Jump to content

Greta Rides Again?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

A great point - using depleted uranium is a good idea. (Which is why I previously mentioned it, GauchoGreg knows this because he responded to me last November).

GauchoGreg really pushes nuclear.

There are desalination projects powered by solar, and more planned. Notably in Dubai. So nuclear is definitely not the only option.

The new problem that nuclear has to overcome is that according to EIA (and others) is that solar and wind are far cheaper to build and run than nuclear, plus the existing unresolved issue of what to do with depleted uranium.

AGAIN, you utilize elevated costs for nuclear created by "green" opposition to oppose nuclear in favor of the "green" favored systems.  I love that circular logic.  My debate points are that the Green opposition to nuclear is what is as wrong as anything, not that wind/solar are inherently bad, and certainly not that nuclear is the only option.  I believe that there are good applications for all of these energy sources, and that even includes gas & coal once we have gotten a grip on total emissions.

What I do like about nuclear is the incredibly small footprint it requires for the energy produced.  It does not require huge swaths of land or sea, it does not require damming rivers.  In a tiny footprint, it provides no-emission energy as needed, when needed, and with a nearly endless potential for increased power with limited additional demand of land &/or sea.  I have no dog in the fight other than I love nature (big fisherman and hunter), love the seas (surfer, sailor, diver, fisherman), and own my own business.  I do not want, nor do I want to force others to drive shitty little cars or have smaller houses than they may otherwise want.  I also want global CO2 emissions to be reduced as quickly as possible in the event that the warnings of anthropomorphic global warming is as big of a threat that it appears it may be, and I want our rivers to be fuller and healthier for human kind and nature.

EDIT:

I understand there are manners to desal with solar, and they can be great at times, but again, high land demands, so not great for many desal applications and in many places.... can be counter-productive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LB forwarded to the ED for a full ban due to attempted identification.

Thanks for those posting information on the excellent sailing adventures Greta has taken.  I dropped by here to learn about her second voyage and found what I was looking to learn.  I came pretty clos

The young lady sure has managed to get a lot of old folks' knickers in twists 

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Huh? He has been banned many times in the past for exactly the same thing. Oh well bye bye everyone. Thanks for the laughs.

Don't leave (don't ban him, Clean).... we would be hopeless/helpless without your marching orders. 

Sheesh....

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Number of countries who generate most (+50%) of their power from renewable sources: 42

Number of countries whose economy were ruined as a result: 0

Using renewable sources to generate electricity is not insanity. I'd put forward the opposite is true.

Reminder of key countries use of renewable sources to generate power:

  • Norway 97.2%
  • Kenya 90.7%
  • New Zealand 83.9%
  • Canada 65.0%
  • Sweden 57.1%
  • Germany 46.2%
  • United Kingdom 38.9%
  • Vietnam 38.6%
  • Italy 37.3%
  • China 24.5%
  • France 17.5%
  • India 16.9%
  • Russia 16.9%
  • USA 14.7%
  • Australia 14.5%

Some countries really need to improve. I've used IRENA/EIA for the above data, current as of June 2018. (I'd love to hear of other sources, particularly any which are more up to date.) Maybe Australia the US can benefit from experts from Norway and Kenya to help them learn how to improve.

Yes, it would be very impressive if Norway's and Kenya's experts could show the driest populated nation on the planet how to generate 50% + of our needs from hydro power.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

AGAIN, you utilize elevated costs for nuclear created by "green" opposition to oppose nuclear in favor of the "green" favored systems.  I love that circular logic.  My debate points are that the Green opposition to nuclear is what is as wrong as anything, not that wind/solar are inherently bad, and certainly not that nuclear is the only option.  I believe that there are good applications for all of these energy sources, and that even includes gas & coal once we have gotten a grip on total emissions.

What I do like about nuclear is the incredibly small footprint it requires for the energy produced.  It does not require huge swaths of land or sea, it does not require damming rivers.  In a tiny footprint, it provides no-emission energy as needed, when needed, and with a nearly endless potential for increased power with limited additional demand of land &/or sea.  I have no dog in the fight other than I love nature (big fisherman and hunter), love the seas (surfer, sailor, diver, fisherman), and own my own business.  I do not want, nor do I want to force others to drive shitty little cars or have smaller houses than they may otherwise want.  I also want global CO2 emissions to be reduced as quickly as possible in the event that the warnings of anthropomorphic global warming is as big of a threat that it appears it may be, and I want our rivers to be fuller and healthier for human kind and nature.

I explicitly said that solar was less expensive than nuclear according to EIA and others. (This is their published position). When I looked at the EIA reports, I couldn't reach the same conclusion that they were particularly biased in any way. Can you explain? Also, I've attempted to find information that supports your position of political interference of the reports I've read and couldn't. Basically any information that backs you up would help your case.

Also, the big question is what to do with depleted uranium. If anything, the EIA's costs in my view were on the low side for nuclear waste. They included costs for storage, which is not a sustainable practice, unless you want acres radioactive storage. I have failed to find anyone who has a good solution for nuclear waste. Since you are a fan of nuclear, and of being kinder to the environment, I'd be keen to hear if you know how anyone has resolved this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I explicitly said that solar was less expensive than nuclear according to EIA and others. (This is their published position). When I looked at the EIA reports, I couldn't reach the same conclusion that they were particularly biased in any way. Can you explain? Also, I've attempted to find information that supports your position of political interference of the reports I've read and couldn't. Basically any information that backs you up would help your case.

Also, the big question is what to do with depleted uranium. If anything, the EIA's costs in my view were on the low side for nuclear waste. They included costs for storage, which is not a sustainable practice, unless you want acres radioactive storage. I have failed to find anyone who has a good solution for nuclear waste. Since you are a fan of nuclear, and of being kinder to the environment, I'd be keen to hear if you know how anyone has resolved this.

If power generation was only about cost then, regardless of what the renewable spin doctors say, coal (sans "CO2 cost") would be king.

10 reasons why coal is a good energy source:

Quote
  1. Cheapest source of energy.  It is by far cheaper than nuclear, natural gas, oil.  Hydro usually will be slightly cheaper.  However,  problems with hydro include: no new facilities because of public outcry when river valleys are dammed; and, peak demand time problems (rivers running dry in the dead of summer when peak air conditioning is needed and rivers are frozen in the dead of winter when peak heating is needed).

  2. Coal also provides a stable source of energy (no Arab oil embargoes, no sudden scarcity like you experience with natural gas) and there is a very plentiful supply both in the U.S. and in other foreign countries.

  3. Coal is nothing more than ancient wood which has been under pressure for millions of years.  It is not sinister as you may have been led to believe.

  4. Coal provides many jobs.  Unlike other forms of energy (nuclear, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric), coal provides many jobs in removing coal from the earth, transporting it to the utility, burning it, and properly disposing of coal ash.

  5. Coal is American made.  We do not have to import this product into this country.

  6. Coal can be mined and burned with little environmental impact.  There has been tremendous strides in environmental responsibility with mining coal and burning coal.  However, there still is pressure of global warming.  If we burn less fossil fuels, what, as a practical matter, is our energy alternative?  Nuclear?  Hydro?  Solar (there is no practical way to provide the massive amounts of electricity needed to run our country through solar energy---it is viewed as impractical at this time)?

  7. Coal mining reclamation can give the surface landowner many more options for developing his land.  In the mountainous terrain, a mining process call mountaintop removal can create very valuable and useable level land for the surface owner.  The surface owner not only gets his land developed, he usually is paid 50 cents a ton for the inconvenience of the use of his surface.  Surface mining cannot occur without the specific consent of the surface owner.  If the surface owner is lucky enough to own the coal rights, he's looking at another $2.00 a ton for royalty payments.  In 1977 the federal Surface Mining Law was passed that required coal operators to reclaim the land in an equal, if not better, condition that existed prior to mining.  We're doing an excellent job with our reclamation efforts.  I would suggest that you go to http://www.osmre.gov/.  This is the web site of the federal agency that oversees coal mining from an environmental standpoint.

  8. The prudent us of coal will allow the U. S. the time needed to develop viable alternative energy sources---primarily solar  technology and fuel from grain---without any negative impact on our national economy.

  9. Coal provides 56% of the electricity used in the nation each day.  It provides 95% of Kentucky's electricity.  Electrical rates in Kentucky are the second lowest in the nation---because of coal.

  10. Coal is good for Kentucky's economy.  The Kentucky coal industry brought $3.1 billion into Kentucky from out-of-state during Fiscal Year 1996-97 through coal sales to customers in 29 other states and 15 foreign countries.  In Kentucky, it paid over $800 million in direct wages, directly employing over 19,000 persons and indirectly providing an additional 60,000 jobs.  In addition to all the normal business taxes, the coal industry in Kentucky paid an additional $160 million in severance taxes to the state.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

Yes, it would be very impressive if Norway's and Kenya's experts could show the driest populated nation on the planet how to generate 50% + of our needs from hydro power.

No, you appear to be twisting what I said. Here's an example of a solar powered desalination plant in Kenya: https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/solar-powered-desalination-plant-gives-fresh-water-to-mombasa-residents/

Someone like Murtaza Jaffer could provide expertise to a poor community like Biloxi, Mississippi on how they did it in Kenya.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

If power generation was only about cost then, regardless of what the renewable spin doctors say, coal (sans "CO2 cost") would be king.

10 reasons why coal is a good energy source:

Agreed, though you are taking a limited view of what the costs are. If the cost is a compromised environment, then that might be a good reason to not 

Also, there are gullible people who vote who get misinformed by the continued posting of such information (even as a joke), which does not give the full picture.

35 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

I also want global CO2 emissions to be reduced as quickly as possible in the event that the warnings of anthropomorphic global warming is as big of a threat that it appears it may be, and I want our rivers to be fuller and healthier for human kind and nature.

I'd love to hear GauchoGreg to respond to Toecutter's Ghost's post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

No, you appear to be twisting what I said. Here's an example of a solar powered desalination plant in Kenya: https://www.kenyanews.go.ke/solar-powered-desalination-plant-gives-fresh-water-to-mombasa-residents/

Someone like Murtaza Jaffer could provide expertise to a poor community like Biloxi, Mississippi on how they did it in Kenya.

My apologies. I failed to realise Australia was short on solar powered desalination plants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed, though you are taking a limited view of what the costs are. If the cost is a compromised environment, then that might be a good reason to not 

Also, there are gullible people who vote who get misinformed by the continued posting of such information (even as a joke), which does not give the full picture.

I'd love to hear GauchoGreg to respond to Toecutter's Ghost's post.

Sprinkling plant food into the air only "compromises the environment" if you're a clueless alarmist. Do I need to repost my random set of "The World In Data" graphs again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

My apologies. I failed to realise Australia was short on solar powered desalination plants.

Mississippi is in the United States, not Australia, which was the specific example I had in mind when I posted it. There are some poor communities in Northern Australia which could also benefit.

The wind powered desalination plants in Perth and Sydney are impressive!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I explicitly said that solar was less expensive than nuclear according to EIA and others. (This is their published position). When I looked at the EIA reports, I couldn't reach the same conclusion that they were particularly biased in any way. Can you explain? Also, I've attempted to find information that supports your position of political interference of the reports I've read and couldn't. Basically any information that backs you up would help your case.

Also, the big question is what to do with depleted uranium. If anything, the EIA's costs in my view were on the low side for nuclear waste. They included costs for storage, which is not a sustainable practice, unless you want acres radioactive storage. I have failed to find anyone who has a good solution for nuclear waste. Since you are a fan of nuclear, and of being kinder to the environment, I'd be keen to hear if you know how anyone has resolved this.

FACT:  opposition to nuclear power has driven huge delay (which costs tons of money), legal fees (dealing with appeals, etc.), insurance costs, and financing costs.  There is no way, in an apples-apples manner to fully quantify that added cost, but it is clearly very real, and clearly the major component of the run up of costs (almost all other technology goes down in cost if not thrown FUBAR by politics).   Sorry if that does not satisfy your linear thinking of studies, but tough.

As for waste, the total volume of destabilized nuclear fuel is relatively tiny.  In most cases, the best option is simply to retain on site in pools and/or glass-beaded and kept in lead-lined coffins until it re-stabilizes and can again be used.  But if it must be moved, it can again easily be kept in containers and sent to centralized storage places, such as man-made bunkers or salt mines, etc.  Again, this is an issue that was created by the anti-nuclear movement, doing all they could do to scuttle the industry, rather than fundamental challenges dealing with the "waste".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed, though you are taking a limited view of what the costs are. If the cost is a compromised environment, then that might be a good reason to not 

Also, there are gullible people who vote who get misinformed by the continued posting of such information (even as a joke), which does not give the full picture.

I'd love to hear GauchoGreg to respond to Toecutter's Ghost's post.

My response?  Coal has its place, and there are some very interesting prospects for capturing and using carbon emitted from coal burning... but I do not claim to have researched or understand it.  I do believe prudent use of coal in advanced coal power plants will remain a significant component of a smart energy program that results in decreased overall CO2 emissions.  But I am a proponent of decreasing our dependence on it, as is reasoned and logical in a comprehensive energy plan that considers emissions, other environmental considerations (land usage), and the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Toecutter's Ghost said:

Sprinkling plant food into the air only "compromises the environment" if you're a clueless alarmist. Do I need to repost my random set of "The World In Data" graphs again?

No thank you.

3 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

My apologies for failing to read your mind.

You didn't need to read my mind, because I said it.

I apologize for being argumentative.

So as a punishment I shall set your account to ignore, and will no longer get the benefit of your wise, considered comments.

---

Done

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

No thank you.

You didn't need to read my mind, because I said it.

I apologize for being argumentative.

So as a punishment I shall set your account to ignore, and will no longer get the benefit of your wise, considered comments.

---

Done

You'll be arguing with no one but yourself before you know it

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

My response?  Coal has its place, and there are some very interesting prospects for capturing and using carbon emitted from coal burning... but I do not claim to have researched or understand it.  I do believe prudent use of coal in advanced coal power plants will remain a significant component of a smart energy program that results in decreased overall CO2 emissions.  But I am a proponent of decreasing our dependence on it, as is reasoned and logical in a comprehensive energy plan that considers emissions, other environmental considerations (land usage), and the economy.

An interesting position to take. It seems that quite a few people are taking a different approach, for example Germany will be eliminating coal from their mix of power generation.

Your raising of the impact on the economy is apt, and favors solar over coal, as solar recently became cheaper than coal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

You'll be arguing with no one but yourself before you know it

(Hmmm...  last message I guess.)

That is a risk I shall gladly take.

