50 years. Second…we produce it in industries other than nuclear power production. Should we abolish all use of nuclear technologies in the medical field and just tell people f~~~ off when they need an xrays, an MRI, or a CT scan? We also use xray technology for non destructive testing in all kinds of fields. Plus other countries are increasing their nuclear capabilities and they aren’t going to stop even if we ask them nicely.
Should we bury our head in the sand and act like shutting our reactors down is going to save the day, or should we focus on making sure its handled properly considering we will already be dealing with it for many many years past the time any of us are living, and we are going to be dealing with it regardless of if we have nuclear reactors or not.
Why not produce energy without producing waste that radiates for eons?
Because our only other viable options right now are to live in a constant state of rolling black outs or to replacing nuclear capabilities with fossil fuels. The nuke plant near me produces a little over 2,000 megawatts and the plant has about a 200 acre footprint counting parking lots and everything. They just built a solar facility in my town that covers 15 acres and produces 4.7 megawatts. So let’s do some basic math…2000/4.7=426. 426*15=6390 acres worth of solar panels to replace that one old nuke plant lol. The newer ones, like previously mentioned are not just safer, but have a smaller foot print as well. Plus the nuke site near me used to have a third unit that got decomissioned, and has enough space available to build a couple more units if they wanted.
Just for reference since I’m going to hit a big number here…640 acres make up a square mile. In the United States…according to wiki since I’m too lazy to dig deep, in 2013 we consumed 25,155 TW of electricity. That’s a pretty big number…let’s compare it to the 4.7 megawatts I was talking about earlier
25, 155, 000, 000, 000, 000 (this is what 25k TW looks like written out)
4, 700, 000 (this is what 4.7 MW looks like written out)In theory, let’s divide those number to figure out how many 15 acre solar sites we’d need to produce that 25, 155 TW. I’m coming up with 535, 212, 766 solar sites. Now let’s multiply that by 15 to figure out acreage, and we get 8, 028, 191, 490 acres…and divide by 640 just to convert to square miles…12, 555, 049 square miles worth of solar panels to power our country. Sadly our country is only 3,796,742 square miles…plus we run into the issue of panels decaying over time so they aren’t going to produce as much in year 2 as year 1, or year 3 as year 2, and I think they have a life span of approx 20 years before needing replaced.
The reason we haven’t just replaced all our fossil plants and nuke plants with sources like those you mentioned are because its not viable. The way it works now is when nuke plants are running they run at 100% as they are a bitch to throttle. A lot of our green sources are at the mercy of the environment…like wind or solar…if you have no wind or no sun you get no production. Fossil fuel plants are easier throttle and can be easily raised and lowered during peak/off times or when other sources are not producing. You can’t get rid of nuke without more fossil fuel capacity, and you can’t get rid of fossil fuel capacity without constant random blackouts. I mean…we could have batteries, but then would you be suggesting every household has thousands of pounds worth of battery chemicals in their house? That would be safe and green, wouldn’t it?
Are all NPPs prepared for earthquakes above a magnitude of 6.5 on the Richter Scale and can you prove it without damaging the building?
Well first of all, acting like we can spontaneously have a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in an area not even close to a fault line is kind of silly, and second yes there probably will be damage but that is where the improvements in mitigating methods post Fukushima come into play.
Are all NPPs prepared for an impact of a jet?
Small jets, yes actually, but considering jets have gotten significantly larger since the 60s when a lot of our current reactors and containments were designed, they are not designed to withstand some of the large jets in the air today…but it is important to understand that a jet crashing into a reactor isn’t going to cause a nuclear explosion like an atomic bomb would…it would be more along the lines of a dirty bomb. I’d be more concerned about a foreign country “misplacing” some nuclear fuel and terrorists smuggling nuclear materials over our porous southern border and detonating a dirty bomb in the middle of NYC than a jumbo jet flying into a nuclear plant that generally aren’t in the middle of our most densely populated areas. But hey…if you want to go on a crusade about nuke plants bad while being ignorant on the topic, feel free.
My point has nothing to do with radiophobia rather with common sense and being rational and thinking about the future. It’s clean energy today and nuclear waste tomorrow and it radiates for a loooooong time, which is as short sighted as it gets.
Lol but you aren’t though. You are arguing we should stop producing nuclear waste from energy production while we are still producing it from other things, and that basically dealing with spent fuel is such a problem because it takes a long time to decay when we already have spent fuel to deal with. What’s the difference if we have to deal with 1 ton of spent fuel or 2? Pretty much nothing…its just sad our country is so f~~~ed up we can’t even create a central storage facility and instead keep our spent fuel spread stored on the sites that burned it.
