Climate Change and Fossil Fuels

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by redeemer216, Jun 16, 2019.

  1. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is all this focus on the green new deal because of the need to get off of climate change. Then why is hardly anyone advocating more research on nuclear power and the building of more of these highly efficient plants? Chernobyl has long passed and the technology is more than safe and reliable even without new breakthroughs. Let's face it, even with renewable energy, solar power/wind power is highly inefficient and it is not going to get us off of fossil fuels any time soon.
     
  2. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Until recently I would have rejected your suggestion as suicidal. As we are now facing the extinction of our species unless we do something radical I suspect you’re right. Only problem is how do we dispose of radioactive waste that’s toxic for thousands of years?
     
    AZ. likes this.
  3. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Contrary to popular belief, even if a nuclear power plant were to go critical, a nuclear explosion is literally impossible. Even so, doing away with nuclear waste is of the most importance, where research would have to be done, maybe finding ways of reducing it's toxicity or throwing it into space.

    There is also the yet unachieved vision of getting a successful self powered fusion reaction going.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  4. Dissily Mordentroge

    Dissily Mordentroge Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,690
    Likes Received:
    673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Throwing things into space is very expensive. However, it would be consistent with our species behavior to just send it off and not worry where it landed.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    More than likely it wouldn't ever land anywhere. Instead it would just eternally orbit the sun which is another problem.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. ArchStanton

    ArchStanton Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2018
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    4,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Back in the late '70s and early '80s, there were some jackasses clamoring about Climate Change but they called it the "Coming Ice Age". In order to save the planet, we had to give up hairspray, R12 freon, and we had to use plastics instead of paper because the rain forests were going extinct.

    Now the same jackasses are clamoring about Climate Change but they call it "Global Warming" and they say we have to get off of Fossil Fuels because that's where plastics come from and plastics are destroying the environment. I've noticed a shift recently back to paper bags.....it's like we're going retro. Idiots.
     
  7. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Oh please. Sensationalist nonsense.
    https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

    Absolutely no one wants to get off fossil fuels because plastic is "bad". The reason is that fossil fuels are inefficient and produce unnatural amounts of carbon dioxide regardless of whether you agree with the facts about climate change. Primitive. Actually, the ONLY thing fossil fuels should be used for is manufacturing, plastics being one of them.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. James Evans

    James Evans Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Huge buried compartment. Warehouse size. Very expensive to do right. The federal gov't should make it a priority but there is not one politician who looks beyond their nose. They are short-sighted because they have to pay back their donors. That's #1 with these people when they get in power.

    If I had to pick a politician who would have my back I would say Elizabeth Warren. She has fought banks and fought for the consumer so many times. Too bad she would never win.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Andrew Yang is actually the only democrat I know of who is advocating for nuclear power.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
    James Evans likes this.
  10. James Evans

    James Evans Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well that's too bad because it is good policy. Like all politicians they realize saying it will only hurt them with their base.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Because nuclear is expense

    Bloody expensive
     
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Then I guarantee that he has not studied cost return
     
  13. James Evans

    James Evans Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Expensive at first, lol. It's like that tankless water heater. In the long run it will save money.
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    upload_2019-6-16_17-45-37.jpeg

    That is a hole caused by an explosion

    Then here is the unexpected
    upload_2019-6-16_17-48-5.jpeg

    Fukushima
     
  15. James Evans

    James Evans Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It will be expensive, but this country needs it. I'm not talking profit margin here.
     
  16. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Once a plant is up and running it's bloody cheap and efficient is what it is. I agree building the plant is bloody expensive. Also, you're going to have to much more specific. What is being included in your cost analysis? Materials, Labor, Environmental Effects, Fuel Usage?
    Neither of which were nuclear explosions. Both were easily preventable, especially after the fact. I'm not saying there aren't many safety issues to work through, but nuclear is the only clear way to go and many those issues have been figured out. Renewable is just not realistic if you really want to get off fossil fuels. There is nowhere near enough power generation consistency to truly support a power grid, even if you were to make solar slightly more efficient.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Very long run and by that time you are facing decommissioning
    https://energypost.eu/nuclear-power-in-crisis-welcome-to-the-era-of-nuclear-decommissioning/

    Meanwhile wind is cheap, solar is booming and battery technology is improving. Meanwhile researchers look into thorium https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ower-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/
     
    AZ. and James Evans like this.
  18. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thorium power generation is another form of nuclear fission. I am all for researching a new generation of nuclear power reactors, but in the meantime, we have what we have. Battery technology is still nowhere close to where it needs to be and the manufacturing process is extremely environmentally unfriendly.

    Regardless if there is a long run required, there is much more at stake than financial cost. Nuclear is still the only real way forward.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
    James Evans likes this.
  19. James Evans

    James Evans Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    redeemer216 likes this.
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Nope!

    upload_2019-6-16_17-59-18.png

    upload_2019-6-16_18-2-7.png

    A couple of different sites but they all show the same thing. Nuclear is not the cheaper option
     
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-14/australias_largest_integrated_battery_solar_farm/11211164

    Read it and weep :p
     
  22. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I was looking forward to a nice article but all I found was a CGI video:)
    Doesn't answer my question / I have no idea what sorts of costs they are taking into account with these charts. Also, I don't nessecarily disagree about the financial costs.

    Also, maybe I'm reading this wrong but the first chart shows that solar is slightly more expensive than nuclear and more irregular. Thermal even more so. Wind is cheaper but highly irregular/inconsistent.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Batteries we are doing the large scale trials for you

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/tesla-battery-south-australia-cost-state-savings-2018-10
     
    redeemer216 likes this.
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,271
    Likes Received:
    46,708
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Look up “levelised cost” because a lot of conventional electricity is heavily subsidised
     
  25. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    21,427
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We use modern nuclear technology which uses a fair chunk of that waste for production of power.

    Approximately 80% of waste produced by old style reactors can be used in modern fast breeder reactors.

    This style of reactor has many benefits. To start with, far less waste is disposed of. Secondly, as they use radioactive material dissolved in salt, there is no water to boil off - no rods to melt down. If the fuel becomes too hot it melts a bung and it flows into cold storage. As there is no risk of uranium melting down into a hyper reactive mix the risk of meltdown is minimal to non-existant.

    I am aware of the issue of nuclear waste, and while there are reactor designs which employ a closed nuclear cycle, with current technology waste is still left over.

    It's worth putting this in context though. If you fly to Chenobyl and walk into the hospital still filled with the very radioactive clothes of workers who died, your greatest dose of radiation is still on the plane, not at the site.

    Furthermore, renewable technology using solar and batteries produces a lot of toxic waste too. Rare earth elements, lead based acid, etc.

    Nuclear also haa the advantage of zero downtime. In Modern Salt Reactors the spent fuel is filtered out in realtime, heavily reducing the time and expense of replacing old style rods. Renewable technology has interminancy issues, which is why I strongly support its use by households in concert with a nuclear grid.

    Currently, solar used by the grid has diesel backup. We should replace this with nuclear.

    Nuclear is the only tech I see which is politically viable. France has 75% nuclear and the second lowest cost in Europe. Our left wing party in Australia just lost the election based on electricity prices and phasing out coal.

    So what I'd like to see is:

    1. Nuclear grid with modern salt and fast breeder reactors, aiming at a closed nuclear fuel cycle in the coming years.

    2. Household solar to reduce electricity bills.

    3. The holy grail, fusion reactors, by 2050. Once we have this the energy issue is effectively resolved.

    ____________________

    Unfortunately, the right is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, and the left is in the pocket of the green industry. Both sides neurotically opposed to nuclear tech based on conspiracy theories and information which is outdated by 3 decades or more.

    I fully acknowledge that this doesn't suit every nation. Japan for instance, using old style reactors that require a lot of water, building them on the coast of the most earthquake prone region anywhere on Earth - not the best idea.

    By contrast, in Australia we have:

    1. Plenty of places hundreds of kilometers from capital cities.

    2. 20% of the world's thorium supply, largest reserves of uranium ore worldwide.

    3. The third best university system in the world, with much specialisation in nuclear physics. We have the know how.

    4. A very well established mining industry.

    5. Minimal to no earthquakes.

    6. Probably the best place for storage of waste anywhere in the world.
     
    Sallyally and redeemer216 like this.

Share This Page