GauchoGreg is an example of someone who makes some excellent points that I doubt I will ever ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gadgetguy.com.au/700-dodgy-solar-installers-rip-off-over-650000-homeowners-stop-the-energy-rip-off/

image.png.abcf3822629359541bdde4a9c8792c87.png

Quote

More than 700+ dodgy solar installers have gone broke or out of business since 2011 according to battery supplier LG Energy. This affects some 650,000 homeowners from over two million installs. No industry should have a 33% ‘orphan rate’.

LG Energy took the bold step of publishing the list of 700+ dodgy solar installers here, but that is cold comfort for those who cannot get warranty on often very dodgy systems. In NSW alone the solar regulator has declared that some 20% of installations have severe faults, and 60% have serious deficiencies.

 

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/05/16/wind-power-fraud-wind-industrys-greatest-capacity-is-for-total-delusion/

Wind Power Fraud: Wind Industry’s Greatest ‘Capacity’ is for Total Delusion

image.png.00c8257c8ec3f892f9d6d7d8b5ced818.png

Quote

Those pumping wind and solar only ever talk about capacity, which is like being told that the cheque is in the mail. The kind of fantastic promise made by those who hope it never collides with reality. But, like the cheque that never arrives (and bounces when it does), promises that wind power delivers are not just hollow, they’re a delusion.

Coal and nuclear power generation don’t need a second system like pumped hydro, mythical mega-batteries or prayers to Mother Nature in order to deliver power 24 x 365, whatever the weather. These are ‘systems’ and, by definition, systems work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar equipment failures spark demand for defective building material coverage

Quote

As solar energy becomes more popular in the United States, reports suggesting an increase in equipment failures could lead to a sudden spike in solar contractors seeking coverage for defective building materials.

From 1999 to 2009, failure rates as high as 15% were measured along key metrics within the International Electrotechnical Commission's design qualification and safety testing regimen, according to a pair of reports published in July by the Solar America Board for Codes and Standards, an advisory coalition for the solar industry funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

FACT:  opposition to nuclear power has driven huge delay (which costs tons of money), legal fees (dealing with appeals, etc.), insurance costs, and financing costs.  There is no way, in an apples-apples manner to fully quantify that added cost, but it is clearly very real, and clearly the major component of the run up of costs (almost all other technology goes down in cost if not thrown FUBAR by politics).   Sorry if that does not satisfy your linear thinking of studies, but tough.

As for waste, the total volume of destabilized nuclear fuel is relatively tiny.  In most cases, the best option is simply to retain on site in pools and/or glass-beaded and kept in lead-lined coffins until it re-stabilizes and can again be used.  But if it must be moved, it can again easily be kept in containers and sent to centralized storage places, such as man-made bunkers or salt mines, etc.  Again, this is an issue that was created by the anti-nuclear movement, doing all they could do to scuttle the industry, rather than fundamental challenges dealing with the "waste".

Thanks. Nuclear and its costs is an area I'd like to read up on and learn more about. EIA's research doesn't strike me as resembling what you describe, their costings seem to be objective and based on recent research. (If you have anything that specifically shows how the EIA costings are compromised, I'd love to hear.) 

When we first started talking about this back in November I mentioned the Netflix doco on Bill Gates which featured a project he was investing in, which used depleted Uranium. While the waste is meant to be stored as you say, the practice is not always followed, and the doco outlined the issues succinctly. There are reports which support this, which are not written by extreme greenies with and agenda. I respectively suggest you read up on this.  From memory, they said there is enough depleted uranium to run power plants at the same level of generation for 300 years. One of the outstanding side benefits is that it further depletes the already depleted uranium. They made the point that they could upgrade existing nuclear power plants to do this. I'm unsure about the cost.

One of the points you made was about nuclear being the only real way to power desalination plants. You should check out the wind powered desalination plants in Perth and Sydney. The process has waste (brine), and there are developments in dealing with that. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719334655)

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

My response?  Coal has its place, and there are some very interesting prospects for capturing and using carbon emitted from coal burning... but I do not claim to have researched or understand it.  I do believe prudent use of coal in advanced coal power plants will remain a significant component of a smart energy program that results in decreased overall CO2 emissions.  But I am a proponent of decreasing our dependence on it, as is reasoned and logical in a comprehensive energy plan that considers emissions, other environmental considerations (land usage), and the economy.

That is starting to sound the the great myth of "clean coal". 

In the meantime, the $7,000,000,000,000 dollar investment fund BlackRock has just decided to dump all of its investments in fossil fuel industries.  They have determined fossil fuels to not be investment grade businesses.  

I wonder if they are reading the same material as Greta.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

You'll be arguing with no one but yourself before you know it

 

I feel picked on now, Bruce hasn't put me on ignore. And with LB possibly going away forever how will I know what to do anymore.

Not sure I love this place anymore.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Thanks. Nuclear and its costs is an area I'd like to read up on and learn more about. EIA's research doesn't strike me as resembling what you describe, their costings seem to be objective and based on recent research. (If you have anything that specifically shows how the EIA costings are compromised, I'd love to hear.) 

When we first started talking about this back in November I mentioned the Netflix doco on Bill Gates which featured a project he was investing in, which used depleted Uranium. While the waste is meant to be stored as you say, the practice is not always followed, and the doco outlined the issues succinctly. There are reports which support this, which are not written by extreme greenies with and agenda. I respectively suggest you read up on this.  From memory, they said there is enough depleted uranium to run power plants at the same level of generation for 300 years. One of the outstanding side benefits is that it further depletes the already depleted uranium. They made the point that they could upgrade existing nuclear power plants to do this. I'm unsure about the cost.

One of the points you made was about nuclear being the only real way to power desalination plants. You should check out the wind powered desalination plants in Perth and Sydney. The process has waste (brine), and there are developments in dealing with that. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719334655)

I will try to see that documentary on Gates.... I do find that kind of thing fascinating.

Forgive me, I should have been more clear regarding desalination, the only way to power high-volume desalination without large amounts of land dedicated to the desalination process or the power needed for the desalination process, is by using nuclear (I suppose natural gas or coal would work, too, but kind of defeating part of the purpose).  Absolutely, there are other ways to desalinate water, some very efficiently, but they typically require a great deal of land.

By the way, this may be dated, but still interesting:https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2015/07/solar-desalination-saves-cropland-californias-central-valley

One use I heard for using the brine from desal was to use it to create drywall, I believe.

Anyway, I hope my point is coming across that my main issue has always been the lack of reason behind banning any power source and promoting another.  If reason is foremost, rather than fear or other irrational motivations, then I'm good with any power source.  But I do not believe we should WANT to reduce our quality of life, or degrade the environment in one place in favor of the environment somewhere else if it is not necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

BlackRock has just decided to dump all of its investments in fossil fuel industries. 

Maybe not...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-14/blackrock-s-uncomfortable-truth-going-green-won-t-be-easy?srnd=premium

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

I will try to see that documentary on Gates.... I do find that kind of thing fascinating.

Forgive me, I should have been more clear regarding desalination, the only way to power high-volume desalination without large amounts of land dedicated to the desalination process or the power needed for the desalination process, is by using nuclear (I suppose natural gas or coal would work, too, but kind of defeating part of the purpose).  Absolutely, there are other ways to desalinate water, some very efficiently, but they typically require a great deal of land.