P.S Have a nuclear energy drink on me, I recommend a “Fukubyl” (now with more Thorium 232 = 28 Billion years of joyful radiation).
Have a banana…enjoy some naturally occurring radioactive Potassium 40. Most people are clueless we are exposed to radiation every single day no matter what we do as its produced naturally from the sun and in the environment in a ton of different ways. So how bad was Fukushima’s release?
“France’s Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety (IRSN) estimated that maximum external doses to people living around the plant were unlikely to exceed 30 mSv/yr in the first year. This was based on airborne measurements between 30 March and 4 April, and appears to be confirmed by the above figures. It compares with natural background levels mostly 2-3 mSv/yr, but ranging up to 50 mSv/yr elsewhere in the world.”
Basically that number 30 mSv converts to 3000 millirem. The average American gets about 620 millirem a year with zero of that being from nuclear plants. The NRC exposure limit for a nuclear worker is 5000 millirem per year, which is a safe dose proven not to increase a nuke workers chance to develop negative side effects. Yeah releases are not good, but in the grand scheme of things Fukushima really didn’t release a horrid amount of radiation, its just fear mongering and ignorance at work.
^^Any reliable source for this claim?
Honestly man…take two seconds to google it, you’ll find dozens of sources. Burning coal dumps radioactive materials into the air, plus coal ash contains radioactivity and isn’t nearly as regulated as nuclear waste and really hasn’t been that well managed over the years. Its pretty obvious you know very little about energy production.
It doesn’t matter whether climate change is real or not. We should stop being the gross f~~~ing pigs that we are and clean up every once in a while, and come up with some alternatives. If we can replace coal energy with a series of buoys that bob up and down in the ocean we should do it. Because the buoy just floats around and we aren’t polluting the climate for energy.
I agree…but the concept of replacing fossil fuels with bobbing buoys just isn’t realistic…and that is why energy policy in our country sucks. The logistics behind green sources are largely too expensive and not viable for consistent mass production, yet so many clueless people and our current administration seem to think they can defy physics and nature and make it work. Meanwhile we have nuclear technology that can produce zero emission energy but lot’s of ignorant people are petrified of it.
So what happens? We all basically agree we don’t want our electric bills to quadruple, and we don’t want to deal with random blackouts as a normal way of life, so we end up converting from coal to gas which is a bit cleaner and with politicians patting themselves on the back every time some new heavily subsidized solar plant or wind farm comes online. If at some point the government slashes green subsidies those industries are going to die, and then we’ll just end up ramping up coal and gas production up to compensate because we have been shutting nukes down rather than expanding our nuclear capacity.
Realistically if climate change was a deadly threat in the very near term, like something that will have serious consequences while most of us are still alive…wouldn’t we be better off to build a bunch of nukes and drastically decrease our emissions RIGHT NOW rather than doing what we are doing? If we had this mind set a decade ago we could have nukes producing 60% of our power and fossil fuels 20% instead of the other way around. I think the fact that the government isn’t doing this, and is actually allowing fossil fuel production capacity to increase proves what a crock of s~~~ man made climate change is.
Lol…considering Fukushima was built in 1967,
I meant more like what conclusions had be drawn by other nations concerning NPPs, not the age of the plant itself. Yet whatever you say, what I´ve written was directed as a comment to someone else, please keep that in mind.
We are going to have it anyhow
I know about background radiation and that literally everthing radiates a little and more or less and the sun of course source of the most of it, need we add more radiation in a big amount? There´s some oil in the ocean and plastic too, let´s add some more it´s polluted already! /s Also I was solely talking about Npps! And nothing else.
Well first of all, acting like we can spontaneously have a 6.5 magnitude earthquake
A couple of years we had an earthquake in my hometown only + 4 magnitude, the 5 story concrete building I live in shook and had cracks in some places. Yes earthquakes don´t ring the door bell. There is no entry for of an earthquake here since registering has started 1200 years ago.
