Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11696
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:08 pm

On the question of side effects.

Absolutely everything humans do has side effects on the environment. Electricity generation is just one example. The side effects vary, and every different system has different side effects. Wind turbines, for example, are known to kill birds of prey and bats. Solar cells require six different metals which have to be mined, and so there are side effects from mining. Hydro, as has already been mentioned, causes massive side effects on the environment due to the lake formed and the effects on water flow and on drowning forests etc. Everything humans do has its impact.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:39 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:20 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:43 pm
ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:12 am
Solar power is promoted specifically because it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to warm the earth.
So would a sheet of foil, a reflective metal roof or a white bedsheet spread on the ground.
Besides, most electrical energy generated as a solar panel is expressed as heat.
It doesn't matter what the expression is: most of the power generated by solar is turned into work instead of heat.
I thought all forms of energy eventually turn into heat?...…...all to be subject to entropy and eventual Absolute Zero Degrees evenly spread across our Dead Universe? Yes?? NO???? Recall; I'm just an English Lit Major so I am "asking." I am extrapolating from the lesson that the various forms of mechanical and chemical energy that can raise a ball above a table when dropped turns the potential energy into kinetic energy that turns finally into heat....all dispersed into the table top. Kinda sublime I have always thought with the added remembrance that "heat" just means the movement of particles/components of a substance? We're all gonna Die I tells ya!!!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4356
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:28 am

keep up, will'ya bobbo?

yes, energy eventually turns to heat, but not where it was generated if you have ways to store it: some ecosystems can cope with rising temperatures better than others.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:51 pm

Focus. These are big problems and we can't allow ourselves to lose our sense of proportion. Solar panels are definitely not the best means to provide shading. I prefer trees myself, but there are many types of materials which can do it far more efficiently.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4356
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:54 pm

Here are some ideas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJFtdvrTZs4


I would make a bet that within the next 20 years, some entity, be it a States Actor or private company, will spray sun-light reducing material in the Stratosphere, to temporarily slow global warming.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:00 pm

This may be a radical idea, but what about focusing our efforts on coping with the effects of climate change, instead of trying to change the climate.
And while we're at it, keep on switching over to renewable energy, and that carbon problem might just resolve itself.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4356
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:18 pm

A global consensus on Carbon Certificates could do most of the work to getting us most of the way to becoming carbon neutral.

But I just don't think the change will happen quickly enough. Expediency will almost always win over solid long-term commitment. And just pumping sulfur into the atmosphere is way quicker and cheaper than closing all coal plants and stop using oil for transportation.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:39 pm

Biofuels have gotten a lot of bad press (I think it came from the oil lobby myself) but it's carbon neutral, and gives the world a lot of benefits.
This book makes a very good case in my opinion:
http://www.permaculture.com/node/354
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11696
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:26 pm

Landrew

Biofuel currently gives the world a load of harm.

The problem is that it is not being used correctly. Many first world nations buy biofuel without being too careful about noting its origins. For example, palm oil for fuel oil is generated by demolishing tropical rain forest and replacing it with oil palm. Buying palm oil does harm, not good. Generally, biofuels are not being managed sustainably.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:06 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:00 pm
This may be a radical idea, but what about focusing our efforts on coping with the effects of climate change, instead of trying to change the climate.
And while we're at it, keep on switching over to renewable energy, and that carbon problem might just resolve itself.
That is exactly what is happening now - the deniers are focused on {!#%@} the planet so that everyone has no choice but to cope with the consequences. ;)

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:26 pm
Landrew

Biofuel currently gives the world a load of harm.

The problem is that it is not being used correctly. Many first world nations buy biofuel without being too careful about noting its origins. For example, palm oil for fuel oil is generated by demolishing tropical rain forest and replacing it with oil palm. Buying palm oil does harm, not good. Generally, biofuels are not being managed sustainably.
You may be right about palm oils, but ethanol from corn makes a lot more sense. After the starch is extracted by fermentation, the residual meal is actually a better cattle feed. I haven't read the book, Alcohol can be a Gas, but I've listened to hours of podcasts by the author, David Blume.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11696
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:13 pm

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/china-i ... perts.html

Nuclear power is set to increase by 46% by the year 2040, and 90% of that increase will be China and India. The West is falling behind. China and India will be the superpowers of the future. They will also lead the way into a low carbon emission economy.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:59 am

There is no ‘falling behind’ . It isn’t a race, but rather a development and use.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4356
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:30 am

Also, US and Canadian companies are at the forefront of Molten Salt reactors.
The problem isn't Tech, it's volume: until the decision is made to build two reactors a year over thirty years, it doesn't pay off to build the production facilities and train the engineers to build power plants on budget and on time: the last reactor projects have failed because most people in charge didn't know what they were doing.

So the US and Europe is well advised that to let Asia have a go at beta-testing new designs and spend money on working out the kinks - it's cheaper that way.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8409
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:11 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:30 am
Also, US and Canadian companies are at the forefront of Molten Salt reactors.
The problem isn't Tech, it's volume: until the decision is made to build two reactors a year over thirty years, it doesn't pay off to build the production facilities and train the engineers to build power plants on budget and on time: the last reactor projects have failed because most people in charge didn't know what they were doing.

So the US and Europe is well advised that to let Asia have a go at beta-testing new designs and spend money on working out the kinks - it's cheaper that way.
It's always cheaper to pass the buck.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.