By the way, this may be dated, but still interesting:https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2015/07/solar-desalination-saves-cropland-californias-central-valley

One use I heard for using the brine from desal was to use it to create drywall, I believe.

Anyway, I hope my point is coming across that my main issue has always been the lack of reason behind banning any power source and promoting another.  If reason is foremost, rather than fear or other irrational motivations, then I'm good with any power source.  But I do not believe we should WANT to reduce our quality of life, or degrade the environment in one place in favor of the environment somewhere else if it is not necessary.

Overall the doco wasn't that good, a bit of a love affair with how wonderful Gates is which I thought was a bit OTT. It's called "Inside Bill's Brain." The segment on nuclear is short, but it forced me to rethink a couple of my beliefs - pure learning for me. The company he's investing in is called TerraPower.

The desal plants in Sydney (5.0 million) and Perth (2.0 million) are pretty big, and in my view impressive (I think I said that earlier!). There are reservoirs but a hotter drier Australia has meant they are compromised, plus the growth of Perth in particular prompted them to turn to desal. They produce 144,000,000 litres per day. More than enough to fill and Olympic pool. Or drown a troll.

Possibly one of the most effective roles that social media has played is to create sides then pitch one against the other. Also to chracterize people as extremists (ever noticed anyone do that?) With genuine extremists - I can think of only one who thinks Armageddon is coming - and she doesn't want to reduce the quality of life. The story of the evil left or right makes it into the MSM a lot, and we get to assume things like there is an actual agenda for the left to ban coal at the expense of the economy - or that the right would actually kill the planet if it was profitable. For that, we can blame the trolls. The vast majority of people everywhere are pretty normal, and are not extremists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Georgia Power is building a new nuclear plant.  It is way late and way over cost.

Georgia Power is closing coal plants.  They are not cost effective.

Georgia Power has invested in solar in a big way.

The dreams of cheap nuclear turned out to be pipe dreams.

The other two decisions were based upon the profit motive.

These folks are the farthest thing from green dreamers as you will ever meet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Overall the doco wasn't that good, a bit of a love affair with how wonderful Gates is which I thought was a bit OTT. It's called "Inside Bill's Brain." The segment on nuclear is short, but it forced me to rethink a couple of my beliefs - pure learning for me. The company he's investing in is called TerraPower.

The desal plants in Sydney (5.0 million) and Perth (2.0 million) are pretty big, and in my view impressive (I think I said that earlier!). There are reservoirs but a hotter drier Australia has meant they are compromised, plus the growth of Perth in particular prompted them to turn to desal. They produce 144,000,000 litres per day. More than enough to fill and Olympic pool. Or drown a troll.

Possibly one of the most effective roles that social media has played is to create sides then pitch one against the other. Also to chracterize people as extremists (ever noticed anyone do that?) With genuine extremists - I can think of only one who thinks Armageddon is coming - and she doesn't want to reduce the quality of life. The story of the evil left or right makes it into the MSM a lot, and we get to assume things like there is an actual agenda for the left to ban coal at the expense of the economy - or that the right would actually kill the planet if it was profitable. For that, we can blame the trolls. The vast majority of people everywhere are pretty normal, and are not extremists.

Certainly both sides are plenty idiotic. 

Too many ignoring the threat of global warming on the one side (I find it painfully idiotic, as a Conservative, that "my side" does not recognize the opportunity of promoting a "better mouse trap").  And too many on the other side opting to dramatically increase the cost of energy or jumping to "solutions" that often do relate to a reduction in quality of life (such as destroying people for wanting a bigger car... which may be used to tow a boat, or take a bunch of kids to a lacrosse game in one rig rather than 5 little cars). 

There are plenty of solutions that can satisfy both sides if reason is the focus, rather than pre-conceived, prejudiced notions.  Transportation is a huge source of global CO2 emissions, and it can be dramatically curtailed if transitioned to electricity so long as the electricity is sourced intelligently, and it (transportation) can still involve good sized cars utilizing cleanly sourced electricity.  But we do have to be smart about how that electricity is sourced so as to not have it so expensive or swap one environmental degradation for another.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hasher said:

Georgia Power is building a new nuclear plant.  It is way late and way over cost.

Georgia Power is closing coal plants.  They are not cost effective.

Georgia Power has invested in solar in a big way.

The dreams of cheap nuclear turned out to be pipe dreams.

The other two decisions were based upon the profit motive.

These folks are the farthest thing from green dreamers as you will ever meet.

Again, you are ignoring the impact of green-based opposition to nuclear in the insane cost explosion of developing nuclear plants.  It is truly circular logic.  The delays for the plant development were almost exclusively due to opposition, and those delays and their associated costs, are the overwhelming share of the cost overruns.  Cheap nuclear is not a pipe dream if we can get people to use reason.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Again, you are ignoring the impact of green-based opposition to nuclear in the insane cost explosion of developing nuclear plants.  It is truly circular logic.  The delays for the plant development were almost exclusively due to opposition, and those delays and their associated costs, are the overwhelming share of the cost overruns.  Cheap nuclear is not a pipe dream if we can get people to use reason.

https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.21/nuclear-energy-a-new-generation-of-environmentalists-is-learning-to-stop-worrying-and-love-nuclear-power

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Again, you are ignoring the impact of green-based opposition to nuclear in the insane cost explosion of developing nuclear plants.  It is truly circular logic.  The delays for the plant development were almost exclusively due to opposition, and those delays and their associated costs, are the overwhelming share of the cost overruns.  Cheap nuclear is not a pipe dream if we can get people to use reason.

No.  They choice a bad option.  Litigation had nothing to do with it.  

In South Carolina, Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. abandoned the construction of a similar nuclear project in July, blaming the decision primarily on the bankruptcy of lead contractor Westinghouse. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-projects-at-georgias-plant-vogtle-to-continue/

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hasher said:

No.  They choice a bad option.  Litigation had nothing to do with it.  

In South Carolina, Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. abandoned the construction of a similar nuclear project in July, blaming the decision primarily on the bankruptcy of lead contractor Westinghouse. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-projects-at-georgias-plant-vogtle-to-continue/

Do you read?

" But by July 2012, the reactors had run into over $800 million in extra charges related to licensing delays. "

Yes, the environmental movement is the primary cause for delays and increased costs.  The Westinghouse bankruptcy, as stated in the story, compounded problems, rather than being the problem, as it says in the story that the project had  "been plagued by delays and spiraling costs, compounded when the main contractor filed for bankruptcy"

I would love to see how much wind or solar would cost if every step of the process someone was filing lawsuits and getting court delays. 

As the now famous co-founder of Greenpeace has indicated in his regret over the organizations blanket opposition to nuclear power originally founded on their commingling concerns over nuclear weapons and civilian electricity production, their effective obstruction of nuclear power is very significant in stalling what could have been a fundamental decrease in what we now have in CO2 emissions had nuclear been more prominent in our energy production rather than coal and gas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hasher said:

No.  They choice a bad option.  Litigation had nothing to do with it.  

In South Carolina, Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. abandoned the construction of a similar nuclear project in July, blaming the decision primarily on the bankruptcy of lead contractor Westinghouse. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-projects-at-georgias-plant-vogtle-to-continue/

By the way, Westinghouse named as the primary reason for their bankruptcy the delays going through regulatory hurdles (which are directly related enviro-based opposition and government largess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

There are plenty of solutions that can satisfy both sides if reason is the focus, rather than pre-conceived, prejudiced notions.  Transportation is a huge source of global CO2 emissions, and it can be dramatically curtailed if transitioned to electricity so long as the electricity is sourced intelligently, and it (transportation) can still involve good sized cars utilizing cleanly sourced electricity.  But we do have to be smart about how that electricity is sourced so as to not have it so expensive or swap one environmental degradation for another.

Sometimes using a bigger diesel vehicle is the way to go. I was based in West LA / Santa Monica for a few years, and one of the bigger deals is that the parking totally sucks. (Its horrendously expensive - or really hard to find on busy days). Being a kiwi, I didn't have many preconceived notions about what was socially acceptable or not. I was at BBQ and we had this big discussion about it, which started as a local having a whinge - and I said in response that I caught the bus. They glanced around at each other. In the group were some heavy hitters, successful in business, most high earners. It felt a bit like the Spanish inquisition because I was asked how long it took and the time tables (I mostly used the main route - there were buses every 3-5 minutes during the day), cost ($1) etc. - and that I wrote emails on my phone while on the bus. Most were amazed at how easy it sounded, and a few said they'd give it a go. My GF/significant other as a consequence, started using the bus. I have a positive view of LA public transport.

I completely agree, preconceived notions are the real enemy here!

---

Dealing with the anti nuke protesters is a reality - and a part of the cost of nuclear. That being said, even taking away these costs, solar is ahead. We can see this in authoritarian countries which don't need to consider the 'threat of the greenies'. 

Though I'm wondering, if the greens are so effective at stalling nuclear plants, then how come the US and Australia are lagging with their use of renewable sources for power generation?

Maybe there is more going on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Sometimes using a bigger diesel vehicle is the way to go. I was based in West LA / Santa Monica for a few years, and one of the bigger deals is that the parking totally sucks. (Its horrendously expensive - or really hard to find on busy days). Being a kiwi, I didn't have many preconceived notions about what was socially acceptable or not. I was at BBQ and we had this big discussion about it, which started as a local having a whinge - and I said in response that I caught the bus. They glanced around at each other. In the group were some heavy hitters, successful in business, most high earners. It felt a bit like the Spanish inquisition because I was asked how long it took and the time tables (I mostly used the main route - there were buses every 3-5 minutes during the day), cost ($1) etc. - and that I wrote emails on my phone while on the bus. Most were amazed at how easy it sounded, and a few said they'd give it a go. My GF/significant other as a consequence, started using the bus. I have a positive view of LA public transport.

I completely agree, preconceived notions are the real enemy here!

---

Dealing with the anti nuke protesters is a reality - and a part of the cost of nuclear. That being said, even taking away these costs, solar is ahead. We can see this in authoritarian countries which don't need to consider the 'threat of the greenies'. 

Though I'm wondering, if the greens are so effective at stalling nuclear plants, then how come the US and Australia are lagging with their use of renewable sources for power generation?

Maybe there is more going on here.

Certainly there is more going on. 

By the way, I do not doubt that solar and wind can be cost effective, or more affordable, for a variety of reasons. Particularly over the past 10-20 years.  But that ignores a few factors... the cheap/obvious locations are the first to be used, but as we would have to accelerate (dramatically) development of wind/solar farms to replace coal/gas, more expensive and less "perfect" sites will have to be used.... and higher transmission losses/costs will be incurred, particularly for grid-based power necessary for industrial and urban applications.  Another place where it (solar, specifically) can be relatively affordable is place-of-use generation (rooftops, etc.), but that will still leave a huge gap in energy needed due to the low-grade energy nature of solar, when considering the need for that place of use (a house, as an example), transportation, and industry as we transition transportation fleets to electric and population grows.

Offsetting that, true, is the reduction PV panels.

By the way, I do wish more focus was placed on diesel as a great option for reducing CO2 emissions.  Modern diesel powered vehicles should easily outpace electric or hybrid in net emissions when the electricity is largely coal & gas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Time to let the greenies pay for their fantasies.... 

 

As opposed to breathing the off-gassing from the fossil industry's profiteering? 

Sure.  I'd be glad to take a deep breath of fresh air and pay for that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Toecutter's Ghost said:

I'm just dumping this here as a time capsule to be looked back at in, say, 20 years....

image.thumb.png.7534d138ee48a1375cec6a5896a257f4.png

So all those crims  you fuckers are sending back to NZ are actually being rewarded by getting relocated. Bugger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:

As opposed to breathing the off-gassing from the fossil industry's profiteering? 

Sure.  I'd be glad to take a deep breath of fresh air and pay for that.

Move to Germany, you have your chance 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So all those crims  you fuckers are sending back to NZ are actually being rewarded by getting relocated. Bugger. 

Well, I'm just going to stick my neck out on a limb here and say the chances of Australia having climate refugees any time in the next millennia is on a par with a sea ice free Arctic by 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LionessRacing said:

Move to Germany, you have your chance 

 

Well, I'd get better health care, so that would be a plus.  Better cars too.  And France isn't so far away, so better food right nearby.

I'll think about it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MRS OCTOPUS said:

JEEEEEESUS,

 You have quite an imagination.

Nice to see you devoting so much time to me, Precious  Petal .

I feel honoured.

But a few hours away from the keyboard and a little sleep may do you the world of good.

23,140 post has got to take a lot out of you.

You are becoming even more of a bore than usual.

PS.

Have you considered apologising to your victims?

So if LB is confused about who you are, how come you went to the MODS to have him flicked for outing you? 
 

Looks to me that he was just warning his fellow Anarchists about what a nasty troll you are. We have all seen you acting as an agent for that fucking evil Yacht club he was a member of. You know, the one with the Commodore that spent $50,000 of his member’s money on lawyers banning him because he called out his disgusting behavior?! The one that used a complaint from a convicted wife basher as an excuse to throw him out? The guy who wins Port/ Starboard protests at his own club but loses them in the S2H race?

 

I think LB was just doing a community service because...

 

Fuck he loved this place! RIP LB

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sail4beer said:

So if LB is confused about who you are, how come you went to the MODS to have him flicked for outing you? 
 

Looks to me that he was just warning his fellow Anarchists about what a nasty troll you are. We have all seen you acting as an agent for that fucking evil Yacht club he was a member of. You know, the one with the Commodore that spent $50,000 of his member’s money on lawyers banning him because he called out his disgusting behavior?! The one that used a complaint from a convicted wife basher as an excuse to throw him out? The guy who wins Port/ Starboard protests at his own club but loses them in the S2H race?

 

I think LB was just doing a community service because...

 

Fuck he loved this place! RIP LB

sounds like a turd of a yacht club and a bunch of shit members. what a shame. luckily clean was around to report him...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LB 15 said:

You should study Mrs Octopus for your paper on trolling Bruce- he is one of the most accomplished this site has ever seen. He has had a least 25 different identities over the years, has been flicked numerous  times and maintains a drawer of sock puppets at any one time. Back in the days of the great Jess Watson shitfights he lost it completely- was posting that he hopped she would die and that her parents should be locked up. Being a complete cunt he got such a hard on for me he took it off line and started ringing my office, abusing my staff and ringing my mobile hundreds of times a day- I shit you not. The fuckwit is completely deranged. His fav haunt is the AC board where his obsession with Grant Dalton had to be seen to be believed. I cut him some slack because the useless cunt got hit in the head with a boom a few years back and has never been the same again. Many of the Kiwi posters know him - he is from Wellington and he was a legend on crew.org. He turns up from time to time and his posting style is unmistakable. Some people like him take this shit very seriously. You have a great role model there cupcake- you can learn much from him. There that should do the trick for a good meltdown. :) Hi Graham. Now back to the world according to Bruce. 

