Marky-Mark
pfm Member
That's the first thing I thought when I read the quote. He has Zero, absolutely zero self-awareness. Which usually means sidewalk puddle deep critical thought.
So that's the climate f****d then
- Thread starter avole
- Start date
timola
pfm Member
The IPCC really need to get on board with nuclear. Hanson and others are pro nuclear. The rich nations need to stop using coal now and gas very soon and switch to nuclear. Nobody needs to lower their living standards that way. Rich nations need to increase funding to speed up fusion research too.
But in reality nothing significant will be done, we're on the rollercoaster now, just hoping that something will come up to stop it leaving the tracks.
Nuclear is the answer.
But in reality nothing significant will be done, we're on the rollercoaster now, just hoping that something will come up to stop it leaving the tracks.
Nuclear is the answer.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
No, Tombo, it's been quite clearly explained to you why this isn't the case.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
In your opinion.
Faced with an intractable global problem, and a solution which carries some degree of, largely local (in global terms), risk, it's very much an option worth serious consideration. Factor in that some of the other options won't get political support whereas there is at least the chance that nuclear can be sold to the politicos, and it might come down to a stark choice. If so, I'd go with nuclear. It'd buy us 50 years. Hopefully, by then we could have fusion to replace it, and the various renewable options would be mature tech. But we could have nuclear up and running in the next decade.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Renewables are the way to go. They are getting cheaper and the tech is getting greater efficiency all the time, particularly with solar.
They are also implementable small scale to a greater extent - a single household can put solar panels on the roof, a village can put up a windmill, or round here there are numerous locally funded hydro schemes, just in the last few years.
Nuclear is the toxic PFI of the energy options. No overall energy gain at a huge environmental cost, dumping on our kids future.
Last edited:
Marky-Mark
pfm Member
On a brighter note, it's a good time to be over 50.
Marky-Mark
pfm Member
That too 
.. and then the rats come.
.. and then the rats come.
Mr Cat
Owner
davidsrsb
pfm Member
Many countries don't have the renewables options that the UK has. For many solar is the only one and dealing with weeks of monsoon cloud is hard
ff1d1l
pfm Member
They have high sunshine levels at other times, so the problem is one of storage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...s-biggest-battery-a-look-around-tesla-project
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-global-race-to-build-the-worlds-biggest-battery
Ok, not cheap at the moment - but neither is nuclear, especially when longterm costs are factored in.
And as far as I know batteries do not rupture to their core and spew radioactive debris around the planet. Which, lest we forget, is within the nuclear industries track record.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Not sure you can hold enough charge in a battery to supply a region for weeks, when insolation is drastically reduced, though.
If you're going to argue about the environmental insult from nuclear accidents, you need to factor in the equivalent from other sources of energy. I don't have the figures right to hand, but recall being taught that the level of increase in background radiation attributable to nuclear accidents, was a small fraction of that attributable to the radioactive materials put into the atmosphere from coal-fired power stations and burning coal for heat. And that's without considering the environmental damage, and risks to health, from coal mining.
Factor in the harm caused by mining for rare earths for batteries, and you have a set of real environmental issues that shouldn't be ignored, and overall easily comparable to, and probably somewhat greater than, the environmental damage caused by all nuclear accidents to date.
I realise I'm comparing nuclear to coal, but as a workable solution for long-term, reliable baseload supply, it and gas are the only currently viable alternatives to nuclear. Renewables are either intermittent, unreliable, or immature technology.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Fair enough in its own way, but I wasn't factoring in hydro because there probably aren't all that many viable sites, and it has its own problems. Flooding a valley has implications for the local ecosystem, plus the dead and rotting vegetation and soil fauna will produce appreciable amounts of CH4 and CO2, both key greenhouse gases. And will do so for a significant number of years after initiation.
http://www.bard.edu/cep/blog/?p=7025
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Yes that's interesting. The new ones around here are utilising existing fall, and not flooding valleys.
For example
https://www.ynniogwen.cymru/the-enterprise/
I know that seems small scale, but there are many rivers and streams round here with prodigious falls.
The point I was making with Croesor is you can hardly call a technology where a generator system built in 1905 is still putting out a substantial amount of generated electricity intermittent, unreliable or immature.
A small valley was flooded for the Croesor reservoir, mainly peat and heather, but I don't think even you would compare methane and co2 emissions from this compared to the coal burning it's centuries electrical output is equivalent to over the years. And this is genuine energy production, not the 1 to 1 borrowing which is nuclear. So using this argument, the Croesor system will exceed the energy production of all nuclear, if both are considered over their lifetime.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Fair enough. But in the UK, the opportunities for large scale hydro (on the order of a coal, gas or nuclear plant output) have pretty much been exhausted, so we're talking about small scale operations. They've done a lot in China, at hugely damaging, arguably devastating, environmental cost.
I'm not sure what you mean about 'the 1 to 1 borrowing that is nuclear'. Are you suggesting that nuclear only generates enough power to cover its build and support, over its lifetime? Any links to that? They used to say the same about wind, until that was exposed as a myth. It's a common trope.
I'm not sure what you mean about 'the 1 to 1 borrowing that is nuclear'. Are you suggesting that nuclear only generates enough power to cover its build and support, over its lifetime? Any links to that? They used to say the same about wind, until that was exposed as a myth. It's a common trope.