38 replies to this topic

[Hippycrite]

IamLegend, on 11 September 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

But what about the oil companies?!

They're called "Governments".

[Doug1o29]

Br Cornelius, on 11 September 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Thorium is not a magic bullet and it isn't as benign as it is been portrayed. Nuclear doesn't work on so many levels its just not funny. The main one is that Nuclear takes to long to commission to make a meaningful contribution to Climate change - coupled to this is the fact that it has its own "peak" built in which would mean rising costs after about 30 years.

The real clincher is - no-one has resolved the nuclear waste issue and it has been a used technology for 50 years now. The reason is that there is no safe storage solution. Fukishima was statistically right on schedule, so the more nuclear power plants you build the more accidents that will happen. The cost of Chernobyl is running past a half a trillion. The eventual cost of Fukishima will probably be incalculable.

Meanwhile clean green technologies can do almost everything we need at comparable or cheaper cost than Nuclear. To even consider Nuclear is dumb IMO.

Br Cornelius

None of the nuclear technologies has solved the waste problem.  Fast-breeders produce less of it, but they still produce it.  The US' site at Yucca Mountain is more like a sieve than a container.  Cracks and faults reach down to the water table; the place cannot be made completely leak-proof.

I don't know whether green technologies can solve the problem, but we haven't given them a serious try yet.  Let's try them and find out.  I think wind has some real benefits, at least here in the plains AND:  it is already cheaper than coal or oil and pretty close to gas - I'm not sure which is cheaper.  Most of the screaming that green costs more is oil and coal BS.

A friend of mine lives near a "clean coal" plant.  They periodically send around a PR person with pamphlets on how clean they are.  He invites the person back in the spring to help him clean the "clean coal" off his walls.  They never show up.

My home town has a coal-loading facility for loading ships.  The downtrown area is usually black from "clean coal" dust.  Just ask someone who lives near a coal facility how clean they are.
Doug

[Merc14]

I remember back in the late '70s, pointed headed liberal scientists were screaming about global cooling and the next ice age that was just around the corner.  Humorously, just as this pointed headed scientist blathers on about making white clouds to reflect sunlight, the pointy heads back in the '70s talked about making black clouds to absorb more sunlight.   LMAO.

[Hippycrite]

Doug1o29, on 11 September 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

None of the nuclear technologies has solved the waste problem.  Fast-breeders produce less of it, but they still produce it.  The US' site at Yucca Mountain is more like a sieve than a container.  Cracks and faults reach down to the water table; the place cannot be made completely leak-proof.

I don't know whether green technologies can solve the problem, but we haven't given them a serious try yet.  Let's try them and find out.  I think wind has some real benefits, at least here in the plains AND:  it is already cheaper than coal or oil and pretty close to gas - I'm not sure which is cheaper.  Most of the screaming that green costs more is oil and coal BS.

A friend of mine lives near a "clean coal" plant.  They periodically send around a PR person with pamphlets on how clean they are.  He invites the person back in the spring to help him clean the "clean coal" off his walls.  They never show up.

My home town has a coal-loading facility for loading ships.  The downtrown area is usually black from "clean coal" dust.  Just ask someone who lives near a coal facility how clean they are.
Doug

I've lived a few miles from one for over thirty years and its not been a problem. I don't doubt that they are dirtier than the PR/propaganda literature tells us, but for some reason we've been fortunate with our plant. When they first built it, that was the main fear we had- black smoke billowing from the smokestacks, covering everything in a layer of soot. But it didn't happen. And this plant was built before "clean coal" became a catchphrase. The thing is, they say we have a 300 year supply in the US, but that figure is based on current consumption. If we increase consumption even a couple of percent, the supply is cut exponentially. And if we export it (gotta make that money) we probably won't have enough to last the rest of this century. I guess we'll eventually weed ourselves out of the food chain.

[Br Cornelius]

Merc14, on 11 September 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

I remember back in the late '70s, pointed headed liberal scientists were screaming about global cooling and the next ice age that was just around the corner.  Humorously, just as this pointed headed scientist blathers on about making white clouds to reflect sunlight, the pointy heads back in the '70s talked about making black clouds to absorb more sunlight.   LMAO.

So wrong - so  misinformed - you should actually check the facts before making yourself look foolish.
Global cooling was never more than a fringe notion put forward by a few misguided scientists.

You must be living on a diet of Global Warming denial.

Br Cornelius

[None of the above]

Br Cornelius, on 11 September 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

So wrong - so  misinformed - you should actually check the facts before making yourself look foolish.
Global cooling was never more than a fringe notion put forward by a few misguided scientists.

You must be living on a diet of Global Warming denial.

Br Cornelius

That diet is as popular as Atkins in some parts of the USA!

[Br Cornelius]

Hippycrite, on 11 September 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

I've lived a few miles from one for over thirty years and its not been a problem. I don't doubt that they are dirtier than the PR/propaganda literature tells us, but for some reason we've been fortunate with our plant. When they first built it, that was the main fear we had- black smoke billowing from the smokestacks, covering everything in a layer of soot. But it didn't happen. And this plant was built before "clean coal" became a catchphrase. The thing is, they say we have a 300 year supply in the US, but that figure is based on current consumption. If we increase consumption even a couple of percent, the supply is cut exponentially. And if we export it (gotta make that money) we probably won't have enough to last the rest of this century. I guess we'll eventually weed ourselves out of the food chain.

It has long been possible to scrub the stacks of coal power stations to reduce sulphates, particulates and smoke. This doesn't make it clean however since it is grossly inefficient at about 30% energy conversion to electricity. On top of that because of its molecular structure it produces twice as much CO2 as natural gas.
Clean coal is the fanciful notion that you can capture and safely store the CO2 emissions from the stack. As yet there is no commercially viable coal power station doing that, and there are reasons to believe that it will never be commercially viable to achieve carbon capture.

Coal is intrinsically dirty since even if you scrub its emissions of SO4, Mercury and particulates these products need to be stored which is itself expensive. The CO2 emissions are the thing which will eventually kill off coal as a source of electricity. The only situation where it can be considered a useful fuel is for heat in a domestic situation where it delivers more of its energy load as useful heat.

By the way - fast breeder reactors have never overcome their intrinsic technical difficulties to a degree where the technology can be commercially realized. There is a whole industry of Nuclear propaganda out there selling the idea that a cheaper, safer technology is just around the corner - fast breeder and thorium are just another flavour. The only version of a Thorium reactor which is relatively less waste generating is one using a particle accelerator and as yet there is no particle accellerator both small enough and energy efficient enough to produce over unity results. All the other flavours of Thorium reactors use Uranium as the Neutron seed source - which make the byproducts almost as dangerous as a conventional reactor.  

Br Cornelius

[Hippycrite]

Br Cornelius, on 11 September 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

It has long been possible to scrub the stacks of coal power stations to reduce sulphates, particulates and smoke. This doesn't make it clean however since it is grossly inefficient at about 30% energy conversion to electricity. On top of that because of its molecular structure it produces twice as much CO2 as natural gas.
Clean coal is the fanciful notion that you can capture and safely store the CO2 emissions from the stack. As yet there is no commercially viable coal power station doing that, and there are reasons to believe that it will never be commercially viable to achieve carbon capture.

Coal is intrinsically dirty since even if you scrub its emissions of SO4, Mercury and particulates these products need to be stored which is itself expensive. The CO2 emissions are the thing which will eventually kill off coal as a source of electricity. The only situation where it can be considered a useful fuel is for heat in a domestic situation where it delivers more of its energy load as useful heat.

By the way - fast breeder reactors have never overcome their intrinsic technical difficulties to a degree where the technology can be commercially realized. There is a whole industry of Nuclear propaganda out there selling the idea that a cheaper, safer technology is just around the corner - fast breeder and thorium are just another flavour. The only version of a Thorium reactor which is relatively less waste generating is one using a particle accelerator and as yet there is no particle accellerator both small enough and energy efficient enough to produce over unity results. All the other flavours of Thorium reactors use Uranium as the Neutron seed source - which make the byproducts almost as dangerous as a conventional reactor.  

Br Cornelius

Also there is the massive water consumption of coal-fired plants. Upwards of 2 Billion gallons per year for a 500 megawatt generator, which is unrecoverable. Our local plant draws reserves from an already stressed aquifer via water rights purchased from area farmers and ranchers, and has secured more water rights ahead of a planned expansion of the plant. Being situated in a remote, rural area, I'm guessing that poisoning and depleting the water here isn't a big concern since it won't affect as many people.

[regeneratia]

i honestly believe that cheap fusion is just around the corner.

Edited by regeneratia, 12 September 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[regeneratia]

Merc14, on 11 September 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

I remember back in the late '70s, pointed headed liberal scientists were screaming about global cooling and the next ice age that was just around the corner.  Humorously, just as this pointed headed scientist blathers on about making white clouds to reflect sunlight, the pointy heads back in the '70s talked about making black clouds to absorb more sunlight.   LMAO.

I agree with the opinion that climate change is not totally anthropomorphic in nature. However, your use of condescention towards people totally obliterates, destroys everything you have to say. Name-calling invalidates your opinion. Surely there is a better way to express yourself, somehow without the use of name-calling and ridicule.

Science doubles it's knowledge base every three to five years. What happens in the 70's is far less advanced than what we have today. It also makes all science today questionable because we know that we will still be learning, still doubling our knowledge base three to five years in the future. Better to not take a stance on this. Better to sit on the fence and watch the science come and go.

Edited by regeneratia, 12 September 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[regeneratia]

You over the ogallala?

Hippycrite, on 11 September 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Also there is the massive water consumption of coal-fired plants. Upwards of 2 Billion gallons per year for a 500 megawatt generator, which is unrecoverable. Our local plant draws reserves from an already stressed aquifer via water rights purchased from area farmers and ranchers, and has secured more water rights ahead of a planned expansion of the plant. Being situated in a remote, rural area, I'm guessing that poisoning and depleting the water here isn't a big concern since it won't affect as many people.

Edited by regeneratia, 12 September 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[regeneratia]

There is free energy out there. it is known how to access it. There is absolutely no good reason why The People cannot access it.

Our inability to have free energy has to do with some of the people and their money god, it has to do with their greed and avariceness, certainly qualities no one wants to see in their fellow man.

Edited by regeneratia, 12 September 2012 - 05:33 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

regeneratia, on 12 September 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

i honestly believe that cheap fusion is just around the corner.

Even when they overcome the technical issues - optimistic estimates are 20-30 years into the future. Again this is just to late to avoid global warming.
There is also the small issue that if cheap energy were to be introduced, it would accelerate all the other resource crisis which we face.

A rebalanced Civilization, which really understands and applies the principles of sustainability, is what we really need.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 September 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Merc14, on 11 September 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

I remember back in the late '70s, pointed headed liberal scientists were screaming about global cooling and the next ice age that was just around the corner.  Humorously, just as this pointed headed scientist blathers on about making white clouds to reflect sunlight, the pointy heads back in the '70s talked about making black clouds to absorb more sunlight.   LMAO.

There was a slight dip in global temps in 1964 to 1965 and 1974 to 1976.  No scientist is going to claim that a three-year downturn is anything more than a blip on the radar.  This was entirely the work of popular writers who wrote up stuff without doing any research to see if it was true.  To the best of my knowledge there are no research articles that made that claim.

This ranks right up there with deniers who try to use the slight dip in temps between 1999 and 2003 to claim that global warming has ended.
Doug

[regeneratia]

If you are keeping on the front edge of the science, it appears that issue has been conquored. Look on eurekalert. I think I found it on phys.org as well.

We cannot avoid global warming. It is a natural process. It has to do with the evolution of the sun and cosmos.
Did you know that another galaxy went right thru our own recently? Look it up. That surely has an effect on our own galaxy. But did this news make mainstream media? Nope.

While I reject the mindset that man again is at the center of the universe and harming it, I do agreed on the remedies. We should certainly be doing them, no question about it.

i also have a serious question on who actually made CO2 the warming culprit and where is the science to back it up?

Br Cornelius, on 12 September 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Even when they overcome the technical issues - optimistic estimates are 20-30 years into the future. Again this is just to late to avoid global warming.
There is also the small issue that if cheap energy were to be introduced, it would accelerate all the other resource crisis which we face.

A rebalanced Civilization, which really understands and applies the principles of sustainability, is what we really need.

Br Cornelius

Edited by regeneratia, 12 September 2012 - 05:54 PM.