 

13 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

LB forwarded to the ED for a full ban due to attempted identification.

What a fucking weak cunt rule.

Any sock who harasses and stalks posters who are not hiding their identity should be outed and banned. Especially if they also have an alleged history of harassment outside of this site.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this topic for a while now, and I'm amazed at the angst towards nuclear.

If you are a supporter of geothermal or solar power you are also a supporter of nuclear power, but maybe didn't realise it.

Huge strides are being made into nuclear power via Thorium, so here is a primer for those with a spare 59 mins....

Gordon McDowell has a heap of vids on Y.T. regards the good, the bad & the ugly of nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE&t=1255s

for some reason the link starts about 20 mins in, go to the start...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, HILLY said:

I have been following this topic for a while now, and I'm amazed at the angst towards nuclear.

You shouldn't be amazed, it's an emotive topic and people will mention Chernobyl and Fukushima to prove their point. That just shows their ignorance in the matter.

The Greens have spent the past 40 - 60 years protesting against it and just can't cope with understanding that it should now be part of the solution. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

LB forwarded to the ED for a full ban due to attempted identification.

You clean are pathetic. We’ve all known your dislike of lb for years, just as he’s been calling octopus out for years. Fuck off and stay fucked off

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

This is a good reasoned post, but some significant points.

As for Hydro... I'm not a fan as for supplying additional power to replace coal/gas for several reasons.  First, it cuts off / obliterates spawning grounds and dramatically hinders migrations for anadromous fish (salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, etc.).  It also covers farm & forest lands, results in water loss to evaporation, forces relocations, etc.  The logical places for dams have already been used, and there is logical pressure to decommission dams to help with fish populations.  So, the future for hydro is hopefully not one involving increased dams.  I do believe there is significant opportunities for in-stream turbines and wheels that may tap the energy of moving water without dams.

As for wind/solar energy, there have been many wind/solar farms proposed for sensitive wildlands and wetlands which would not only have been eyesores and counter to the environmental good of those areas (see Steens Mountain in Oregon, and wetlands in the Southeast).  Again, as with dams, much of the logical places have already been used.  I'm not opposed to more wind/solar energy when logically located, but I do oppose huge swaths of land being used for erratic energy.

As for Nuclear, the increased costs, as have been discussed, are due almost entirely to the opposition by the environmental community... which has resulted in massive delays, increased construction / financing / legal costs, etc.  The costs per KwH before the environmental community paralyzed the industry was very competitive, and as the technology has matured, the costs would absolutely be competitive if the blanket opposition from the green community was alleviated.  A good example is the opposition the greenies put on even recycling "spent" (meaning temporarily unstable) uranium, which led to both need for more uranium, but higher costs.  But the new molten salt designs and other designs on the horizon are extremely promising and should be encouraged/pursued just as strongly as wind, solar, tidal & geothermal.  And until those are perfected, modern conventional plants are absolutely great when not place on fault lines (duh) and given a break from the far left attacks.

As for efficiency and waste... sure, we can and should do better, but it should not be ignored that worldwide energy demand will still be growing, and we should not paralyze ourselves, or ruin our economies, in subjecting to insanity like the Green New Deal, banning nuclear, while China, India, and other developing nations increase their impact.  Far better to reduce our negative impact as quickly as possible IN A LOGICAL/REASONED manner through using options like nuclear to get us off coal, rather than banning it in some quasi-religious manner.  Nor do we need to be druids and reduce our quality of life through reducing our total energy production in some idiocy that we think we are helping anything.

There are huge associated costs because it is a risky business. And it is simply not true that wind doesn't have associated costs due to local resistance. As soon as a wind project is announced, NIMBYs get in arms to stop it. Trump has even been doing it in Scotland.

For the nuclear costs despite the industry claims we don't even know how much it will cost to decommission old plants cleanly and who will eventually pay for it. Here in Brittany they are still decommissioning an old plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennilis_Nuclear_Power_Plant) that was stopped in 1985. Costs have spiralled out of control and IMHO they aren't quite sure how to do it. I think that at the end we (French taxpayers) will have to pay for the disposal of our nuclear plants as they will admit that they didn't provision enough funds for it. It will be a bit like the 2008 bail out of the banks, they will say "Nuclear is a big hazard, we can't let them go bust so we need to support them".

I have to say that I am not entirely against nuclear, in a theoretical world where the choice is between dirty power (such as Coal) and Carbon free nuclear, I would support nuclear. The reality is that there are alternative, nuclear, oil and coal in a way are a bit more mature technically but that's because we've spent vast amount of energy and money to research the subject, the 1960s are over, it it is time to focus our energy on better alternatives that are kinder to our environment. There is just one finite planet, we have to live within its means. We can't produce really poisonous material just to heat our homes. If we get somewhere with fission, I might change my mind depending on the implications of the technology.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Number of countries who generate most (+50%) of their power from renewable sources: 42

Number of countries whose economy were ruined as a result: 0

Using renewable sources to generate electricity is not insanity. I'd put forward the opposite is true.

Reminder of key countries use of renewable sources to generate power:

  •  
  • Canada 65.0%
  •  

Some countries really need to improve. I've used IRENA/EIA for the above data, current as of June 2018. (I'd love to hear of other sources, particularly any which are more up to date.) Maybe Australia the US could benefit from experts from Norway and Kenya to help them learn how to improve.

Are you trying to suggest that Canada develops 67% of it's energy needs from Renewables?

Because that's how I read this statement, and it's flatly wrong if that is the case.

Canada derives about 17% of our energy needs from renewables.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/renewable-energy-facts/20069

The correct use of that statistic would be that 67% of our renewable energy is from hydro electric dams.

That number is unlikely to ever rise again under the current green hysteria by the way, it's nigh impossible to get any kind of major hydro electric dam built in this country again thanks to our government and environmentalists. Between us and the yanks we pretty much started major production of electricity through hydro with the start of Niagara Falls generation of power. It turned Buffalo NY into an industrial power house with the first major distribution of AC power in the world. Sadly today a fish's spawning habitat would be disrupted so it cannot be allowed to happen.

Today Beaver's probably literally re-route more rivers and streams than mankind does in Canada. When the fish complain, the Beavers just eat them.

Could be why beavers smell like fish....

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, blunted said:

Are you trying to suggest that Canada develops 67% of it's energy needs from Renewables?

No, I'm not however IRENA calculated total renewables for power generation in Canada to be 65.0 % in 2016, published in a 2018 report. (I have just double checked, and I did not make an error). IRENA, as an intergovernmental, agency gets its figures from the respective governments.)

Quote

Because that's how I read this statement, and it's flatly wrong if that is the case.

Canada derives about 17% of our energy needs from renewables.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/renewable-energy-facts/20069

According to that source (the Canadian government) the 17.3% is dated from 2017. The 17.3% is likely to be all primary energy, not just electricity.

Quote

The correct use of that statistic would be that 67% of our renewable energy is from hydro electric dams.

No, the figure IRENA uses is 65.0%, and it is for total renewable for electricity generation as a percentage of total electricity generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, blunted said:

When the fish complain, the Beavers just eat them.

Could be why beavers smell like fish....

Beaver's don't eat fish though.  They smell like fish because they just went jogging.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HILLY said:

I have been following this topic for a while now, and I'm amazed at the angst towards nuclear.

If you are a supporter of geothermal or solar power you are also a supporter of nuclear power, but maybe didn't realise it.

Huge strides are being made into nuclear power via Thorium, so here is a primer for those with a spare 59 mins....

Gordon McDowell has a heap of vids on Y.T. regards the good, the bad & the ugly of nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE&t=1255s

for some reason the link starts about 20 mins in, go to the start...

 

It starts 20 min in becaus of the suffix at the end "=1255s"

There's an option on YT when sharing a vid to start at a certain point.

With no start spec, the link looks like this:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blunted said:

Are you trying to suggest that Canada develops 67% of it's energy needs from Renewables?

Because that's how I read this statement, and it's flatly wrong if that is the case.

Canada derives about 17% of our energy needs from renewables.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/renewable-energy-facts/20069

The correct use of that statistic would be that 67% of our renewable energy is from hydro electric dams.

That number is unlikely to ever rise again under the current green hysteria by the way, it's nigh impossible to get any kind of major hydro electric dam built in this country again thanks to our government and environmentalists. Between us and the yanks we pretty much started major production of electricity through hydro with the start of Niagara Falls generation of power. It turned Buffalo NY into an industrial power house with the first major distribution of AC power in the world. Sadly today a fish's spawning habitat would be disrupted so it cannot be allowed to happen.

Today Beaver's probably literally re-route more rivers and streams than mankind does in Canada. When the fish complain, the Beavers just eat them.

Could be why beavers smell like fish....

 

Well, there used to be salmon in the Tusket River. No more. Someone built a hydro on it in the 60s and didn't bother with fish passages....

Then there is that pesky thing called land. People own and live on it.  Of course Quebec is interesting though. Montreal basically has "free" electricity from all the hydros in the province. Beauty of Canada is a lot of land and lakes and almost no people. Well some small groups of First Nations here and there but imagine trying to increase hydro in, say, Connectictu or New York. "Yeah, we're going to flood the valley that the Beaverkill tuns through." Good luck with that--with or without "greens."

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HILLY said:

I have been following this topic for a while now, and I'm amazed at the angst towards nuclear.

If you are a supporter of geothermal or solar power you are also a supporter of nuclear power, but maybe didn't realise it.

Huge strides are being made into nuclear power via Thorium, so here is a primer for those with a spare 59 mins....

Gordon McDowell has a heap of vids on Y.T. regards the good, the bad & the ugly of nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6mhw-CNxaE&t=1255s

for some reason the link starts about 20 mins in, go to the start...

Thanks for the link HILLY. Mostly, the video is in my view quite good. I studied theoretical and practical physics as a kid (two papers, undergrad level) and literally felt the rust fall off as I watched it. There was a lot of new stuff on the video, I found it educational. One of the things in my view that the video mislead with, is that pollution is limited to the emissions into the environment during operation under normal conditions. Actually, pollution is any unwanted byproduct that is harmful or poisonous - so nuclear power plant pollution potentially includes hot water and radiation from depleted uranium or thorium. (Of course depleted uranium or thorium waste are the big issues, under normal operation. Also, people worry about the abnormal - the reactor in Japan was compromised because of a tsunami.)  

Another thing I found misleading is that the presentation didn't say much about thorium reactors have been around for over 50 years, and that there are plants in operation around the world.

There is a disconnect where the protesters are concerned about potentially devastating radiation from a meltdown, and the management of waste. Both of these were not focused on properly, so I felt that the video was biased to be pro nuclear. Generally modern nuclear plant designs are a lot safer than the older ones. Thorium based reactors can still have a meltdown, however modern designs make that risk far lower, some say it is eliminated for thorium plants, but I'm not convinced.

Also, uranium based nuke plants are wanted by the US military so they can use byproducts for nuclear weapons. Thorium does not have the same byproducts.

I did a quick search and found Bill Gates did a TED Talk back in 2010 on using depleted uranium. (That date surprised me!) Since the presentation, solar and battery technology has dramatically changed and continues to change. Also, the TerraPower's tech (the company Gates invests in) is more advanced than in Gates' presentation. There is a segment in the Netflix doco "Inside Bill's head" that has a short segment which is more up to date (2018).

---

Nuclear is politically toxic, and in the minds of those who protest it is a solid link between nuclear weapons (some justified) and nuclear meltdown. It surprises me that Japan has nuclear power plants, because they are the only country where nuclear bombs have been used - many locals have a story about losing a loved one. So it didn't surprise me that Japan after the recent meltdown announced that they 

That being said, the meltdowns have been spectacular, so while some are technically correct that geothermal and solar have nuclear connections, only nuclear has the capability of having a meltdown.

---

Finally, where to put the depleted uranium is a very real problem, which still hasn't been resolved. This is a picture that Bill Gates shared of depleted uranium storage in Kentucky:

depleted Uranium.png

It may viewed on google maps, just to the west of Paducah, just south of the Ohio river.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero emission superyacht:
This comes from the front page of Saling Anarchy and gives an insight in the latest Phillipe Briand Super sailing yacht design fueled by underwater turbines.
Well that wasn't so hard wasn't it? The turbines are retractable so if you want to finish first in your bucket race there is enough speed for that.
1426725509_PhilippeBriand200feet.PNG.535f73972f3b23252cc7fe03482fde5a.PNG
200 feet sloop rigged superyacht

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Nuclear is politically toxic, and in the minds of those who protest it is a solid link between nuclear weapons (some justified) and nuclear meltdown. It surprises me that Japan has nuclear power plants, because they are the only country where nuclear bombs have been used - many locals have a story about losing a loved one. So it didn't surprise me that Japan after the recent meltdown announced that they 

Was interrupted.. to finish:

So it didn't surprise me that after the recent meltdown announced that some regions, including Fukushima, are planning a future without any nuclear power plants. Their intention is to use 100% renewable energy sources for their electric power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
789RMK7Z_bigger.jpg
 
here's the thing… gillard's 'carbon tax' was actually an emissions trading scheme that by now would be linked to the european ETS. european units are currently €23.74, or $38.32. our farmers can save CO₂ for much less. if not for abbott, farmers would be earning $billions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

Finally, where to put the depleted uranium is a very real problem, which still hasn't been resolved. This is a picture that Bill Gates shared of depleted uranium storage in Kentucky:

depleted Uranium.png

It may viewed on google maps, just to the west of Paducah, just south of the Ohio river.

Or pollute Paducah for 20,000 years.  Which ever comes first.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We need adults in charge. But we need rhat anyway. So let's just get it right...

...if you  believe govt can do good for the people, well then there is no reason we cannot properly manage spent uranium. There isn't even very much of it. Compared to all the toxic waste processed every year, it is not much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

We need adults in charge. But we need rhat anyway. So let's just get it right...

...if you  believe govt can do good for the people, well then there is no reason we cannot properly manage spent uranium. There isn't even very much of it. Compared to all the toxic waste processed every year, it is not much.

There is a bit of a lack of logic. It should be "If you believe govt can always do good for the people...."

Governments are restrained by physics like all of us, we don't know (yet?) how to handle fission industrially, I can't see what the government can do except stocking the waste for aeons until decay happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 {snide} Nuclear energy advocates, I have some really low-cost land available for you in the Marshall Islands. {/snide}

The end products of nuclear fission are a soup of isotopes with half-lives ranging from about 1,000 years to a couple of million years.  Remember that a half-life is not  "how long is this stuff radioactive?".  It's how long it takes half of "this stuff" to decompose into other elements.  1,000 years (981 years).  It'll take more than the length of recorded human history to get this stuff to the point where tiny amounts of it aren't deadly.

And that's just the ONE isotope. Other isotopes with half lives of 20,000 years and more, will NEVER be "safe"...as far as our species is concerned.

Can nuclear fuel rods be re-processed? Yes.  The commercially usable fissionable material can be separated from the other isotopes and re-used.  Problem is, that doesn' t make the other isotopes go away.

Taking incredibly deadly stuff and shoving in a really deep hole,  (Yucca Mountain) yeah. Maybe. Until the walls crack and water gets in and....right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/20/us-put-nuclear-waste-under-dome-pacific-island-now-its-cracking-open/

 

No. Just....NO.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

There is a bit of a lack of logic. It should be "If you believe govt can always do good for the people...."

Governments are restrained by physics like all of us, we don't know (yet?) how to handle fission industrially, I can't see what the government can do except stocking the waste for aeons until decay happens.

I wrote fission but I actually meant fusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear advocates (the ones I know) tend to point to things like how many tons of low-level waste (medical waste, biomedical research waste) get trucked around the country and how there's never been an accident. This, supposedly is proof that moving "nuclear waste" around as needed is totally safe. 

============

I love (in a sick way)...this website about nuclear waste from the DOE.  Think they're trying to be reassuring....

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-waste

2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel each year

This number may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite small. In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.  [[[[ HOLY FUCK!  That's. HUGE. HUGE amount!!!  Did they tell you that the Yucca Mountain site, in Nevada is supposed to only hold 63,000 metric tons? ]]]]]

3. Used fuel is stored at more than 70 sites in 34 U.S. states

Commercial used fuel rods are safely and securely stored at 76 reactor or storage sites in 34 states.  [[[[[[.  Holy Shit, the stuff is EVERY WHERE! ]]]]]]

The fuel is either enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers, known as dry storage casks.

For the foreseeable future, the fuel can safely stay at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government.   [[[[[[  underline by me. 1. there IS NO PERMANENT DISPOSAL SOLUTION..and  2. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  The US Federal Government is "smart enough" to takes disposal steps to ensure the safety of all humans for the next 100,000 years?  Let's pay a little visit to the Marshall islands and ask. THEM what THEY think about that. ]]]]]

4. Used fuel is safely transported across the United States

Over the last 55 years, more than 2,500 cask shipments of used fuel have been transported across the United States without any radiological releases to the environment or harm to the public.

The fuel is shipped in transportation casks that are designed to withstand more than 99 percent of vehicle accidents, including water immersion, impact, punctures and fires.   [[[[[underline by me.  Gee, ah...hm.  So that's like taking a really big gun, with 100 chambers in it, and putting one bullet in one chamber and then handing it around to thousands  of people to play "chicken"...gosh it's only going to hit that chamber once in a while!!!  It's not so bad!!  ]]]]]]]]]

==========

As it stands right now, the vast majority of high-level waste ...  the stuff from power plants....is "stored"... or rather "contained".... in deep water, within cement pools,  which are near to the plants themselves.  That can NOT last forever.  To pile up more and more and more radioactive "stuff" that will be deadly for tens of thousands of years, without some way to contain it is grossly, wickedly irresponsible.  The cold hard truth is that there IS NO SOLUTION to storing something horribly deadly, for longer than human history is known to exist.  Cement bunkers crack.  Mine walls break, water leaks in.  How do the nuclear proponents of today presume to inform the human beings living here five thousand years from now,  twenty thousand years from now, NOT to go "down that big hole over there"...because it's full of shit that will cook you?  A couple of signs ain't gonna last.  The US Government won't be here, five thousand years from now.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alan H said:

Nuclear advocates (the ones I know) tend to point to things like how many tons of low-level waste (medical waste, biomedical research waste) get trucked around the country and how there's never been an accident. This, supposedly is proof that moving "nuclear waste" around as needed is totally safe. 

============

I love (in a sick way)...this website about nuclear waste from the DOE.  Think they're trying to be reassuring....

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-waste

2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel each year

This number may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite small. In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.  [[[[ HOLY FUCK!  That's. HUGE. HUGE amount!!!  Did they tell you that the Yucca Mountain site, in Nevada is supposed to only hold 63,000 metric tons? ]]]]]

3. Used fuel is stored at more than 70 sites in 34 U.S. states

Commercial used fuel rods are safely and securely stored at 76 reactor or storage sites in 34 states.  [[[[[[.  Holy Shit, the stuff is EVERY WHERE! ]]]]]]

The fuel is either enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel and concrete containers, known as dry storage casks.

For the foreseeable future, the fuel can safely stay at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by the federal government.   [[[[[[  underline by me. 1. there IS NO PERMANENT DISPOSAL SOLUTION..and  2. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  The US Federal Government is "smart enough" to takes disposal steps to ensure the safety of all humans for the next 100,000 years?  Let's pay a little visit to the Marshall islands and ask. THEM what THEY think about that. ]]]]]

4. Used fuel is safely transported across the United States

Over the last 55 years, more than 2,500 cask shipments of used fuel have been transported across the United States without any radiological releases to the environment or harm to the public.

The fuel is shipped in transportation casks that are designed to withstand more than 99 percent of vehicle accidents, including water immersion, impact, punctures and fires.   [[[[[underline by me.  Gee, ah...hm.  So that's like taking a really big gun, with 100 chambers in it, and putting one bullet in one chamber and then handing it around to thousands  of people to play "chicken"...gosh it's only going to hit that chamber once in a while!!!  It's not so bad!!  ]]]]]]]]]

==========

As it stands right now, the vast majority of high-level waste ...  the stuff from power plants....is "stored"... or rather "contained".... in deep water, within cement pools,  which are near to the plants themselves.  That can NOT last forever.  To pile up more and more and more radioactive "stuff" that will be deadly for tens of thousands of years, without some way to contain it is grossly, wickedly irresponsible.  The cold hard truth is that there IS NO SOLUTION to storing something horribly deadly, for longer than human history is known to exist.  Cement bunkers crack.  Mine walls break, water leaks in.  How do the nuclear proponents of today presume to inform the human beings living here five thousand years from now,  twenty thousand years from now, NOT to go "down that big hole over there"...because it's full of shit that will cook you?  A couple of signs ain't gonna last.  The US Government won't be here, five thousand years from now.

 

 

Stop thinking about it like it is garbage. It is NOT. IT is NEVER to be "DISPOSED" of. (The French tried that in the 1970s. IT was a bad idea. Greenpiece found the fucking drums corroded and leaking).

The "waste" is not waste. It is part of the system and must be actively maintained. It WILL get recycled into next generation systems.

The WORST thing to do is to WALK AWAY from nuclear power----because by political necessitym that will GUARANTEE that the used fuel be treated as garbage and "DISPOSED" of -- to everyone;s detriment.

The idea that a footboall field is huge I find absofuckinlutely hilarious though:-)

How many football fields fit into a MAERSK 22,000 TEU container ship? Yep. about 2 dozen.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites