|
I'm excited to die in a violent uprising or from a famine when I reach my 50s
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:All of this happening at a plant (SONGS) that was broken by 'tinkering.' Well, resonance vibration causing erosion in the steam generator tube bundles that no one could ever really figure out... Technology still isn't perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Please stop Southern California Edison from burying 3.6 million pounds of spent fuel rods in wet caskets 108 feet from high tide on our beach (after weaseling out of a court ruling they lost). All of this happening at a plant (SONGS) that was broken by 'tinkering.' Just to be clear, I have no love for the US nuclear industry. They suck. All they want to do is beg the government for money and run these ridiculous boondoggles where they build completely uneconomical $15,000/kW plants. Meanwhile China is building 2,000 MW plants for $3 billion, competitive with renewables and gas, using the same reactors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
KetTarma posted:Well, resonance vibration causing erosion in the steam generator tube bundles that no one could ever really figure out... Technology still isn't perfect. Hell, they put in one of the reactors backwards. "Hey, what does this big 'N' mean?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
white sauce posted:I'm excited to die in a violent uprising or from a famine when I reach my 50s I'm looking forward to not being alive when India and Pakistan kick it off over Kashmir
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Please stop Southern California Edison from burying 3.6 million pounds of spent fuel rods in wet caskets 108 feet from high tide on our beach (after weaseling out of a court ruling they lost). All of this happening at a plant (SONGS) that was broken by 'tinkering.' The feds were supposed to take care of the waste. In fact the power plants have been paying for it. I’m surprised Yucca mountain isn’t going through now just to spite Reid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
The US nuclear companies (and most western nuclear companies) are rent seeking idiot pissbabies without any project management skills whatsoever. Nevertheless, a look at Russia, China, and South Korea shows us that it is, in fact, possible to have a reasonably well-organised and competitive nuclear industry.hobbesmaster posted:The feds were supposed to take care of the waste. In fact the power plants have been paying for it. Quite honestly people should just build breeder reactors and if necessary subsidise them in proportion to their waste-reducing function. Good thing that Russia, China and India are active in that area (plus maybe one or two random one-off breeder reactors in the UK and continental EU).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 21:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Honestly Trabisnikof I'm not even sure we disagree that much. I'm open to scenarios where we produce a majority, even a vast majority, of our power from renewables. But those scenarios are premised on finding solutions to the variability problem, both in terms of coming up with an economical storage system and finding a use for excess power, which are big asks. And 100% renewables is almost certainly impossible even if you maintain a large role for hydro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:The US nuclear companies (and most western nuclear companies) are rent seeking idiot pissbabies without any project management skills whatsoever. Nevertheless, a look at Russia, China, and South Korea shows us that it is, in fact, possible to have a reasonably well-organised and competitive nuclear industry. Meanwhile, 3.6m lbs of highly radioactive waste will be buried 108ft from high tide in containers warranted for 25 years constructed of 5/8" thick Stainless. Your vision for a better future will be lost when this leaks in an area where 8m people reside,
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
white sauce posted:I'm excited to die in a violent uprising or from a famine when I reach my 50s I was hoping the term “ecomutants” would become a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I was hoping the term “ecomutants” would become a thing. It's not? I talk about the Ecomutants Clause all the time!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Meanwhile, 3.6m lbs of highly radioactive waste will be buried 108ft from high tide in containers warranted for 25 years constructed of 5/8" thick Stainless. can you please provide a citation for the amount and the trash tier storage casks and considering we're already literally killing millions of people by generating electricity from conventional sources even trash tier nuclear is not disproportionately dangerous in comparison
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:can you please provide a citation for the amount and the trash tier storage casks It's a larger quantity of waste than Fukushima. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Nuclear_Waste_Issue What's infuriating is that we WON a court case to force this to be disposed of in a more sane manner and the utility managed to weasel their way out of it. EDIT: More info http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-songs-agreement-20170828-story.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:It's a larger quantity of waste than Fukushima. As for the costs of building new reactors... China, Russia, and South Korea have a few things working in their favor -Government owned supply chains -Government owened utility -Very aggressive labor schedules. (You are not going to be able to have 10,000 people working at one project in the U.S,. compared to what South Korea pulled off in the U.A.E.) I would really like to see one of those ESBWRs built just to see if the elimination of additional equipment helps bring the costs down. Unfortunately, I expect U.S. nuclear construction to "piddle" along at 2 units at a time for 10 years, while utilities focus on getting additional license extensions for their existing plants. Factoring in plant retirements and the occasional uprate... At best, we might see nuclear power production stay flat-ish... SONGs I personally think is a good lesson in why electrical utilities should not be for-profit enterprises. (Sticking rate payers with increases while reaping record profits. Plus spreading misinformation about how that electricity would be replaced... 2000 MWe does not appear out of thin air...) Senor P. fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jan 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:No... you won a court case that the utility will "look at" other disposal methods and have to spend a certain amount doing so. I'm friends with someone in construction who worked on the plant. The backwards reactor is the least of the mistakes made. It's amazing it lasted as long as it did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
It would be good if nuclear power were cheaper than it is. But it's not cheaper than it is. Maybe one of those thorium candle projects Bill Gates funded will turn out to work. But until then even nuclear boosters eventually run into the problem that nuclear is very expensive. And then when you go to build it it turns out to be even more expensive than you thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It would be good if nuclear power were cheaper than it is. But it's not cheaper than it is. Maybe one of those thorium candle projects Bill Gates funded will turn out to work. But until then even nuclear boosters eventually run into the problem that nuclear is very expensive. And then when you go to build it it turns out to be even more expensive than you thought. Who would have thought not using fossil fuels could be economically in-efficient? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
It is only expensive because it has to compete with natural gas, which is allowed to dump CO2 into the atmosphere for free. Put in a carbon tax and nuclear starts to look more attractive. A lot of people will look at the price trends on renewables and say they're the future, but Germany is already struggling at 30% renewables penetration. It does not matter how cheap an energy source is when you cannot hook it up to your grid. And EROI may just be a killer down the road. We're taking a big risk by putting all our eggs in this one basket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
Senor P. posted:As for the costs of building new reactors... China, Russia, and South Korea have a few things working in their favor One other thing: all those countries have aggressive and well-established standardization. These over-budget projects are FOAK and are probably having their cost inflated, even when you account for the other disadvantages. I don't know why people pretend $15b is the actual cost of a US nuclear plant. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Jan 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Actually, renewables are getting pretty cheap. Nuclear isn't though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Actually, renewables are getting pretty cheap. Nuclear isn't though. Which would have made them an excellent replacement for fossil fuels in countries like Germany. Observed how I used the phrasing 'would have' because we both know that is not how things played out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Which would have made them an excellent replacement for fossil fuels in countries like Germany. Observed how I used the phrasing 'would have' because we both know that is not how things played out. Germany should have kept their nukes running until the last coal plant was shut down. But they have made more progress on renewables than the USA. Because Germany is sunnier than the USA, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Germany should have kept their nukes running until the last coal plant was shut down. I just visited Germany. They are so much more environmentally conscious than the US that its insane
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
RC Cola posted:I just visited Germany. They are so much more environmentally conscious than the US that its insane <sarcasm>And look how it's hurt their economy!</sarcasm>
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Germany has its own set of environmental issues that our conspicuous environmentalism totally misses the point of. See eg anything involving questions of land use, farming, GMOs in addition to nucular power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
I see I've missed very little of substance from not checking up in here for a few weeks. Sure did wonders for my disposition though. Here is MIT's take on 2017 and global warming. It ain't rosy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
In other fun news, even UAH says 2017 was #3 warmest in the satellite record... it wasn't even an El Niño year... NOAA hasn't put out their annual report yet, but it's likely up there as well. Sea ice is still low, too. I'm not sure that there is any good news to be had lately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
Agricultural runoff is depleting the oceans oxygen at an alarming rate
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
