|
Trabisnikof posted:The issue is "what is biomass" because if you mean "biomass that's grown in a sustainable way that's not causing unsustainable land use change" then sure. So basically the time aspect coupled with submissive regulatory bodies that are implementing crappy regulation. Lovely. Rime posted:You're stripmining the soil biome to burn the production and pump carbon into the atmosphere, the gently caress is renewable here? Dedicated energy forestry can be grown in drainage ditches and are great at soaking up exess nitrogen in the waste water. Depending on implementation it can also benefit pollination, soil retention and be used for soil remediation (mainly heavy metals from fertilizers). At least here in Sweden dedicated energy forestry is mostly willow which is grown at least for a couple of decades before replanting, with harvest every 3-5 years. This means that quite a lot of carbon is bound up in the soil by the extensive root systems. Basically, it can be really great, and widescale implementation of it can be a good way to make use of either marginal land or boost/fix other farmland. Too bad much of the regulation associated to it seems to be poo poo.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Dedicated energy forestry can be grown in drainage ditches and are great at soaking up exess nitrogen in the waste water. Depending on implementation it can also benefit pollination, soil retention and be used for soil remediation (mainly heavy metals from fertilizers). At least here in Sweden dedicated energy forestry is mostly willow which is grown at least for a couple of decades before replanting, with harvest every 3-5 years. This means that quite a lot of carbon is bound up in the soil by the extensive root systems. Basically, it can be really great, and widescale implementation of it can be a good way to make use of either marginal land or boost/fix other farmland. Too bad much of the The problem is: Even trash trees are better kept alive than being burned. That CO2 needs to remain largely locked up in the wood, not burned. e: I know you weren't advocating for biomass burning, sorry if it seemed like it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:That was in 2020, on lake Eerie. Michigan only borders a little of Lake Erie man, you’re thinking of Ohio. It was off the coast of Cleveland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering the Japanese design, like Fukushima, was against the advice of other reactor designers, and we've come a long way since then, I suspect modern reactors would likely not have these same issues. Hello. Nuclear marine propulsion is not going to become mainstream. Ever. And thanks god for that. Emissions are irrelevant when in the last ten years alone, more than a thousand ships have gone to the bottom of the sea. https://www.agcs.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/agcs/agcs/reports/AGCS-Safety-Shipping-Review-2019.pdf Adding nuclear reactors to a good chunk of said ships is Darwin Award worthy, really. Same goes for nuclear airplanes, trains, cars etc btw. It is simply not a prudent or logical use of the technology at hand. If you are interested in the question of curbing marine propulsion emissions, here is a good starter imo of what is being done/considered right now. Things are not that optimistic looking, sadly. But - surprisingly so - ammonia looks like a good candidate. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
I did say incredibly unlikely to happen? But honestly? Compare a reactor being sunk to millions of gallons of bunker oil waiting to dump into the ocean on those ships. Actually makes a reactor leak look trivial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
I was not arguing about whether it was likely to happen (it isn't, as you said), I was arguing that you wouldn't want it to happen. Literally any other solution for removing fossil fuel from marine propulsion is better for humanity, global warming and the environment as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I was not arguing about whether it was likely to happen (it isn't, as you said), I was arguing that you wouldn't want it to happen. Literally any other solution for removing fossil fuel from marine propulsion is better for humanity, global warming and the environment as a whole. Fair enough. I don't know if I'd trust ammonia though, we're barely good at bunker oil containment, I cannot imagine an ammonia leak going well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
Ammonia really has some pretty nasty side effects..one of which is that you have to develop and proof an ammonia infra/economy in the first place. While an oil spill can gently caress up royally anything for years though, ammonia - while extremely toxic, caustic and hazardous - is a different story. Water reacts with ammonia to form ammonium and hydroxide ions. Ammonia is often referred to as “unionized ammonia”. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms but ammonium is non-toxic. There exists an equilibrium in water between the toxic ammonia and the non-toxic ammonium. The equation shifts back and forth depending upon existing or introduced environmental changes.  The dynamic equilibrium between NH3 and NH4 + is affected by water temperature and pH (acidity). At a pH of six the ratio of ammonia to ammonium is 1 to 3000 but decreases to 1 to 30 when the pH rises to eight (becomes less acidic). Warm water will contain more toxic ammonia then cooler water. When sampling water for ammonia analysis both the temperature and the pH of the surface water body must be measured at the same time the water samples are collected. If ammonia is directly spilled into surface water or if water used by a fire department to depress an ammonia vapor cloud is allowed to reach surface water, aquatic life can be harmed. Even at a concentration of 0.02 mg/L (48 hour LC50) unionized ammonia is lethal to some sensitive freshwater fish. That equates to about ½ a cup of unionized ammonia in one million gallons of water. Ammonia is also highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates having a 48-hour LC50 of 0.66 mg/L for Daphnia magna . Again, water contaminated with fertilizer ammonia should not be allowed to enter any storm drains, rivers, drainage ditches, wetlands or lakes. Luckily for us, destroying ammonia is pretty easy by adding acid (keeping the medium pH low). While still a disaster in the making, this is much better than having a crude spill - for example. The main reason people are looking at it for marine propulsion is the 3 hydrogen atoms it contains when used as a cell, or its 11.5 MJ/L energy that is roughly one third that of diesel oil. Its high octane rating of 120 and low flame temperature allows the use of high compression ratios without a penalty of high NOx production. Since ammonia contains no carbon, its combustion cannot produce carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, or soot. And we are already handling more than 175 million tons of the stuff yearly, so we have an idea how to work with it. Personally, I don't see it going anywhere really, the future seems to be electrification for small boats/routes and natural gas engines for large cargo ships. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Aren't they looking into using Ammonia with airplanes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Ammonia really has some pretty nasty side effects..one of which is that you have to develop and proof an ammonia infra/economy in the first place. While an oil spill can gently caress up royally anything for years though, ammonia - while extremely toxic, caustic and hazardous - is a different story. Fair enough, I'm not much of chemist but that seems reasonable to handle in a sunken ship. \/ Same, wonderful effort post. I know Ammonia is still used for low temp refrigeration systems like at skate rinks. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Ammonia really has some pretty nasty side effects..one of which is that you have to develop and proof an ammonia infra/economy in the first place. While an oil spill can gently caress up royally anything for years though, ammonia - while extremely toxic, caustic and hazardous - is a different story. Thank you for this interesting effort post
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Personally, I don't see it going anywhere really, the future seems to be electrification for small boats/routes and natural gas engines for large cargo ships. I'm very skeptical that we have the carbon budget to support large scale shipping on natural gas when the real world leakage rates of the system are factored in. Likewise, I'm skeptical that non-fossil natural gas will be actually carbon neutral because the existing truly waste streams are too small to support large scale shipping let alone all the ways natural gas proponents say we should use it. And so then if we expand production then any leakage is truly additive and basically any amount of leakage makes it no longer carbon neutral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm very skeptical that we have the carbon budget to support large scale shipping on natural gas when the real world leakage rates of the system are factored in. Same. I mean, ships are bit enough, maybe a giant battery solution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
How does the thread feel about carbon intensity transportation fuel regulations such as the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)? It is a system put in place to force annual reductions in cradle-to-grave carbon intensity (CI)of transportation fuels sold in California and a few other participating states and Canadian territories. It has successfully forced transportation fuel providers into either producing fuels with lower net CI or to buy credits from fuels producers who are selling fuels with CIs below the required curve for that year.  The CA Air Resource Board maintains a database of verified CIs associated with various fuels and fuel feedstocks. Until recently, fuels producers (namely oil refineries) have been able to comply by blending an ever increasing amount of ethanol into the CARBOB (California gaoline). However, going forward, the ethanol blend wall will prevent the continued increase of ethanol blending so lower CI products will need to be developed and ultimately used for transport fuel.  Electricity has been a growing component but is still limited due to the size of the current electric fleet. Bio diesel was an easy to produce option for a while but has a similar blend wall as ethanol.  Renewable diesel (RD) looks like the next big thing since it is a 1:1 drop in replacement for traditional fossil diesel with a much lower carbon intensity. Two Bay Area refineries recently announced that they plan to stop processing fossil crude oil and converting existing equipment to renewable diesel production, each of which would be the largest RD facility in the world. Renewable jet is chemically very similar to diesel and will follow RD's path once(if) air transportation ever picks back up. RD for marine vessels is another relatively easy drop in replacement using existing equipment. LCFS has been a success in the early years with the caveat that it was relatively easy to comply with the CI curve. The big question mark was how the producers would be able to respond once ethanol was no longer a viable compliance path. Now that RD is exploding (along with the continued march of electrification), it seems like the first big hurdle will be cleared as CA continues it's steady reduction in carbon intensity for transportation fuels. This feels like a very well thought out regulatory framework with a slow enough timeline to be feasible. Is it fast enough? I don't know, but it seems like it's better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Same. I mean, ships are bit enough, maybe a giant battery solution? Would an electrolyte or an ammonium leak be worse? Imagine tons of battery acid leaking. Or Lithium cells shorting out in salt water, exploding and creating lithium hydroxide. All incidents impact the environment, it's important to find the least sever and most economical solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wolfejosh/status/1302720214325489665?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Would an electrolyte or an ammonium leak be worse? Pump in the seawater and make a giant seawater battery? Bonus: Extract uranium for port nuclear facilities
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm very skeptical that we have the carbon budget to support large scale shipping on natural gas when the real world leakage rates of the system are factored in. We don't. I'm just listing where money is actually getting spent on right now. Whatever the cumulative improvement may be over other sources, gas is still a fossil fuel and its use adds to global warming. And since you have to pay a lot of money for the transition anyway, choosing a lesser poison is...still choosing to poison yourself. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Hello. Nuclear marine propulsion is not going to become mainstream. Ever. And thanks god for that. Emissions are irrelevant when in the last ten years alone, more than a thousand ships have gone to the bottom of the sea. Awesome article you linked. Nuclear fuel is like a lot of other toxic chemical substances - you don't want to spill it but you can do a lot of engineering to prevent it leaching if it goes the wrong place. In the article it mentions the large number of containers lost at sea each year. I have no doubt that the combined tonnage of seriously toxic chemicals released from those containers is more than the 20 or so unrecoverable ships engines a year (assuming you would be willing to go to more effort to recover a nuclear core) that is implied from the report in recent history. Nuclear shipping is likely not going to go ahead as has been said multiple times but I don't really think a few hundred solid cores dropping to the bottom of the ocean over the next century is worse than what radioactive materials comes out of HFO even now. Proliferation and cost are more intransigent issues from what I can see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering the Japanese design, like Fukushima, was against the advice of other reactor designers, and we've come a long way since then, I suspect modern reactors would likely not have these same issues. The issue was not the utterly trivial radiation leakage. The issue was the blockade by people who didn't want a nuclear reactor located in the port. Consider all the NIMBY issues with building a single nuclear reactor. Now imagine those same issues except the nuclear reactor moves so you're going to get them everywhere it moves to. You're gonna build a cargo ship that's not allowed into New Zealand? The bottom of the ocean is not a bad place to a nuclear reactor to wind up. The ocean is really really big, and it already has over 32 million tons of U-235 dissolved in it. Dilution of daughter products would quickly reduce them to levels beneath concern, unless this happened in a port or shallow channel etc. Which is where the Soviets kept dumping old reactor assemblies and spent fuel. Of all the reasons why nuclear cargo ships aren't gonna be a thing this is probably the smallest one to be concerned about. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Put a bow gun on the cargo ship to clear out 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Phanatic posted:The issue was not the utterly trivial radiation leakage. The issue was the blockade by people who didn't want a nuclear reactor located in the port. The issue was they ignored sound advice by people with immense experience with building and designing reactors. Which AGAIN happened at Fukushima with Tepco and Japanese Regulators IGNORING GE's engineers telling them they had a massive problem with the location of their backup generators and power system (which Fukushima II didn't suffer from and weathered the same experience without issue). That's before we get into Japan's nimbyism with Nuclear because of their war experience, let alone conflating the two as being one and the same. This isn't a valid argument against it, regardless of how unlikely it ever happening is. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:. This isn't a valid argument against it, regardless of how unlikely it ever happening is. No matter how you dislike hearing it, “massive popular opposition to nuclear power” is in fact a valid argument against the massive expansion of nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No matter how you dislike hearing it, “massive popular opposition to nuclear power” is in fact a valid argument against the massive expansion of nuclear power. By that logic, the NIMBYism against wind in Germany is also valid, but in both cases, its not. The same popular supports is the same support that refuses to address the oncoming onslaught that Climate change is bringing. It also assumes that NIMBYism is actually based on any sound basis that would make it valid; and you know that is almost always false. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:By that logic, the NIMBYism against wind in Germany is also valid, but in both cases, its not. You are confusing "Pointing out that NIMBYism exists is a valid argument" with "NIMBYism is a valid position." quote:It also assumes that NIMBYism is actually based on any sound basis that would make it valid; and you know that is almost always false. *NIMBYism* isn't valid in the sense that it is based on a reasoned logical position. It is, on the other hand, entirely valid to point out that NIMBYism is an obstacle you need to overcome in order to start a crash nuclear program to build literally thousands of reactors within the next 20 years, which is your "best case."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No matter how you dislike hearing it, “massive popular opposition to nuclear power” is in fact a valid argument against the massive expansion of nuclear power. It's not. If our only permitted tools are the ones that are popular then we are doomed. Coal power is popular, that doesn't mean that it's good
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not. If our only permitted tools are the ones that are popular then we are doomed. Coal power is popular, that doesn't mean that it's good So is "democracy" something else we need to sacrifice, or do you have a plan to make nuclear power as popular as coal is? "Political considerations aren't valid considerations" is about the silliest most counterproductive take I can imagine short of "global warming isn't real." Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So is "democracy" something else we need to sacrifice, or do you have a plan to make nuclear power as popular as coal is? When has power generation ever been democratic? Political considerations are valid. Popularity is not the same as political feasibility, and popularity is not the most important factor when it comes to the government doing a thing otherwise we would already have Medicare For All
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not. If our only permitted tools are the ones that are popular then we are doomed. Coal power is popular, that doesn't mean that it's good I actually don't think Coal power is popular. https://news.gallup.com/poll/2167/energy.aspx https://www.gem.wiki/Public_polling_on_coal_and_alternatives quote:In October, 2007, Civil Society Institute released the results of a poll of 1,003 U.S. citizens conducted by Opinion Research Corporation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Since always. NIMBY’s don’t want a gas pipeline in their backyard, and they lose and get a gas pipeline through their backyard because that’s what the political realities dictate, and those political realities include nuclear power being far less popular and having far fewer votes than gas pipelines. For Chrissakes, Biden/Harris just flip flopped on fracking because they’re afraid the issue’s going to cost them Pennsylvania. And you’re going to sit there and say that “power generation” isn’t as subject to the whims of democracy as everything else? Why’s Germany closing its nuclear plants then, because that’s what cold hard science tells them to do? No, because of the political concerns that come from a functioning democracy, even if that functioning democracy has beliefs and goals that are wrong and that you disagree with. Again, CommieGT says that we have 20 years to completely abandon fossils fuels or the game is over. Even assuming huge growth in renewables, that will take the construction of *thousands* of nuclear reactors. In 20 years. What’s your solution for people *not wanting to build reactors at all*? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:No matter how you dislike hearing it, “massive popular opposition to nuclear power” is in fact a valid argument against the massive expansion of nuclear power. According to Gallup, Americans are evenly split on nuclear power. As many people are for it as are against it. So "massive popular opposition" isn't the right phrase to use when talking about NIMBYism. Lots of people who support nuclear power suddenly aren't so supportive when that power station would be in their state https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Since always. NIMBY’s don’t want a gas pipeline in their backyard, and they lose and get a gas pipeline through their backyard because that’s what the political realities dictate, and those political realities include nuclear power being far less popular and having far fewer votes than gas pipelines. No one wants a coal power station in their back yard either, yet somehow we still build those despite coal power apparently having much less popular support than nuclear power. So apparently power generation is not very democratized after all
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Again, CommieGT says that we have 20 years to completely abandon fossils fuels or the game is over. Even assuming huge growth in renewables, that will take the construction of *thousands* of nuclear reactors. In 20 years. What’s your solution for people *not wanting to build reactors at all*? Okay, this is outright wrong. Thousands is incorrect. And its worth noting: Its not PEOPLE that largely are in opposition to nuclear power, its companies who don't want to spend and would rather use the cheapest possible answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay, this is outright wrong. Thousands is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay, this is outright wrong. Thousands is incorrect. Japan to build up to 22 new coal power plants despite climate emergency quote:Just beyond the windows of Satsuki Kanno’s apartment overlooking Tokyo Bay, a behemoth from a bygone era will soon rise: a coal-burning power plant, part of a buildup of coal power that is unheard of in an advanced economy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-new-coal-power-plant-climate-change-tokyo-a9316271.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Here in Germany people really hate nuclear, and that's why it's being shut down: Greens in the parliaments, and then public pressure on politicians after Fukushima. Germany is an exception, true. But again, based on "Fear of a Fukushima" happened in Germany is still based on really faulty assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem you have here is: Imagine replacing every car on earth with an electric car. Every single one. Think about the sheer amount of trillions of joules of fossil fuels you have to replace. Its not a storage issue. Its a need for more energy that's not fossil fuels. I just ran a quick calculation with U.S. numbers, assuming all miles would be electric cars (they're not!), and got that it would take about 19% of the total utility scale electricity generation for those miles. Obviously trucks exist, so this number would be higher, but I could assume 30% increase of our total energy production to include road transport would be a good over/under. Difficult? You bet! But it would seem to be pretty doable (I mean if we get off our asses and get this done). If we needed to go to 2x or like an order of magnitude more, that would be really hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay, this is outright wrong. Thousands is incorrect. No, it isn’t. As I posted earlier on the thread (and again, the 15-20 years is your best case estimate on how long it would take to build out nuclear sufficiently to replace all fossil fuel consumption, without a “Manhattan Project” which you said would reduce that to 10 years): “Globally we've got about 560 exajoules of energy consumed in 2018. 35% of that is from oil, 28% from coal, 23% from gas, 6 each from hydro and nuclear, and the remaining 2% from renewables (This is energy consumption, not just electricity produced) Let's say that over the next 15-20 years, renewables are going to increase by a factor of 20, to a mammoth 40% (and energy demand is going to stay flat because I can't be arsed otherwise), we keep hydro the same (because everywhere worth damming has already been dammed), and we get rid of all those fossil fuels. That's 336 EJ of energy you want to get from nuclear plants each year, or 10.65 terawatts of generation. A typical nuclear reactor is about 1.5 gigawatts electrical. Let's say 100% duty cycle because they're really not far off that. You will need to build *over 7,000 reactors* in 15-20 years to get rid of fossil fuels, even assuming we somehow get 40% of our energy from renewables. This is basically one new reactor going online per day, every day, for 20 years, starting now. “ Phanatic fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:According to Gallup, Americans are evenly split on nuclear power. As many people are for it as are against it. So "massive popular opposition" isn't the right phrase to use when talking about NIMBYism. Lots of people who support nuclear power suddenly aren't so supportive when that power station would be in their state
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
What's your actual argument though? Lots of posts about acknowledging certain factors that make it harder. It's harder therefore...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 01:28
|
|
