Changes in Atlantic currents

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Red herring always trotted out by the anti nuclear zealots. The French don't have a problem with nuclear waste and neither would the US if it got rid of the stupid ban on reprocessing.

We are having a La Nina weather event in the western Pacific this year which means that it is overcast and raining a lot. I am having to run my engine driven battery charger almost every day and expect to have to do it for weeks into the future. The big lie that the battery proponents are propagating is that we can replace as-required generation ie power stations of some sort to fill the as-required need when the weather dependent "renewables" fail to deliver.

If we are not going to burn hydrocarbons to produce as-required electricity then nuclear is the only option. I will guarantee you mate that when the lights and TV go off and folks get the milk out of the fridge for their morning Weaties and find the milk has gone bad they'll be loudly demanding their old reliable power stations back no matter what they're fired by and to hell with your batteries, windmills and solar panels.

I detailed one example of "redefinition of the lexicon ie a tax rebate becoming a subsidy being used to propagate another big lie ie the carbon and hydrocarbon based fuel industry being heavily subsidized and I'm fairly certain that if I was to work my way through the rest of the list I'd find many more examples.

Hmmm, well not many folks want to risk a Three Mile Island in their backyard anymore... and we had a local nuclear plant shut down not long ago, never to start up again, with its waste stored at the plant still... and then there was also that small problem at Fukushima... so, to many, not a red herring.

There are folks who live just fine off the grid with refrigerators, though perhaps not air conditioners.

But even if we don't eliminate burning something to move electrons, we can make quite a noticeable dent in the need for fossil fuels, which makes a lot of economic, and national security sense, no?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Actually I was serious, but a bit dubious it exists. I just have never seen it on a scale small enough for a house or boat. Maybe it is out there?

Probably not suitable for a single home or a boat.

Lin and Larry Pardey set the standard for energy use on a boat.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Hmmm, well not many folks want to risk a Three Mile Island in their backyard anymore...

Nuclear is among the safest of energy sources.

[genaea]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nuclear is among the safest of energy sources.

Jackdale, thank you for the graph.

Not only is it one of the safest (according to this data) but also has less greenhouse gas emissions than hydro, solar, or wind energy production (which is an interesting point presented in this graph).

If one were to seriously consider tackling ACC/AGW, then one needs to be open to the idea that Nuclear is the quickest path to achieving this goal. Not only the quickest, but possibly the only viable one (of the four alternatives identified on the bottom of the graph) when factoring in the capacity to scale up producing enough power to meet a nations energy demands.

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Hmmm, well not many folks want to risk a Three Mile Island in their backyard anymore... and we had a local nuclear plant shut down not long ago, never to start up again, with its waste stored at the plant still... and then there was also that small problem at Fukushima... so, to many, not a red herring.

There are folks who live just fine off the grid with refrigerators, though perhaps not air conditioners.

But even if we don't eliminate burning something to move electrons, we can make quite a noticeable dent in the need for fossil fuels, which makes a lot of economic, and national security sense, no?

All three of those accidents were with pressurized water reactors and Chernoble was even riskier since it had a positive void factor. The proof of concept science on much safer alternative technologies was done decades ago and statistically nuclear is still the safest power generation technology even without improvements.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by genaea

Jackdale, thank you for the graph.

Not only is it one of the safest (according to this data) but also has less greenhouse gas emissions than hydro, solar, or wind energy production (which is an interesting point presented in this graph).

If one were to seriously consider tackling ACC/AGW, then one needs to be open to the idea that Nuclear is the quickest path to achieving this goal. Not only the quickest, but possibly the only viable one (of the four alternatives identified on the bottom of the graph) when factoring in the capacity to scale up producing enough power to meet a nations energy demands.

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.

Actually I agree that the technology has brought us to a point where nuclear can, and probably will, be considered again. Right now it will be a tough sell I think. It's funny, I have mentioned elsewhere that I had this debate in college in 1975 with physics students at the time, who were advocating for nuclear power. Their main point was that going nuclear would prevent global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Sure, I was using the term batteries in the most general sense, hence the idea of hydrogen fuel cells as an energy storage system. One could call batteries energy storage as well in this context.



Do you have examples of other systems being used to store power from solar capture systems? I believe I remember someone using solar powered pumps to create hydro energy but I don't know if that is actually being used.

None commercial that I recall but a few one offs that nasa did a few years back

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Actually I agree that the technology has brought us to a point where nuclear can, and probably will, be considered again. Right now it will be a tough sell I think. It's funny, I have mentioned elsewhere that I had this debate in college in 1975 with physics students at the time, who were advocating for nuclear power. Their main point was that going nuclear would prevent global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.

And since a reactor is basically just a heat source I suspect that you could engineer things so that they could be installed to replace the furnaces in extant power stations thereby negating the massive distribution system rebuilds wind and solar will require.

[genaea]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Actually I agree that the technology has brought us to a point where nuclear can, and probably will, be considered again. Right now it will be a tough sell I think. It's funny, I have mentioned elsewhere that I had this debate in college in 1975 with physics students at the time, who were advocating for nuclear power. Their main point was that going nuclear would prevent global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Don, thank you for your perspective.

I find it interesting to consider that many ACC/AGW opponents are not opposed to nuclear power. Which will, in affect, help 'solve' a problem they do not either believe in nor agree with.

Conversely, many people who are ACC/AGW proponents are against nuclear power, even though this will help 'solve' a problem they believe is dire.