One interesting side effect of increasing anoxia is a perturbation in the overall methane burden which can rapidly destroy ozone. If anoxic zones reach the surface, this can increase atmospheric hydrogen sulfide concentration[1]. It can then significantly lower hydroxyl radical availability in the atmosphere which removes a methane sink[2]. This in turn means that methane persists longer, both increasing its Global Warming Potential and allowing it to effectively destroy ozone by increasing stratospheric water vapor. I kind of throw this problem in the same bin as CFCs -- extremely problematic and very fixable. We could fix this problem quickly by paying attention to land waste runoff. It's not at the point where the raw heat of the ocean is causing anoxia. [1] https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/5/397/29629/massive-release-of-hydrogen-sulfide-to-the-surface?redirectedFrom=fulltext posted:Simple calculations show that if deep-water H2S concentrations increased beyond a critical threshold during oceanic anoxic intervals of Earth history, the chemocline separating sulfidic deep waters from oxygenated surface waters could have risen abruptly to the ocean surface (a chemocline upward excursion). Atmospheric photochemical modeling indicates that resulting fluxes of H2S to the atmosphere (>2000 times the small modern flux from volcanoes) would likely have led to toxic levels of H2S in the atmosphere. [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028384/full posted:Using a three-dimensional chemistry-climate model of the troposphere and stratosphere, we find that hydrogen sulfide alone is unlikely to directly affect stratospheric ozone, even for hydrogen sulfide emission rates as large as 5000 Tg(S) per year. However, we also find that large quantities of hydrogen sulfide create a significant decrease in tropospheric hydroxyl radical, leading to a commensurate increase in atmospheric methane. Therefore a large methane flux (possibly from methane clathrate destabilization, Siberian traps or hydrothermal vent complexes) combined with a large hydrogen sulfide oceanic flux is much more likely to lead to an ozone collapse than methane or hydrogen sulfide alone with implications to the Permian-Triassic boundary extinction 250 million years ago. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
Here's a paper that just dropped that gives a mitigation to the alarming paper on methane fluxes due to rice cultivation with the takehome, "The conversion of rice paddies to conventional fish aquaculture significantly reduced CH4 and N2O emissions by 23% and 66%, respectively." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231017308506
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
It's important to remember that as we continue to see these horrifying trends pile up we must never EVER decrease consumption
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:It's not at the point where the raw heat of the ocean is causing anoxia. They're specifically saying it is, though. The blue dots on this map are areas where thermal convection and reduced solubility and creating anoxia at depths 300m and below, while the red dots are areas where anoxia is at dangerous levels due to runoff.  Where you're right is that the anoxia is not severe enough in those areas to affect animal and eukaryotic life. But it will be as we approach that 2C mark, and limiting warming to 2C will be insufficient to prevent dangerous hypoxia. I also think you're downplaying the challenge of runoff, which is very uncharacteristic of you to say the least. CFCs were an area where we could implement a very cheap and easy technofix by mandating that industry replace CFCs with chemicals that did essentially the same thing but didn't damage the ozone layer. To fix runoff, we have to implement far broader changes across millions of hectares of farmland, not to mention the problem of human waste. A lot of the cities with runoff problems don't even have functioning sewer systems. It's nowhere near as hard as decarbonizing energy, but it's still orders of magnitude harder and more expensive to fix than ozone depletion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
white sauce posted:It's important to remember that as we continue to see these horrifying trends pile up we must never Of all the variables we could tweak, you choose consumption as the most critical factor influencing our climate destruction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
white sauce posted:It's important to remember that as we continue to see these horrifying trends pile up we must never hmm yes but what if we also take measures that result in less severe climate change even if people don’t collectively stop consuming in a historically unprecedented way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
That guy makes truly awful posts and has already been probated for trolling this thread. You can just ignore him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
I only make the best posts defending the industries that are going to smother all life on earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
white sauce posted:It's important to remember that as we continue to see these horrifying trends pile up we must never Global permanent austerity programs are probably not going to be a workable solution for any problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Y'all gonna make me buy some beef jerky again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Global permanent austerity programs are probably not going to be a workable solution for any problem Global financial crisis is pretty good at turning down emissions though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Global financial crisis is pretty good at turning down emissions though. It was also pretty good at getting people to stop caring about the environment:  The degrowth, anti-consumption people will look at ecomodernists and claim they're utopians but really it's the opposite. They want to ignore all political and economic reality and enforce a global eco-austerity project. The reality is that environmental activists can't even get countries to cut emissions fast enough to meet the (very modest) Paris goals, so forget convincing them to nuke their economies. That entire program is odious and reactionary but more to the point it's never going to happen, so they should just stop wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:54
|
|