knownunknown wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 1:45 pm
Not sure if this is an argument against nuclear. Nuclear fuel isn’t created it’s dug up and as such it was emitting heat anyway. Maybe it wasn’t heating a river in France but an underground cave in Kazakhstan or Namibia. The overall heat of the earth remains the same.
The uranium isn't emitting much heat while it's being left in peace; it's only at the point of fission that it release huge quantities - of the kind that needs thick concrete shells around the reaction chambers, and millions of litres of water to keep the rods from melting. It's that massive release of energy that boils the water that turns the turbine that generates the electricity ... but (according to the article) only half of it actually gets used; the rest goes to waste.
A variation of this problem affects the environment around all thermal power stations. There is (was?) a problem in the Shannon where the water temperature was sufficiently abnormally high to allow the establishment of invasive species, thanks to the burning of turf in Lanesboro. That didn't happen when the turf was left in the bog!
In any case, the point is that - apart from the energy being wasted at the point of generation - in the current context of finding secure energy supplies, nuclear is often suggested as a Good Idea. But it's not such a great idea if it can't be relied upon in hot weather, of which we're forecast to have a lot more in the coming decades.
Saw this interesting thread this morning and I have copied in here the unrolled text which follows from the first post. Why is this not talked about by our great leaders?
MiningWatch Canada is estimating that “[Three] billion tons of mined metals and minerals will be needed to power the energy transition” – a “massive” increase especially for six critical minerals: lithium, graphite, copper, cobalt, nickel and rare earth minerals
Over the next 30 years 7.5 billion of us, we will consume more minerals than the last 70,000 years or the past 500 generations, which is more than all of the 108 billion humans who have ever walked the Earth.
Mining requires the extraction of solid ores, often after removing vast amounts of overlying rock. Then the ore must be processed, creating an enormous quantity of waste – about 100 billion tonnes a year, more than any other human-made waste stream.
Do you think solar panels are "Green" Think again. There is nothing green about solar panels. Did you know we clear cut forests, not for panel placement but for the wood needed to produce the panels. Don't believe me, have a read. hiddenhistorycenter.org/wp-content/upl…
I have seen the destruction of mountains, lakes and pristine waterways all in the name of #GreenEnergy. A recent report by the Blacksmith Institute identifies the mining industry as the second-most-polluting industry in the world. Soon to be Number # 1 Why? Green energy.
Green’ technologies require the use of rare minerals whose mining is anything but clean. Heavy metal discharges, acid rain, and contaminated water sources — it borders on being an environmental disaster. Put simply, clean energy is a dirty affair.
Wind turbines guzzle more raw materials than previous technologies: ‘For an equivalent installed capacity, solar and wind facilities require up to 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum, and 50 times more iron, copper, and glass than fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
Think of China. One-fifth of China’s arable land is polluted from mining and industry. Mining the materials needed for renewable energy potentially affects 50 million square kilometers, 37% of Earth’s land (minus Antarctica). Now imagine that number 10 fold.
If you’ve gotten this far still believing that renewables are clean and green, well, I have a bridge to sell you. We thought we could free ourselves from the shortages, tensions, and crises created by our appetite for oil and coal.
Instead, we are replacing these with an era of new and unprecedented shortages, tensions, and crises.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
Why isn't it being talked about Isha? It doesn't fit the "Green Bandwagon" that a lot of people have jumped on. Mention it and expect to be hounded by those on the bandwagon
Yeah, yeah...we've heard it all before but is he offering alternatives? The dogs in the street know that electric cars in particular are not the answer - anymore than than bicycles or everybody walking to work. Too many naysayers.
Del.Monte wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:33 am
Yeah, yeah...we've heard it all before but is he offering alternatives? The dogs in the street know that electric cars in particular are not the answer - anymore than than bicycles or everybody walking to work. Too many naysayers.
Being irrational is not the antidote to naysayers though.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
isha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:12 am
Saw this interesting thread this morning and I have copied in here the unrolled text which follows from the first post. Why is this not talked about by our great leaders?
Because, at the end of the day, out great leaders only talk about what interests us, the voting public; and we, the consumerist voting public, really couldn't give a damn about it as long as we've got newer, shinier toys to play with.
I think whoever tagged our species with the word "sapiens" was having a bit of a laugh.
CelticRambler wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:43 am
Because, at the end of the day, out great leaders only talk about what interests us, the voting public; and we, the consumerist voting public, really couldn't give a damn about it as long as we've got newer, shinier toys to play with.
I think whoever tagged our species with the word "sapiens" was having a bit of a laugh.
Some days I agree with that, other days I reckon we are being fecked over and played with like serfs in the techno-feudalist order.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
Interesting things I'm seeing re Sea Surface Temperature.
It's very high. And suddenly so.
An interesting observation by one person is that 32% of the total increase in sea surface temperature since 1995 has occurred in 3 weeks in 2023.
What's interesting about that is that it is unlikely to be an anthropogenic thing - not such a sudden shift. I see mention of vents and underwater volcanoes.
Anyone know anything, have a view?....I'm feeling a bit lazy to do a bit check up on this.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
Del.Monte wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:04 pm
Well that was depressing!
I must be weird because I find it weird rather than depressing. What suddenly...like, REALLY suddenly, heated up the oceans in a few weeks this March? Bizarre.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
The fires in Rhodes that have caused 30,000+ people to be evacuated, many literally off the beaches, were started by arsonists. It has been painted as part of global warming.
I do think climate is changing.
I also think there's a psychological operation going on complete with nudge units such as were used extensively in Covid, to create a "state of emergency" vibe that will enable mass control of populations.
I'm certainly NOT saying the fires were started by such actors - but I think they are being used to feed an agenda.
For what it's worth I think a lot of the fires in Canada were probably started deliberately. One main reason I think that is that where I live people start fires in the forests deliberately. Some for the craic, some for a form of rural vandalism, some because they get money to work at putting out fires.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
The high temperatures that Europe, Canada, USA etc. are conducive to wild fires i.e. when a place is tinder dry it goes up very easily - we even have that over here in a normal dry summer - Mount Leinster, Bray Head, Howth etc. I think you're reading too much in to the global conspiracy nonsense - global incompetence rather than conspiracy if you ask me.
Every summer in Europe is conducive to fires. That's why there's notices all over saying don't light fires. And those notices have been there for a very long time.
My point is these fires were deliberately lit in tinder dry environments but the media would have us imagine the place spontaneously combusted due to heat. It didn't. People lit fires and wind fanned the flames so that a huge part of the island is on fire. I'm not saying it's not hot, it is, but people caused the fires.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
And while I'm on being all conspiratorial I wonder do people know that way more people die worldwide including in Europe from the cold. Because of cardiovascular problems. In heat dehydration causes the problem. In cold constriction of the vascular systems causes the problem. When the Lancet published the study on this recently they included a graph. Now perhaps it was for illustrative purposes that the scale for heat deaths was much different than the scale used for cold deaths, but here conveniently are both. Source study in the description.
20230723_180515.jpg (270.57 KiB) Viewed 1748 times
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
Forest fires are part of a natural cycle for both grassland and forest ecology. Preventing them on small scales is what triggers catastrophic events. It’s the management, not the weather.
One third of the world's population does. Mostly in India and China. That's 2.6 billion people. For just coal alone.
Apart from global warming it causes a large number of deaths from respiratory illness.
Flip side is that I see no realistic possibility of convincing third world/developing countries or places like China to wean off coal. Not in the kind of timeframe deeemed necessary.
So instead of flogging ourselves, for very marginal global benefit, the right approach would be to prepare for what is coming/what is supposedlycoming.
isha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:12 am
Saw this interesting thread this morning and I have copied in here the unrolled text which follows from the first post. Why is this not talked about by our great leaders?
When the f**k will people realise that the cleanest and greenest form of energy production is nuclear?
We continually let Perfect be the enemy of Good. Nuclear energy is the least worst solution and anyone with half a brain will realise that there is currently no Perfect solution. No matter what we do as a species we are going to have some detrimental effect on the environment. We need to face this and minimise that detrimental effect in so far as we can.
Cyclepath wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:27 am
When the f**k will people realise that the cleanest and greenest form of energy production is nuclear?
We continually let Perfect be the enemy of Good. Nuclear energy is the least worst solution and anyone with half a brain will realise that there is currently no Perfect solution. No matter what we do as a species we are going to have some detrimental effect on the environment. We need to face this and minimise that detrimental effect in so far as we can.
Cyclepath wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 10:27 am
When the f**k will people realise that the cleanest and greenest form of energy production is nuclear?
We continually let Perfect be the enemy of Good. Nuclear energy is the least worst solution and anyone with half a brain will realise that there is currently no Perfect solution. No matter what we do as a species we are going to have some detrimental effect on the environment. We need to face this and minimise that detrimental effect in so far as we can.
I wouldn't trust an Irish politician to tell truth in the event of nuclear accident.....they'd look after emselves and rest of establishment first and let rest of us rot/die while making up excuses to justify it
"Celtic jerseys are not for second best, they don't shrink to fit inferior players." - Jock Stein
Between 110,00 and 210,000 people died as a result of those nuclear bombs. Now count up the deaths through misuse of petrochemicals. Care to make a guess?
You can misuse or misapply many technologies but we already have nuclear fission - the cat's out of the bag. Let's use it for good rather than evil.
Gen3 reactors are already safer and more efficient than anything preceding them and Gen4 nuclear reactors will revolutionise power generation. Fusion if it ever happens will be the absolute gamechanger.
I'm waiting for fusion before I like nuclear....I know it's backward of me, it's just there's been too many accidents already and too many problems for me to get on board. I mean Fukushima is a seeping sore on the planet. And the Japanese are very trustworthy generally, so it's not about trust only. Although there are far too many regimes where nuclear fission power will be an absolute frigging disaster.
Sorry
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
Can anyone tell me what is the immediate dramatic climate action we can take, as warned yesterday by Antonio Gutterres, Secretary General of the United Nations.
What EXACTLY does this immediate dramatic climate action look like for each one of us as an individual? Immediate now. Dramatic. I would like to know so I can immediately and dramatically do it.
I don't eat meat. I have not flown abroad in a good while. I buy second hand clothes. Compared to how Mr Gutterres lives I would imagine my lifestyle is dramatically different. China is creating carbon emissions at a phenomenal rate and now has more emissions than the rest of the developed world combined. But I should still do something immediate and dramatic and I would like to know what you are all doing to turn down the planetary thermostat to see if I like that vibe.
Please send advices.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
Probably we should immediately and dramatically fund a global conference where the great and the good can jet in to have urgent talks. I'd say Mr Gutterres is not immune to a nice cut of Kobe beef flown in from the prefecture or a tasty cabernet sauvignon from Chile. And a good global meeting.
I swear to god we live in a dystopian novel.
Thinking out loud, and trying to be occasionally less wrong...