To use a term from fellow CF member Mike OReilly, solving ACC/AGW is an interesting thought exercise, but will not likely occur until the very end (if then). Since many people have intrinsic beliefs that disallow them from considering otherwise viable solutions.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by genaea

Don, thank you for your perspective.

I find it interesting to consider that many ACC/AGW opponents are not opposed to nuclear power. Which will, in affect, help 'solve' a problem they do not either believe in nor agree with.

Here is a letter in support of nuclear energy signed by:

Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-me...cy-influencers

And another more recent letter
https://www.newswire.ca/news-release...699682431.html

I am on side with these folks.

[genaea]

Jackdale, thank you for the links you provided. Some encouragement on the horizon for nuclear power.

This is a direct quote in link #1:

"Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."

The bold and italics are mine. This mimics my thoughts from the post earlier today.

I also wanted to see which groups are more (or less) likely to support new nuclear power development.

From this source (which I have no idea if they are credible or not):
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...es-voters-poll

This graph shows:
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5tij...83/NUCLEAR.jpg

50% of people on the right support nuclear power, and 62% of males support nuclear power.

While 32% of the people on the left support nuclear power, and 30% of women support nuclear power.

Also, twice as many people on the left (34% vs 17%) oppose Nuclear power.

If this is correct, it supports my earlier post that the ACC/AGW proponents are the largest group which stand in the way of implementing nuclear power, even though it is likely the quickest and most reliable way to solve this problem.

I am not a vox reader, so I do not know if they have a significant bias. If one perceives a bias which makes this data presented above to be non-reliable, here is another source from Gallup news that has similar results.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190064/...ar-energy.aspx

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Don C L]

genaea,
Thank you, but I would say that I would not be in favor of nuclear power were it not for the desperate condition we find ourselves in now. Even with the technological advances it still seems like a dangerous Rube Goldberg method of moving electrons to me, but we are painted into a corner now. If we employ more nuclear power to just help maintain our lifestyles, keep growing our population, enable the continued and current levels of exploitation of all the other resources, and continue economic models that define a healthy economy as one based on growth, we have not done ourselves much of a favor IMO.

Hmm... I'm sounding pretty Malthusian I see...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Actually I agree that the technology has brought us to a point where nuclear can, and probably will, be considered again. Right now it will be a tough sell I think. It's funny, I have mentioned elsewhere that I had this debate in college in 1975 with physics students at the time, who were advocating for nuclear power. Their main point was that going nuclear would prevent global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.

One word " TerraPower " they are building a 500kw test plant in Idaho
Then after successful test it's a 345MW plant in Wyoming

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301428197.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill...wn%20by%202028

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If your neighbour plays loud death-metal 24/7, I suppose you'd just get earplugs. Or learn to like it. Adapt!

There's a whole lot more going on than the global thermostat getting nudged a few degrees. Do some reading.
This sort of meeting has to be face-to-face. The wealthy, the VIPs, the leaders of the world, and their favourite actors, musicians and sports celebs, all fly around a lot. Often on private planes. Get over it. Making this an issue is juvenile, and a pretty clear indication that your understanding is superficial at best. Worry about your own credibility.

Not sure what a neighbor playing loud music has to do with this discussion. Changes in temperature are so small that they take decades to even be noticeable. If you think the climate is becoming uncomfortably warm where you are, maybe your kids or grandkids will choose to live a few hundred miles north. There, your family has adapted. Was that so hard? I’m actually a bit disappointed that more of this isn’t happening here on the east coast. I own a beautiful property with a clear water view from about 130’ above sea level, and there are millions of folks like you who claim to be worried about temp increases and rising sea levels impacting them living south of me. But a property similar to mine located 2000’ miles south continues to sell for many times what my property would sell for and property values where I live are among the most stable anywhere. If so many libs are so worried about warming, when will the mass northern migration begin? Or maybe they’d rather just stay put and complain about the warming.

Your second paragraph above is actually quite humorous and is a great window for all to see your double standard. Because all these rich and ‘important’ people at least give lip service to agreeing with a cause you support, their gross violation of what they are verbally supporting is ok with you and anyone pointing out this obvious hypocrisy is being ‘juvenile.’ LOL. You can’t argue this logically so you resort to the good old ad hominem attack. These private jet setters attending these conferences and making pious sounding speeches regarding AGW would do well to remember the old saw, “actions speak louder than words!”

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Hmmm, well not many folks want to risk a Three Mile Island in their backyard anymore... and we had a local nuclear plant shut down not long ago, never to start up again, with its waste stored at the plant still... and then there was also that small problem at Fukushima... so, to many, not a red herring.



There are folks who live just fine off the grid with refrigerators, though perhaps not air conditioners.



But even if we don't eliminate burning something to move electrons, we can make quite a noticeable dent in the need for fossil fuels, which makes a lot of economic, and national security sense, no?

So what’s the problem with waste being still stored at the plant?

Nuclear plant design has progressed since Fukushima was designed and built and are much safer now. But even not considering that, compare the damage done by nuclear accidents at old, poorly designed nuke plants with the damage AGW alarmists tell us has happened as a result of continuing to burn fossil fuels over the last 50 years. Until we stop letting our fear of the nuclear power boogeyman guide energy policy, we’re just wasting time talking about near irrelevancies because no other source will even begin to provide enough reliable power to replace the burning of fossil fuels.