The timeframe people think of when dealing NPPs stand in no relation with reality, let´s say 50 to 60 years of energy in comparison to so and so much nuclear waste to be taken care of over a period of thousands of years and the costs of it, the impact on nature, and what will happen to that trash when nobody feels responsible anymore and so on.There´s lots of reasons something could go wrong…not only earthquakes. And that is what´s known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidentsYou are arguing we should stop producing nuclear waste from energy production while we are still producing it from other things,
Why not? Since when is Plutonium the same like Radon, Radium, Cobalt, Cäsium and with different properties, radiation, half time…,. And I was not talking about that I was talking about NPPs.
So how bad was Fukushima’s release?
It´s 5 years ago, and if I check that link I can´t find any non official institution involved. Also again the time frames, we can´t say anything now! It radiates for a long time longer than it produces energy.
Honestly man…take two seconds to google it
To find the same “reliable” surveys like the OP did? I know coal or other fossil fuels are bad news too, did I defend them anywhere?
Because our only other viable options right now are to live in a constant state of rolling black outs or to replacing nuclear capabilities with fossil fuels.
I named a couple of more ways to generate power than only solar, and if you use them all, you can maybe build a couple of NPPs less for the moment, there´s so much more ways to generate energy from multiple sources.
Yet, thanks for your reply and taking the efforts to answer my post.
Is high level radiation bad?:
P.S my city produces it´s energy like this, which would be another way I not metioned yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energyAh, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
I agree…but the concept of replacing fossil fuels with bobbing buoys just isn’t realistic…and that is why energy policy in our country sucks. The logistics behind green sources are largely too expensive and not viable for consistent mass production, yet so many clueless people and our current administration seem to think they can defy physics and nature and make it work. Meanwhile we have nuclear technology that can produce zero emission energy but lot’s of ignorant people are petrified of it.
I get it Beer. In fact I used to work for a power company at one point in my career. But imagine if all of the science used to prove climate change was put into alternative fuel. Maybe they would find something that works.
But too many people are more concerned with being right than getting it right. Fighting over whether climate change is real is just trying to BE right. Coming up with way to pollute less is GETTING IT right.
I don’t think there are enough geothermal pockets to ever make that viable, wind farms certainly don’t seem to work. Solar seems to have some promise if the technology improves enough. The buoys in the ocean and fans in a river seem fairly promising to me. The river always runs and there are always waves in the ocean. It just seems to me that if your raw material cost is zero (sun, waves) you should be able to come up with something that’s cost effective. Eventually.
Order the good wine
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were a direct result of bad decisions.
Chernobyl was a direct result of a dangerous experiment conducted on the equipment. All the other Chernobyl reactors ran until decommissioning without any further radioactive incidents.
Fukushima was a direct result of putting backup generators in the basement and vital motor control centers at ground level, or lower. The design of the reactor itself was not inherently dangerous, although it was of an old type that was no longer built.
Three Mile Island was a result of a human oversight in the design of a relief valve. TMI #1 continues to operate to this day without incident. TMI #2 melted, but it didn’t escape from the pressure vessel and the environment was not affected in any noticeable way.
Nuclear energy is one the greenest forms of energy we currently have, that is also capable of providing a steady and consistent amount of power.Sure there’s radioactive waste, but I’m sure someone can find a way to shoot it into space if it becomes a storage hassle. Other than the waste the only thing produced is harmless steam vapor. Nuclear power is not going away either, as you can see, Iran now has it’s own nuclear power plant and seems to be intent on keeping it.
The problem with tidal power is that the sea is powerful and unrelenting and usually tears them apart, or carries them away. Also the presence of these devices screws up the ecosystem and those who depend on it for a living – like Lobster fishermen.
Solar power is unsuitable for northern climates with long winters and limited sun. They also take up alot of valuable space for the limited power they produce. Although they might be onto something with the solar thermal plant, if they build them in the far south, where it is often sunny.
Wind turbines take up alot of space and people are p~~~ed off with them, supposedly they make a certain frequency of noise that irritates some people. They also like solar panels produce a limited amount of power for the space used.
Can’t say anything about geothermal, but I don’t think it’s suitable for anything that needs alot of electricity. Might be ok for a home.
Oh man I give up, have radiant life if you want it so much!
I was 19 when Chernobyl blew up, we were officially warned not to eat mushrooms, fruits from the forests, not to stay out when it rains and so on, it happened 2000 km (1250 mi.) from here. I was in a NPP when I was 15 and could look at everything myself closely and make my own mind up about it.
You can´t exclude human error over thousands of years (running, maintaining,deconstruction and storage of the waste) and explaining those errors won´t help against the radiation that follows.
Again, use all of the alternative sources at once, yes all of those sources have their weaknesses, but if you combine them you can egalize for their weaknesses and of course use whatever suits the location best. As for solar USA has lots of deserts for solar plants and more advanced solar plants (see below).Again there is so much ways to generate energy sustainably, I am not going to list all of them, but here´s one that I posted above already:
It works everywhere, anytime, and yes there is toxic waste produced in the process but that´s nothing in comparison to what a NPP produces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy
Here some more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydro/wave-power/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_powerNuclear energy is one the greenest forms of energy we currently have
It´s not green energy, you need fuel rods, high levels of radiation and produce a lot of nuclear waste that needs to be taken care of, if thats called “green”, sorry then I can´t help you there, because it´s a misuse of the term “green”, maybe they dip the rods in green dye or everything that gets in contact with the rods illuminates green?!
You can build your houses in a way so they do not need either heating or air conditioning, the respective government just needs to incentivize or subsidize this. Instead they rather sell NPPs as “green”. Is that a government that really cares about its citizens and is innovative and is thinking of the future generations and gives you a return for your paid taxes/danegeld?
There is no big money in alternative energy since you have to invest and get nothing but power and a few jobs out of it (bankruptcies follow e.g Wavegen, Prokon…). With NPPs that´s another story, you invest and then there´s lots of jobs & money in logistics, reprocessing, deconstruction and storage, that´s as ridiculous as it gets.
I worked on a logistics portal system for GE NPPs so I´m involved too in a way.Another reason it´s called “green” could be it leaves large areas uninhabited when something goes wrong?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesie_State_Radioecological_ReserveI know I can´t do anything against it, yet I won´t lose my common sense and call it good!
You are convinced it´s good and green, cool ok, I´m out now, just like the OP.
Thanks for taking the time and efforts to reply!
Have a nice day!
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
I meant more like what conclusions had be drawn by other nations concerning NPPs, not the age of the plant itself. Yet whatever you say, what I´ve written was directed as a comment to someone else, please keep that in mind.
Its actually changed the industry across the globe a lot. Any time a plant has any issue of any sort its shared among the industry with the goal being to learn from each others mistakes…plant designs are constantly being upgraded, equipment upgraded, and procedures upgraded.
Besides, what does whether or not the United States use nuclear energy have to do with what other nations are doing? What are we going to do if China, Russia, or a whole ton of other countries want to build more nuke?
I know about background radiation and that literally everthing radiates a little and more or less and the sun of course source of the most of it, need we add more radiation in a big amount? There´s some oil in the ocean and plastic too, let´s add some more it´s polluted already! /s
Nuclear plants aren’t dumping “big amounts” of radiation into the environment. You can’t even measure above background at the edge of the property line of a nuclear plant. Anything they discharge into the ocean is insanely regulated…they don’t dump oil and plastics into the ocean.
There´s lots of reasons something could go wrong…not only earthquakes. And that is what´s known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidentsWell for starters…most of those events on that list didn’t even happen in the states and we can’t stop other countries from using nuclear power if they want.
Additionally if you actually read and understood what happened in each of those incidents, you’d realize that most of them didn’t even involve radioactive release, and then you have to remind yourself…a nuclear plant is an industrial site. Industrial sites of any sort are dangerous. You are going to have events at fossil plants. You are going to have events at non-energy producing industrial sites like chemical plants. Ever hear about what happened in Bhopal, India? A plant that makes pesticides had an event that killed 4-8,000 and injured over a half million people. Should stop using pesticides?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Or want to hear about the horrors of hydro power? In 1975 when the Banqiao Dam in China let go it kiled 26,000 from immediate flooding, a subsequent 145,000 from famine and epidemic, and caused 11 million people to become homeless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Here is another fun tidbit for you…deaths per trillion kWh produced by various sources. Guess what is at the bottom of the list…American nuclear. Windmills and solar panels are responsible for more deaths a year than nuclear plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
Why not? Since when is Plutonium the same like Radon, Radium, Cobalt, Cäsium and with different properties, radiation, half time…,. And I was not talking about that I was talking about NPPs.
And I’m arguing this is moronic. Like I said…we already have nuclear waste to deal with…its literally no more effort do deal with more at this point. If we have to watch 1 ton of spent fuel or 2 its going to have to be managed the same way. Even if we stop using it for civilian purposes the navy isn’t going to stop using it…we’d still have to deal with spent fuel from nuclear ships. And again…even if we stop using it entirely for any purpose, other countries aren’t, because its an amazing technology.
