No climate change if world embraced nuclear

Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,300
Location: Australia

26 Oct 2021, 6:12 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
If you do more reading you'll see that it's not a technology that's been implemented in a meaningful way yet. Don't mistake a best-case scenario for the future with something that's already the norm.


But it is in development, and it is a consideration that the Australian government is working on also.
That doesn't mean new coal-fire energy-producing units won't implement what is available.

Andrew Bolt thinks depending on new technical developments are essentially "pie in the sky".
I am not convinced of that, personally.
No one is infallible. Not even me. 8)

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,970

26 Oct 2021, 8:32 pm

Pepe wrote:
Go to China and wag your finger in disapproval at them.
28% of world CO2 emissions.
If the left were serious, they would pressure China into not polluting the earth.
Sic Greta on them propper. :mrgreen:
Politics. :eew:


China have a major hydro-electric project which they plan to meet their 2030 targets
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-25/ ... /100146344



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,441
Location: Derby, UK

26 Oct 2021, 9:15 pm

There'd be no climate change risk if we had fewer kids, lived closer to work (or worked closer to home) and stopped buying unnecessary s**t.

Not gonna happen, though, is it?

The smart money is on trying to develop renewables so they are genuinely self-perpetuating. Which means designs and materials that are easy to overhaul or, in time, recycle. It also means being smart about specialised energy generation across the globe. Solar panels in the desert, hydro schemes for mountain streams, wind turbines for the bits that blow.

At the same time we also need to cut consumption per head, AND ideally reduce the number of heads too.

It's rare that I agree with Pepe, but fewer people is really the only logical answer. We live on a planet with finite resources, the only thing we're continually getting as an extra is the rays of the sun. Well, and the odd meteorite, but they don't really help.

Nuclear is a short term vs long term trade off, which is why politicians love it so. It gets us out of trouble but then puts us at risk in other ways for thousands of years. Coal and oil are a slow, drip-feed death, nuclear is an all-or-nothing gamble. It's safe most of the time, the problem is that on the odd occasion when it's unsafe, it tends to do an awful lot of damage.

It would help if we could guarantee the safety of spent nuclear fuel, but that seems to rely quite heavily on a lack of armed conflict, and as a species we're particularly rubbish at being nice. The last Century, for example, wasn't entirely stable. Yet we think nuclear waste will be fine for much, much longer than that.

Come off it, anything could happen.

Personally, I would rather live a simple life - even down to sleeping when it gets dark, and working when it is light - than go further down the nuclear route. But I will be outvoted by people who want to play golf, holiday abroad, buy tat from all over the globe, pump out kids and drive some bloody great 6 wheel drive earth mover knob substitute.

And they'll be allowed to continue, because "Freedom to do as I bloody well please" is always the ultimate vote winner.

We're dipping very heavily into the ultra long term, overs and unders pot now. Making promises we can't keep, I suspect.

I feel very sorry for the generations ahead of us. And also a bit smug, as I don't have kids, so I won't have the guilt of knowing I've screwed my own kin over. That's a bit of a hollow victory though, TBH.



QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,688
Location: Midwest

27 Oct 2021, 7:51 am

Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
MuddRM wrote:
Technology has at least advanced to the point of cleaner emissions from coal-fired plants than it was over 50 years ago. Also, for me, at least, I can see what is making me sick, as compared to nuclear power.


They certainly haven't done anything to reduce the carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, which is the most pressing concern related to their operation at the moment.


I don't believe that is true for *new* coal fire plants. 8)


You burn coal, it produces carbon dioxide, right? There's discussion of implementing technology to sequester CO2 but nothing has been towards that goal beyond discussion.


Quote:
When coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas, the billowing clouds you see pouring out of smoke stacks. Some clean coal technologies purify the coal before it burns. One type of coal preparation, coal washing, removes unwanted minerals by mixing crushed coal with a liquid and allowing the impurities to separate and settle.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


You can't purify the carbon from coal, coal is carbon. :wink:

This explains many so-called clean coal technologies, although I would assume it has a pro-nuclear bias:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... ogies.aspx


Quote:
Carbon capture and storage -- perhaps the most promising clean coal technology -- catches and sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources like power plants. Since CO2 contributes to global warming, reducing its release into the atmosphere has become a major international concern. In order to discover the most efficient and economical means of carbon capture, researchers have developed several technologies.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


Capturing carbon dioxide and storing it long term is currently expensive and costs energy to do. I know researchers have been storing it in underground dry natural gas wells, but those can leak. If you lock it into a solid form, like limestone, then you have to still store it where it will not react. There is no simple fix other than using plants to gradually absorb it. Unfortunately we cannot grow enough plants to get the job done quickly in our lifetimes.

There are ways to get carbon dioxide to go backward towards carbon and oxygen without plants, but you need the right special catalyst to do so. A company is selling diamonds that they have synthesized using reclaimed carbon from carbon dioxide. They claim that they have a catalyst that works. The catch is that it is still electrically expensive to do (darn thermodynamics!). They are charging more than nature made diamonds per carat.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021 ... -diamonds/



Axeman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Aug 2021
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,435
Location: USA

27 Oct 2021, 12:58 pm

QuantumChemist wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
MuddRM wrote:
Technology has at least advanced to the point of cleaner emissions from coal-fired plants than it was over 50 years ago. Also, for me, at least, I can see what is making me sick, as compared to nuclear power.


They certainly haven't done anything to reduce the carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, which is the most pressing concern related to their operation at the moment.


I don't believe that is true for *new* coal fire plants. 8)


You burn coal, it produces carbon dioxide, right? There's discussion of implementing technology to sequester CO2 but nothing has been towards that goal beyond discussion.


Quote:
When coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas, the billowing clouds you see pouring out of smoke stacks. Some clean coal technologies purify the coal before it burns. One type of coal preparation, coal washing, removes unwanted minerals by mixing crushed coal with a liquid and allowing the impurities to separate and settle.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


You can't purify the carbon from coal, coal is carbon. :wink:

This explains many so-called clean coal technologies, although I would assume it has a pro-nuclear bias:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... ogies.aspx


Quote:
Carbon capture and storage -- perhaps the most promising clean coal technology -- catches and sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources like power plants. Since CO2 contributes to global warming, reducing its release into the atmosphere has become a major international concern. In order to discover the most efficient and economical means of carbon capture, researchers have developed several technologies.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


Capturing carbon dioxide and storing it long term is currently expensive and costs energy to do. I know researchers have been storing it in underground dry natural gas wells, but those can leak. If you lock it into a solid form, like limestone, then you have to still store it where it will not react. There is no simple fix other than using plants to gradually absorb it. Unfortunately we cannot grow enough plants to get the job done quickly in our lifetimes.

There are ways to get carbon dioxide to go backward towards carbon and oxygen without plants, but you need the right special catalyst to do so. A company is selling diamonds that they have synthesized using reclaimed carbon from carbon dioxide. They claim that they have a catalyst that works. The catch is that it is still electrically expensive to do (darn thermodynamics!). They are charging more than nature made diamonds per carat.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021 ... -diamonds/


I remember reading somewhere that in five hundred million years the output of the sun will have increased ten percent. This will warm the oceans and cause so much carbon dioxide to dissolve in them that there will no longer be enough for the C3 photosynthetic pathway to operate. This will cause the extinction of 99 percent of all plants, and when that happens nearly all non bacterial life will follow.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,415
Location: Poland

27 Oct 2021, 1:33 pm

Axeman wrote:
I remember reading somewhere that in five hundred million years the output of the sun will have increased ten percent. This will warm the oceans and cause so much carbon dioxide to dissolve in them that there will no longer be enough for the C3 photosynthetic pathway to operate. This will cause the extinction of 99 percent of all plants, and when that happens nearly all non bacterial life will follow.

This change is gradual and most likely slow enough for the nature to adapt.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Axeman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Aug 2021
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,435
Location: USA

27 Oct 2021, 1:49 pm

magz wrote:
Axeman wrote:
I remember reading somewhere that in five hundred million years the output of the sun will have increased ten percent. This will warm the oceans and cause so much carbon dioxide to dissolve in them that there will no longer be enough for the C3 photosynthetic pathway to operate. This will cause the extinction of 99 percent of all plants, and when that happens nearly all non bacterial life will follow.

This change is gradual and most likely slow enough for the nature to adapt.


Well it won't at least not complex life. By that point only bacteria will survive. We know an ecosystem of nothing but bacteria works because that's all you had for the first three and a half billion years of life.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,415
Location: Poland

27 Oct 2021, 2:35 pm

Five hundred million years is a lot, even for complex life.
Five hundred million years ago was Cambrian - the beginning of complex life as we know it (in the ocean, no complex land organisms).
Sun intensity was changing through all this time.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,300
Location: Australia

27 Oct 2021, 8:42 pm

Axeman wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
MuddRM wrote:
Technology has at least advanced to the point of cleaner emissions from coal-fired plants than it was over 50 years ago. Also, for me, at least, I can see what is making me sick, as compared to nuclear power.


They certainly haven't done anything to reduce the carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, which is the most pressing concern related to their operation at the moment.


I don't believe that is true for *new* coal fire plants. 8)


You burn coal, it produces carbon dioxide, right? There's discussion of implementing technology to sequester CO2 but nothing has been towards that goal beyond discussion.


Quote:
When coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas, the billowing clouds you see pouring out of smoke stacks. Some clean coal technologies purify the coal before it burns. One type of coal preparation, coal washing, removes unwanted minerals by mixing crushed coal with a liquid and allowing the impurities to separate and settle.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


You can't purify the carbon from coal, coal is carbon. :wink:

This explains many so-called clean coal technologies, although I would assume it has a pro-nuclear bias:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... ogies.aspx


Quote:
Carbon capture and storage -- perhaps the most promising clean coal technology -- catches and sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources like power plants. Since CO2 contributes to global warming, reducing its release into the atmosphere has become a major international concern. In order to discover the most efficient and economical means of carbon capture, researchers have developed several technologies.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


Capturing carbon dioxide and storing it long term is currently expensive and costs energy to do. I know researchers have been storing it in underground dry natural gas wells, but those can leak. If you lock it into a solid form, like limestone, then you have to still store it where it will not react. There is no simple fix other than using plants to gradually absorb it. Unfortunately we cannot grow enough plants to get the job done quickly in our lifetimes.

There are ways to get carbon dioxide to go backward towards carbon and oxygen without plants, but you need the right special catalyst to do so. A company is selling diamonds that they have synthesized using reclaimed carbon from carbon dioxide. They claim that they have a catalyst that works. The catch is that it is still electrically expensive to do (darn thermodynamics!). They are charging more than nature made diamonds per carat.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021 ... -diamonds/


I remember reading somewhere that in five hundred million years the output of the sun will have increased ten percent. This will warm the oceans and cause so much carbon dioxide to dissolve in them that there will no longer be enough for the C3 photosynthetic pathway to operate. This will cause the extinction of 99 percent of all plants, and when that happens nearly all non bacterial life will follow.


Good. :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,300
Location: Australia

27 Oct 2021, 8:46 pm

Because of the left, Morrison isn't going to try for a nuclear industry.
The progressives are a weird mob. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,



Also, as George Carlin said, "I have no stake in the outcome." I'll stick around for the comedy.

"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)
Read my lips:-I am not a fan of the orange man.-I would never vote for the Republican party given the chance.-I am interested in being objective and rational.


Axeman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Aug 2021
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,435
Location: USA

27 Oct 2021, 11:10 pm

Pepe wrote:
Axeman wrote:
QuantumChemist wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
MuddRM wrote:
Technology has at least advanced to the point of cleaner emissions from coal-fired plants than it was over 50 years ago. Also, for me, at least, I can see what is making me sick, as compared to nuclear power.


They certainly haven't done anything to reduce the carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, which is the most pressing concern related to their operation at the moment.


I don't believe that is true for *new* coal fire plants. 8)


You burn coal, it produces carbon dioxide, right? There's discussion of implementing technology to sequester CO2 but nothing has been towards that goal beyond discussion.


Quote:
When coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas, the billowing clouds you see pouring out of smoke stacks. Some clean coal technologies purify the coal before it burns. One type of coal preparation, coal washing, removes unwanted minerals by mixing crushed coal with a liquid and allowing the impurities to separate and settle.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


You can't purify the carbon from coal, coal is carbon. :wink:

This explains many so-called clean coal technologies, although I would assume it has a pro-nuclear bias:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-l ... ogies.aspx


Quote:
Carbon capture and storage -- perhaps the most promising clean coal technology -- catches and sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources like power plants. Since CO2 contributes to global warming, reducing its release into the atmosphere has become a major international concern. In order to discover the most efficient and economical means of carbon capture, researchers have developed several technologies.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... n-coal.htm

8)


Capturing carbon dioxide and storing it long term is currently expensive and costs energy to do. I know researchers have been storing it in underground dry natural gas wells, but those can leak. If you lock it into a solid form, like limestone, then you have to still store it where it will not react. There is no simple fix other than using plants to gradually absorb it. Unfortunately we cannot grow enough plants to get the job done quickly in our lifetimes.

There are ways to get carbon dioxide to go backward towards carbon and oxygen without plants, but you need the right special catalyst to do so. A company is selling diamonds that they have synthesized using reclaimed carbon from carbon dioxide. They claim that they have a catalyst that works. The catch is that it is still electrically expensive to do (darn thermodynamics!). They are charging more than nature made diamonds per carat.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021 ... -diamonds/


I remember reading somewhere that in five hundred million years the output of the sun will have increased ten percent. This will warm the oceans and cause so much carbon dioxide to dissolve in them that there will no longer be enough for the C3 photosynthetic pathway to operate. This will cause the extinction of 99 percent of all plants, and when that happens nearly all non bacterial life will follow.


Good. :mrgreen:


Well we will all be too dead to.worry about it by then. :skull: