Cutting Back on Carbon

This is funny.

People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity

Report: DC’s green-approved buildings using more energy

 

I'm not disagreeing with you on the inadequacy of solar but if you think CCS is the sine qua non solution based on absolutely no serious projections to that effect then I guess it is going to be a long night, and hot one.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/iea-co2-emissions-data-17459
A little interactive tool to use.

 

What we need to do is no big secret. Here is the CCS part of the link.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-capture-faces-hurdles-of-will-not-technology-17321

What we don't have is any country or energy company that projects such a solution. China for instance still has them employing fossil fuel for 66% of energy in 2035. How much of that is going to be covered by CCS? Not much is my impression but someone may have a more hopeful scenario from a serious energy projection ie 2 deg. temp. rise limit. By all means produce it. What we need to do does not count as a serious projection.

 

I still believe Fusion (an energy with a future) should be advanced to cut down on carbon emissions. Simply playing shell games with Statism does little more than encourage that form of vice (after thrice) in politicians.

 

Nuclear energy is the cleanest and most efficient.

 

what about chernobyl and fukushima?

 

What about the hundreds of thousands of radioactive particles released from coal every year? What about all the deaths caused by mining coal? What about the reactors all around the world that have been operating successfully for decades now?

Chernobyl: Direct deaths (of workers at the plant) 47. Other than than all there are 4,000 'extra' cancer deaths attributed to, but not proven to be, a direct result.

Fukushima: 0 deaths.

Kyshtym: (Soviet Union) 8,000 estimated in the preceding 32 years. Soviet secrecy causes unreliable stats. The only real evidence is 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome in the area closest to the accident.

It should be noted that prior Soviet nuclear plants were bad designs that the U.S. discarded decades ago.

We have no control over what the Soviet Union did and today Russia does and radioactivity from those accidents have no measurable affect on anyone in the U.S. The hundreds of nuclear facilities around the world emit almost 0 radiation and the spent fuel is being reprocessed for re-use which significantly limits nuclear waste.

You will get more radiation eating a banana than any previous nuclear plant disaster.

 

i've referred to coal as dirty energy, several times in this thread

they're piling up radioactive waste

 

Yet you didn't know that it is spewing RADIOACTIVE particles on a daily basis 24/7 year after year. Hundreds and thousands of tons of it.

Which is safely stored and far less than the hundreds and thousands of tons of RADIOACTIVE coal particles in our atmosphere that are raining down on all of us every day. BTW, you can't attribute cancer to failed nuclear plants unless all other sources of cancer are eliminated.

 

sure i did and lots of other things emit radioactive particles, too

sure it is

 

So why be so worried about nuclear energy which emits almost 0 radioactivity in a functioning power plant?

At least it's stored. Should we lock up bananas too? How about coal? Both are emitting more radioactivity than any stored nuclear waste.

 

nuclear wastes are hazardous for tens of thousands of years

we still don't have a viable way to dispose of it and as history shows, nuclear accidents happen

 

That's why the nuclear ants should be using thorium instead.

 

That depends on the prices of utilizing coal and natural gas. The capital investment to build a nuclear power plant are astronomical. And since Fukushima, no one really wants to build them, except to finish the one in Georgia.

 

Indeed capital investment is higher however fuel costs for nuclear power are significantly lower allowing recoup of capital investment and, after that, it generally beats coal & gas fired electric generation by 1% to as much as 3% on-going. Wind and hydro electric generation are cheaper but limited regionally. This does not take into account carbon control for fossil fuels which will add cost.

Currently 100 nuclear plants in 31 states provide 20% of all U.S. electricity to the tune of 789 billion KW. Nuclear plants produce electricity 24/7 at 91% capacity. 1 uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as 1 ton of coal or 17,00 cubic feet of natural gas.

Here are more facts..

http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-...-Sheets/Quick-Facts-Nuclear-Energy-In-America

 

Nuclear waste decays progressively and has a finite radiotoxic life. High-level wastes will decay to original mined uranium in 1,000 to 10,000 years depending on concentration. That being said, most nuclear waste are only hazardous for a few decades.

Heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury (which are other industrial wastes) stay hazardous indefinitely.

More here...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/n...tes/radioactive-wastes---myths-and-realities/

 

I still believe we should advance fusion, especially in California and be liberal enough to desalinate ocean water for commercial purposes and be social enough to help with rising sea levels.

 

Supporting fusion is like supporting teleportation. It's a nice fantasy, but it doesn't do any actual good, and diverts attention from practical solutions.

 

Thorium is safer

 

that's a long time, especially when more is continuously being made

 

Actually most of it is reprocessed and re-used. France has been doing this for decades now successfully. And, you need to realize that burning coal constantly emits MORE radiation than any operating nuclear plant or storage facility.

 

No it isn't. That is obsolete propaganda and rhetoric. All we need is the equivalent to a Manhattan Project to get it in eight years or less.

- - - Updated - - -

have any links?

 

like i've been saying for a long time, coal is dirty energy

but, that's no excuse for what happened at chernobyl and fukushima

 

I believe buildings are more needful, for a Manhattan Project for Fusion, than they are necessary and proper for a War on Drugs.