|
hobbesmaster posted:Which is a good plan because 3 mile island melted down and there were no raised radiation levels past the gate. The thing about meltdowns is that Chernobyl really was a freak accident and its not suposed to just explode like that. 3 miles island is what a meltdown is suposed to look like. That is, if its suposed to look like anything.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Dalael posted:Yes but how does that create value for the shareholders Finance is not economics.  Eat the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Dalael posted:
Renewables are not feasible for replacing the entire grid in the timeframe that we need to do it to at least "minimize" the impending disaster. Nuclear is absolutely necessary as part of the solution at this point. All of human energy usage needs to be off of fossil fuels in ten years. It won't happen, but nuclear is the only way it could.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Renewables are not feasible for replacing the entire grid in the timeframe that we need to do it to at least "minimize" the impending disaster. Nuclear is absolutely necessary as part of the solution at this point. All of human energy usage needs to be off of fossil fuels in ten years. And here's where all those links i provided comes into play. Most nuclear reactors cost billions, take an entire decade to build AND get cancelled before ever producing anything. I provided source for this multiple times too. Im sorry, it really isnt part of the solution. Renewables are cheaper, easier to maintain and can be build faster. People love to claim that renewables can't cut it but the fact is, the problem is political will. Nothing more. Im not gonna source again cuz im in the bus but you can look back in this thread and a few others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
For the sake of the argument: According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy which were published until 2018, "[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems." While there are still many publications which focus on electricity only, there is a growing number of papers that cover different energy sectors and sector-coupled, integrated energy systems. This cross-sectoral, holistic approach is seen as an important feature of 100% renewable energy systems and is based on the assumption "that the best solutions can be found only if one focuses on the synergies between the sectors" of the energy system such as electricity, heat, transport or industry. *sourced from wiki cuz of bus. But you can look into it, look at actual research on the subjects. Dont listen to Fox or those republicans who show up on Maher's show. 100% renewable is quite feasable. We just dont want to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Dalael posted:For the sake of the argument: And when we do "want to" we end up with Germany's situation in which more carbon is being used under the plan than before it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And when we do "want to" we end up with Germany's situation in which more carbon is being used under the plan than before it. Please source your quote. https://knoema.com/atlas/Germany/CO2-emissions-per-capita?mode=amp quote:CO2 emissions per capita But lets not just use one source. Here is another: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=DE *edit: been fiddling with this one, really cool site to know most countries' co2 emission. You can see graphs for many criterias. Nice site it turns out. As you can see, Germany's emission have been going down. Here is the thing, when it comes to renewables there is SO MUCH misinformation out there because so many stand to lose so much money. 10 to 20 years ago, renewables were not cosr effective enough. Now they are because yechnology has advanced. Most things that held true a out renewables a decade ago, is now wrong. A great proof of concept is the giant battery in Australia which is doing wonders. *edit: anyways, in the end ppl.can do what they will.with this info. Just keep in mind this: since 3 miles island over 120 reactors were planned and cancelled in the US alone. 7 of those were started in 2008 and were cancelled after billions in public money was spent. Dalael fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Please source your quote. Zane fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jul 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Germany is responsible for more coal-related illnesses than any other EU member state. Of France's 1,400 deaths to coal, all but fifty were on the German border. France has also produced more fossil-free energy than domestic demand for years. Funny that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Dalael posted:100% renewable is quite feasable. We just dont want to. Nuclear is also 100% political will. Do you think some magical anti-nuke fairy comes out and cancels nuclear power projects like some kind of loving wizard? No, it's NIMBYism. The same NIMBYism that shuts down your vaunted renewable projects because they don't like the look of windmills or solar panels. The same NIMBYism that ensures we're all going to cook to death in our self-made hot planet. Political will is the trivial answer and makes you look like an idiot when you bring it up. Of loving course political will is a part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Here’s a fascinating article and visual tour of the Arizona nuclear plant. https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/visit-to-the-palo-verde-nuclear-generating-station
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Nuclear is also 100% political will. Do you think some magical anti-nuke fairy comes out and cancels nuclear power projects like some kind of loving wizard? Nimbyism is one of the worst things about the current green movement. The Green Party here–and as a result, Extinction Rebellion–are more concerned with greenwashing their opposition to high-speed electric rail than actually supporting efforts towards emissions reductions. All because the Leader of the Green Party at the time wanted to get a few more council seats in London.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Nimbyism is one of the worst things about the current green movement. The Green Party here–and as a result, Extinction Rebellion–are more concerned with greenwashing their opposition to high-speed electric rail than actually supporting efforts towards emissions reductions. It's the same in the United States, only with 100% more anti-vax dogwhistling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Here’s a fascinating article and visual tour of the Arizona nuclear plant. I beg your pardon but the company that designed these nuclear reactors is called "Combustion Engineering"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:Fair enough, but that does raise the question: what the hell happened at Fukushima and how could such an accident have happened in 2011? Simple. Company bought plans for plant set for certain terrain conditions. Said company alters those terrain conditions but do not alter plans to adjust for those changes. Fukushima was to be built on a bluff that would have been high enough to avoid this mess, hence why the generators were on the lower levels. Company that built the plant leveled the bluff to rest the plant on solid bedrock, but did not change the location of the generators mikemil828 posted:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-08/stricken-russian-nuke-sub-crew-prevented-planetary-catastrophe k-19 reboot off to a good start then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:Even if it wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, it makes it clear that nuclear accidents can still happen in this day and age. Considering the fact that cleaning up the mess is going to cost $200 billion and take 40 years I think it's entirely reasonable to question whether the cost/benefit is actually worthwhile. When you consider the alternatives https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16012019/coal-ash-groundwater-contamination-map-arsenic-power-plant-utility-reports It seems worse because coal and fossil fuel plants have been around for a century or more and don't have the immediate effects unless, say, a dam gives way and buries a town in coal ash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
That said, Philadelphia was very lucky to not have to suffer Bhopal II: American Boogaloo recently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Nuclear is also 100% political will. Do you think some magical anti-nuke fairy comes out and cancels nuclear power projects like some kind of loving wizard? I can get behind the idea that NIMBYism will be the death of us all. It checks out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I can get behind the idea that NIMBYism will be the death of us all. It checks out. Maybe for you, but not where I live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
So what is the plan if society collapses to all of these nuclear plants? Or if there is a mass breakdown of law and order for say 2-3 months before things get reigned in. Won't the reactors slowly go critical?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
Last man out SCRAMs the pile. Though taking off and nuking the nukes from orbit would be a pretty good way of signing off. SimonCat fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Last man out SRAMs the pile. That seems... uh... excessive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Nuclear is also 100% political will. Do you think some magical anti-nuke fairy comes out and cancels nuclear power projects like some kind of loving wizard? Until Solar Power though human hubris causes a calamity that almost renders a couple countries uninhabitable for centuries political resistance and Nimbyism to renewables would probably be far easier to surmount than it would for nuclear. Also there isn’t much point touting how few people have died due to nuclear energy given how it was almost by accident that Eastern Europe didn’t become a radioactive wasteland due to Chernobyl.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
I mean, there are the toxic neodymium lakes of Mongolia…
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
mikemil828 posted:Until Solar Power though human hubris causes a calamity that almost renders a couple countries uninhabitable for centuries political resistance and Nimbyism to renewables would probably be far easier to surmount than it would for nuclear. How are we resolving the issues with storing solar and wind power for when the wind and sun aren't being effective? How are we resolving the massage storage of old toxic batteries that comes as a consequence when we solve that first major issue?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:How are we resolving the issues with storing solar and wind power for when the wind and sun aren't being effective? On your first point, storage issues is absolutely not a problem and it is quite clearly demonstrated by "The company that shall not be named" with the giant battery in Australia. I can provide you some links if you're interested. It's been in operation about 1 year, has helped reducing Australia's blackouts significantly, reacts faster than the current grid and has made back about 1/3 of its cost already. It's absolutely amazing and I highly recommend checking it out. I /think/ a similar thing is being proposed for Puerto Rico. Regarding your second point, most type of batteries can actually be recycled but it's just not cost neutral. It's still much better than having to bury highly radioactive material deep in the ground for 50 000 years (which is also not cost neutral). There's also new batteries being developed, such as the one featured here which are much safer (won't explode). I'm not sure if they're more environmentally friendly tho...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:How are we resolving the issues with storing solar and wind power for when the wind and sun aren't being effective? How do we resolve the issue of The Simpsons making GBS threads on the nuclear power industry for the past 30 years? Whatever technical challenges renewable energy has pale in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
mikemil828 posted:Until Solar Power though human hubris causes a calamity that almost renders a couple countries uninhabitable for centuries political resistance and Nimbyism to renewables would probably be far easier to surmount than it would for nuclear. Rising temperatures are going to turn the whole world into a wasteland. Frankly, I think we're better equipped to manage human hubris than we are unending natural disasters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Dalael posted:On your first point, storage issues is absolutely not a problem and it is quite clearly demonstrated by "The company that shall not be named" with the giant battery in Australia. I can provide you some links if you're interested. It's been in operation about 1 year, has helped reducing Australia's blackouts significantly, reacts faster than the current grid and has made back about 1/3 of its cost already. It's absolutely amazing and I highly recommend checking it out. I /think/ a similar thing is being proposed for Puerto Rico. Lithium battery production is horrific. article posted:But lithium may not be the most problematic ingredient of modern rechargeable batteries. It is relatively abundant, and could in theory be generated from seawater in future, albeit through a very energy-intensive process. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Rising temperatures are going to turn the whole world into a wasteland. Frankly, I think we're better equipped to manage human hubris than we are unending natural disasters. First,  Second, you guys should really stop with the apocalyptic talk. At best folks will brush it off just like they brush off the raving proselytizer waving a ‘The End is Nigh’ sign on their commute. At worst they’ll fully accept it, realize the situation is hopeless, and that they might as well live their lives comfortably while it lasts, neither of which will result in a light water reactor on every corner. You should instead make the dire threats in a lower key way the people of the land can understand. We’d probably be in a much better place if the commentariat instead of going on about how we all are going to literally burn if we don’t stop burning fossil fuel in 10 years, instead merely stated if we don’t get climate change under control, illegal immigration will get much worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Central America has ~42M people. The Levant has ~45M people. Pretty much the entire diaspora which is creating this  international crises is caused by a migration of a fraction of these populations. A percentage of ninety million people...Within 20 years, two billion people or more will be displaced by rising temperatures and sea levels. The apocalypse isn't going to be from the atmosphere literally burning, it will be the roving warbands fighting over the last gallons of mostly clean water and arable land not walled off by the billionaire's slave-armies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Question, will there be a movie night every couple of months in the billionaire slave armies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Gladiator Night! The two slave-soldiers with the most demerits fight to the death and the loser's family is exiled to the wastelands! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
Exiled to Gary, Indiana. Brutal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Gladiator Night! The two slave-soldiers with the most demerits fight to the death and the loser's family is exiled to the wastelands! Hell yeah! Sign me the fu Gonz posted:Exiled to Gary, Indiana. 😬
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Question, will there be a movie night every couple of months in the billionaire slave armies? No but a bottle of oxygen will be provided to your family  Warning Conditions may apply. The bottle may or may not be empty and will be provided while supply last.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Question, will there be a movie night every couple of months in the billionaire slave armies? Better make sure you guys don't piss off the US postal guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
Fukushima happened because a 1000 year earthquake followed by a massive tsunami hit the power plant which was 1) an outdated design that wouldn't be built today and 2) well past maintenance/inspection deadlines. And yeah even so only a few people died of radiation. The tsunami and earthquake killed many more. Dalael posted:I've brought up this point multiple times and linked a bunch of source before. Even without a disaster, the cost benefit is not worthwhile. It really isn't. It's only worthwhile for places where there is literally no other option and even then... Aside from the climate change thing, fossil fuels kill millions of people every year because of the stuff they pump into the atmosphere.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ Dalael posted:
They're not efficient enough for a backbone. Maybe someone in the industry can expand but iirc the turbines are just not long lasting enough and the solar panels aren't efficient enough and still require poo poo tons of mining. Also both aren't steady which means when they have a low period during the night or during low wind the power generation is supplemented by natural gas - which is itself fairly polluting. For example the wind turbines often have gas powered motors attached. Renewables with a nuclear backbone sounds good though. e: quote:take up huge real estate (paving over hundreds of square kilometers of natural wilderness) Someone in one of the climate threads did the math and iirc it'd be something absurd like we'd have to be constantly replacing tens of thousands of turbines. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Fukushima happened because a 1000 year earthquake followed by a massive tsunami hit the power plant which was 1) an outdated design that wouldn't be built today and 2) well past maintenance/inspection deadlines. Unfortunately I do not know enough about the maintenance issues to be able to say anything with certainty  Regarding efficiency of the system, I think it's important to note that different area will have to rely on different technologies. For example, it makes no sense (to me anyway) for a small country like Japan to create fields of solar panel which takes large areas of land, but they can take advantage of the tides and currents with wave power generation (or whatever the technologies are called). It's pretty much like anything, we can't just plop something in place without doing thorough assessment first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Dalael posted:I think it's important to note that different area will have to rely on different technologies. Yeah definitely. I don't mean to say there's no place for wind/solar or other renewables and new tech is always on the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2019 17:14
|
|