It´s 5 years ago, and if I check that link I can´t find any non official institution involved. Also again the time frames, we can´t say anything now! It radiates for a long time longer than it produces energy.
The releases during and immediately after the event, which have already been measured, are as bad as its going to be. From that point forward the releases are diluted and decay. Deaths related to Fukushima to date…0. Check out the WHO assessment of the consequences of the release at Fukushima…no impact on rate of birth defects for exposed pregnant women, and infants exposed are the most at risk group, who they estimate are 1% more likely to develop cancer over their life time. They also mention about 1/3 of people in industrialized nations will have cancer at some point in their life. So the most at risk group is now estimated to have a 34.33% chance of developing cancer instead of a 33.33% chance?
There are also two methods of guesstimating effects of radiation exposure…the threshold model…which says up to a point radiation will do nothing and over the point the more you get the worse, and the linear model, which says every bit you get is bad. The WHO based its assessment upon the linear model, but since you obviously know a bit about background radiation and that we are all exposed to background sources, most of which are naturally occurring and unavoidable, I think even you could see that the threshold model is more accurate and the linear more conservative.
I named a couple of more ways to generate power than only solar, and if you use them all, you can maybe build a couple of NPPs less for the moment, there´s so much more ways to generate energy from multiple sources.
So let’s tie this all back to global climate change. Most of the world’s energy production is from burning fossil fuels…which if you think “man made global climate change” is an issue, emissions from burning fossil fuels is the culprit. Now you want to replace zero emission nuclear plants with green sources rather than replace fossil plants? Net gain in the fight against “climate change” for doing this? Nothing. Great job!
I get it Beer. In fact I used to work for a power company at one point in my career. But imagine if all of the science used to prove climate change was put into alternative fuel. Maybe they would find something that works.
But too many people are more concerned with being right than getting it right. Fighting over whether climate change is real is just trying to BE right. Coming up with way to pollute less is GETTING IT right.
Oh yeah…definitely. It sickens me how much the government has thrown at “climate change” over my life time. They give grants to institutions that will only continue to get grants as long as they find something…its a total joke.
I hate how the government decides what we invest in based upon the votes of the ignorant and the corrupt. For example…how much money have they thrown at corn ethanol? How many people would love to see it go away? Pretty much everyone except for the farmers and producers it subsidizes and the politicians they donate money to.
They do the same thing with “green” energy in my opinion. They c~~~ block nuke plants and subsidize the s~~~ out of windmills and solar panels. If they really wanted cleaner sources to thrive all they would have to do would be to slowly raise taxes on fossil fuels over time to make other sources more viable(kind of like how people were searching more aggressively for oil alternatives and ways to decrease consumption when oil prices were peaking) and let the free market find solutions. If they started doing this 30 years ago we’d probably be much cleaner today at much less expense to the tax payer. Instead we end up billions of dollars being waste on stupid programs like cash for clunkers and handed out to companies like Solyndra, that surprise surprise has ties to Obama, and end up going belly up soon as the gravy train of government handouts ends.
I honestly just don’t see how anyone could think “climate change” isn’t just about taxes and wealth transfer. Those that benefit from it are laughing all the way to the bank while the clueless idiots fight for them tooth and nail.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were a direct result of bad decisions.
And we can’t remove the aspect of human error from anything…like for example should we ban driving because people cause accidents. Waaaaaaaaaaaay more people die and get hurt in car accidents each year than get harmed or killed in nuclear related accidents.
Sure there’s radioactive waste, but I’m sure someone can find a way to shoot it into space if it becomes a storage hassle.
The thing is, it doesn’t require an enormous amount of space to store. Its sits in a pool for a 20-30 years and once it cools off enough, its basically placed in a metal container and into a concrete tomb with a flow path for air to get through…basically ambient air enters the bottom, heats up, and exhausts through the top allowing natural circulation to keep it cool. You could probably store all the spent fuel produced in civilian reactors in this countries history easily on a few acres if the government would pull head from ass and create a central storage facility.
Basically we’d have a bunch of oversized cinder blocks lined up. There would obviously have to be people watching them 24/7 for security reasons, but if any of them showed signs of decay you just swap the metal cask into a new concrete module…good to go with no issues…its not like a concrete storage module would go from looking perfect one day to catastrophic failure the next, degradation over time would be visible. And like I’ve been saying to that other guy…we already have this…if we had 1000 modules lined up in some uninhabited area in the desert or 2000 its no difference at all…it would have to be monitored, maintained, and stored in the exact same way.
Also the entire time a nuclear plant is running they basically have to pay into a decommissioning fund. When they shut down the money is used for those expenses…the intent being they didn’t want some company running a nuke plant for 30 years, shutting it down, then going bankrupt and pushing the expense of dismantling it on to the public. Essentially they build up billions of dollars in a trust fund while running…so a central storage facility could just use that money and not even cost tax payers anything if Washington wasn’t corrupt and incompetent.
I was in a NPP when I was 15 and could look at everything myself closely and make my own mind up about it.
Can you tell me about what you saw and what scared you so much?
It´s not green energy, you need fuel rods, high levels of radiation and produce a lot of nuclear waste that needs to be taken care of, if thats called “green”, sorry then I can´t help you there, because it´s a misuse of the term “green”, maybe they dip the rods in green dye or everything that gets in contact with the rods illuminates green?!
Green energy = zero emission.
There is no big money in alternative energy since you have to invest and get nothing but power and a few jobs out of it
I’d actually think the opposite…if someone came up with a viable way to mass produce energy at a fraction of the cost of its competitors they’d actually annihilate the market with it and make a fortune.
The reason there is no big money in alternative sources is because they aren’t cost effective…that simple. For as much as people want to p~~~ and moan about climate change almost none of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is and have their electric bills triple or quadruple, or pay for some over priced solar array that will never have a positive return on investment. Yeah you’ll get a handful of people that would do it regardless…but obviously not enough to make a difference. The only reason alternative sources have even taken off as much as they have is because of government subsidies…if something happens in the future to these subsidies you’ll see a lot of companies folding and a lot less consumer interest.
(bankruptcies follow e.g Wavegen, Prokon…).
Well quick google search told me Wavegen didn’t go bankrupt, they got bought out by a company that is still researching tidal projects. Maybe Wavegen just had a crappy idea that was to expensive/not viable. I’m not sure if you realize how corrosive and tough on components it is to have them in salt water. If you have moving parts and metallic parts in a salt water environment they are going to get eaten alive. Even if things are sealed, materials wear and tear, they’re going to leak and components get wrecked, plus marine growth will be a constant issue and I can’t imagine ocean based systems wouldn’t have issues with seaweed depending how far off the coast they were.
Prokon? Here’s what I found about Prokon with about a 30 second google search so far…
Determined to avoid bank financing, the founders raised money directly from retail investors by advertising heavily in buses and trains, on TV and by direct mail, offering investors returns of up to eight percent on their money – a remarkably high rate – on what it promoted as an environmentally responsible investment.
Consumer advocates had long argued that wind farms could not support such a high rate of return, and some had expressed suspicion that the company was a Ponzi scheme, in which high returns were paid out using fresh money from new investors – until it was no longer possible to recruit enough of the latter.
Whether the suspicions are well-founded or not remains unclear; forensic accounting will be needed to shed light on the matter. The public prosecutor has begun an investigation of allegations of financial irregularities at Prokon.
Jeeze wonder why they went bankrupt lol.
You are convinced it´s good and green, cool ok
But nobody is arguing nuclear is good. We realize it has some bad byproducts. The issue is simply the masses don’t want to do without electricity and thinking we can throw up a few solar panels here and there, some windmills, and some mystical floating generation devices to harness wave power and come up with all the generation we need is moronic. For starters its not anywhere near cost effective and most people aren’t going to support it when their electric bills start tripling, and even if it was cost effective we are still limited by things like space and weather.
If someone created a perpetual motion machine that could cheaply produce infinite electricity with no byproducts or industrial risks we’d all support it, but we don’t have that yet and aren’t anywhere close to it, and when you really analyze “alternative” sources, they really aren’t all that safe, viable, or cost effective.
Thanks for taking the time and efforts to answer me, actually I said I was out. I´ll take the time though to answer your post.
Can you tell me about what you saw and what scared you so much?
Wearing suits that get incinerated after we´ve visited the plant (it actually was paper suits). Wearing a radiation indicator badge during our visit to tell us when we need to leave (there was no reason of course). Passing several air-locks while getting guided through the plant. The guide himself who had a geiger counter to show us everythings fine. He did a demo of inside and outside of the building too, which proved what you mentioned before, concerning background radiation, there was no big difference between inside and outside. Though this guy always acted like he tried to sell us something, and I did not buy. I was there with my school class and at the age of 15 you probably are impressed easier or easier averted by something.
I did not change my mind on this subject over the years, although I did about a lot of other subjects throughout the years.
To wrap it up in a comprehensible way, all those security measurements and efforts are needed to produce this energy while you can produce energy where nothing of this is needed and no waste is produced.I just figured it does not exist anymore and to be honest it was an experimental NPP and was decommissioned 3 years after we´ve been there, this was it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahl_Nuclear_Power_PlantGreen energy = zero emission.
Of course nothing than water vapor is coming out of a NPPs stack (ideally), so “zero emmision” would be a better term than calling it “green” which somehow excites the expectation to be contributing to the environment (other green energies technologies mutilate the landscape in exchange). In my opinion it doesn´t match either green or zero emmisions > the waste that emits radiation and needs to be treated so it does not harm the environment. The latter applies to other power plants too, coal, waste-to-energy etc..
I’d actually think the opposite…if someone came up with a viable way to mass produce energy at a fraction of the cost of its competitors they’d actually annihilate the market with it and make a fortune.
I wish it was like that too, but nowadays people want their ROI as fast as possible, people don´t think in long terms anymore, it´s gotta be now and a lot. Unfortunately that energy milk cow has not been invented yet, big companies like for example Siemens Voith as for wave power just provide the technology but have to rely on funding and it often needs a company to run the plant that also has to be cost effective so it pays off on the long run.
As mentioned before there so much ways to produce energy from nature and even with waste, why not go that way other than producing waste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_waste_energy
Of course those plants do not produce the kind of energy a NPP would, but then you just build some more plants and closer to the consumer.
Well quick google search told me Wavegen didn’t go bankrupt, they got bought out by a company that is still researching tidal projects.
Your correct about that, nevertheless if it wouldn´t have been for Voith they would have went belly up I suggest. Also Voith, being the buyer, later figured they better team up with someone to make it an easier task (Siemens-Voith).
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-21657133You´re right about Prokon too I just figured, actually I did not research on that tbh. I knew they filed for insolvency in 2014 and they´ve been in all kinds of monkey business and dupery. A company sign of theirs is still on the building I work in, nobody removed it. They´ve been converted in a cooperative at a loss of 40% to the investors.
Admittedly those were bad examples.The main reason I posted this rant against NPPs was “Uintatheriums” comment :
Nuclear power is better anyway.
Which I think, but not know was a reply to what “TaxGuy” wrote :
Should we try to pollute less? Yes.
Should we be a little more gentle to our planet? Yes
Should we be aware of the consequences of our actions? Yes
Should we clean up the swirling pile of plastic twice the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean? Yes
Should we maybe try to stop adding the swirling pile? YesIt doesn’t matter whether climate change is real or not. We should stop being the gross f~~~ing pigs that we are and clean up every once in a while, and come up with some alternatives. If we can replace coal energy with a series of buoys that bob up and down in the ocean we should do it. Because the buoy just floats around and we aren’t polluting the climate for energy.
Just found this to be a thoughtless reply and felt the urge to write something, also “Uintatheriums” mentioned NPPs before in another thread and I recall he had it seem like something harmless or the ideal solution to our growing energy needs, but maybe that´s just my perception of it.
I enjoyed the discussion with you and you´ve been always on point other than I, you gained some respect on my side.
Still not gonna like NPPs though.
Some tree hugging required now /s
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. Friedrich Nietzsche
I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I confess to love NPP’s. But my view on it is, Governments shouldn’t dictate technology. Instead, let MARKET FORCES decide. For instance, we mandate a certain percent of power from un-economical alternative energy in the State I reside in, and in many others: Solar. Instead of government picking winners and losers, why not let the marketplace do so? Or simply make ALL technologies that don’t emit significant pollution TAX-FREE so it’s neutral or reduce the tax burden on them so as not to favor one company or sector? i.e. no more Solyndras.
Also, the REASON we have asanine corn ethanol in the US, actually goes back to our system of representation. All States get 2 senators. There are many farm States. So the agribusiness sector is over-represented and gets a disproportionate amount of representation and pork relative to the raw population these Senators represent in largely rural corn belt States. That, coupled with the ignorance of the general public on ‘gasahol’ or ethanol, make it an easy sell. Sure, ALL my engineer buddies think the subsidy was asanine; the general public, not so much. And technically, even if it isn’t subsidized, if you ban the other synthetic oxygenate (MTBE), you are implicitly forcing a market for corn ethanol. As a Chemical Engineer, I regarded BOTH the subsidies AND the mandates as irrational policy. I remember when MTBE was essentially banned for this use. I’ve used it in bulk quantities for other purposes — great solvent too. It had NO issues unless you spilled it into a waterway. Incidentally, Trump actually advocated for a HIGHER ethanol mandate when he was campaigning in Iowa 8 months ago. So he panders for votes just like Shrillery.
People do throw too much s~~~ away. Why not shop at the Goodwill? Why throw a TV out when usually the a capacitor can be fixed? I saw a huge flat screen in a dumpster today. When mine broke, I put it outside with a sign ‘Handy MAN special’. It probably got fixed or parceled out for parts. I DIDN’T throw it in a dumpster.
Why must alternative energy be subsidized? Did Edwin Drake go to the Department of Energy in 1859 to ask for a big subsidy (to drill the first oil well), or did he seek out private investors take the risk on this ‘petroleum oil’ alternative energy to whale oil and finance his drilling tests? Speaking of the Department of Energy, we of course, had no such Department in 1859, and wouldn’t all that money be better allocated by an accountable INVESTMENT process that considers risk/cost/benefit rather than a POLITICAL process (Congress, and lobbyist hooligans)? A great deal of technology was developed in industrial laboratories with NO subsidies. The light bulb, generator, and electric motor come to mind. Historically, the POLITICAL process of capital allocation, has not proven to be very effective at advancing technology. The MARKET process for capital allocation, in contrast, produces innovation. Evidence? Look at the amount of money spent on thermonuclear fusion by DOE over 50 years with zero results.
I actually work for a recycler. We burn a decent amount of natural gas. I don’t view the carbon dioxide as a problem (I realize this puts me in the minority of scientists/engineers). I view burning dirty fuels containing sulfur and that generate particulate, as MUCH more problematic from a pollution standpoint. Or VOC emissions, especially at ground level.
This has been a fascinating read, Thank you. Good talking points to my liberal friends, clearly all of you have deeper insight then I can offer.
I thought i’d just drop my .02 from a blue-collar perspective.
Gob’ment- Earth is heating or cooling or something. We need to act now! If not, you will DIE. A HORRIBLE DEATH.
Citizen- Wow, sounds vicious! I don’t want to DIE. What can I do to help?
Gob’ment- Thank you concerned citizen! Don’t worry too hard, the earth can be fixed. We’ve set up lots and lots of new regulations and bureaucrats. That’ll fix it. All you need to do is give us more of your money to pay for these things, and it’ll stay fixed!
Punks- Not Feeling Lucky Since 1971
Why don’t build more hydro station? It is the most cost efficient of renewable energy.
Asia pacific hydro power amount to 1/3 of total power generation. There are people that keep protesting that dam is bad for the aquatic life there, it is better then fossil fuel power station.
The more cost effective hydro station cost about 1M for 250KW
https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/hydropower/hydropower-learning-centre/how-much-do-hydropower-systems-cost-to-build/US grant 100M for renewable energy research per year where they could use that to build 100 hydro station per year
And Obama want to ramp it up to 2.5B for 10 year.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/02/obama-budget-spends-big-on-climate-clean-energyThat amount of money can turn out hundreds of hydro station every year.
If you check the statistic US have actually very little hydro station and hydroelectric power produced 51% of the total renewable electricity in the U.S. in 2013, and 6.8% of the total U.S. electricity
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_StatesWhy they don’t go for more hydro station instead of this research and that research on renewable energy? It is easier to money laundering with research because research doesn’t need to produce much results. Hydro station have to be build and there is little wiggle room for money corruption.
There is no magic in MGTOW, just recognition of the truth and logical decision how to avoid dangers. The red pill is but the truth, it is no magical potion. Do not think in this modern world men have no longer have natural enemies, men are prey to women and government.
Just wanted to chime in on climate change. My rule of thump is that any scientific extrapolation should be viewed with speculation. The assumption is that we know and understand all the variables involved, when we don’t. We don’t know how things change from a small scale test to large scale. There is almost always too much money rewarded for a ‘favorable’ result. A good result means somebody’s making money or someone’s getting more grant money.
So climate change predictions? Not buying it. Dinosaur theories? Not buying it? Big bang theory? Not buying it. Human evolution? Not buying it. That’s not to say that I’m buying into opposing theories either, I’m content to not know.
Ok. Then do it.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
