|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 14 2021 17:36 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 05:35 Mohdoo wrote:On October 14 2021 02:45 justanothertownie wrote:On October 14 2021 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 14 2021 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:I have no technical understanding of this matter but I just googled 'is it possible to launch our nuclear waste into the sun' and now I've read a couple articles making it quite plainly clear that no, it isn't, not for a very, very long time. (The 'astronomical' costs are one factor that could be ignored if we did all band together, but the amount of waste one rocket can carry coupled with how frequently rockets explode before they're supposed to would leave it overwhelmingly likely that we'd have to live with nuclear waste being spread across the planet.) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/20/this-is-why-we-dont-shoot-earths-garbage-into-the-sun/ + https://www.universetoday.com/133317/can-we-launch-nuclear-waste-into-the-sun/ ) There are no other options. You have 3 options for the next 10 years: Coal Gas Nuclear Nothing else actually exists. Everything else goes way beyond fantasy. It simply isn't possible, solar included. I say this as someone who worked in solar research for years. Yeah, no point in discussing with you, sorry. Let me just say that the way you view things is not very open-minded or scientific. Sounds like you have no experience here. Care to elaborate on your background in electronic materials or sustainable energy? I've worked on solar research and done a lot of analysis regarding energy needs and what targets are necessary to actually do something. What have you done? One thing to make clear: the goal is ZERO coal and natural gas use. Not just lessening it. We can pay ourselves on the back for generating s watt of energy using bacteria and various other things, but we’re talking national scale here. When Germany started their demented process of scaling back nuclear, there’s a reason they are bending the knee to Putin for natural gas. There is seriously no point in discussing this with someone who thinks there is no alternative to coal gas and nuclear (btw. in Germany coal is only profitable due to the government supporting the respective energy companies - nuclear is not cheap either if you consider All the costs that come with it, there is a reason only Asia is really building a lot of new power plants) and that we can just throw the waste into space. I never imagined hearing this drivel from the arbiter of science.
Label my posts however you want. In 10 years, I will have a giant smirk on my face remembering this conversation if Germany is still using any of those 3 technologies. I guess there’s no need to speculate and we can just wait and see 
|
On October 14 2021 17:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 17:36 justanothertownie wrote:On October 14 2021 05:35 Mohdoo wrote:On October 14 2021 02:45 justanothertownie wrote:On October 14 2021 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 14 2021 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:I have no technical understanding of this matter but I just googled 'is it possible to launch our nuclear waste into the sun' and now I've read a couple articles making it quite plainly clear that no, it isn't, not for a very, very long time. (The 'astronomical' costs are one factor that could be ignored if we did all band together, but the amount of waste one rocket can carry coupled with how frequently rockets explode before they're supposed to would leave it overwhelmingly likely that we'd have to live with nuclear waste being spread across the planet.) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/20/this-is-why-we-dont-shoot-earths-garbage-into-the-sun/ + https://www.universetoday.com/133317/can-we-launch-nuclear-waste-into-the-sun/ ) There are no other options. You have 3 options for the next 10 years: Coal Gas Nuclear Nothing else actually exists. Everything else goes way beyond fantasy. It simply isn't possible, solar included. I say this as someone who worked in solar research for years. Yeah, no point in discussing with you, sorry. Let me just say that the way you view things is not very open-minded or scientific. Sounds like you have no experience here. Care to elaborate on your background in electronic materials or sustainable energy? I've worked on solar research and done a lot of analysis regarding energy needs and what targets are necessary to actually do something. What have you done? One thing to make clear: the goal is ZERO coal and natural gas use. Not just lessening it. We can pay ourselves on the back for generating s watt of energy using bacteria and various other things, but we’re talking national scale here. When Germany started their demented process of scaling back nuclear, there’s a reason they are bending the knee to Putin for natural gas. There is seriously no point in discussing this with someone who thinks there is no alternative to coal gas and nuclear (btw. in Germany coal is only profitable due to the government supporting the respective energy companies - nuclear is not cheap either if you consider All the costs that come with it, there is a reason only Asia is really building a lot of new power plants) and that we can just throw the waste into space. I never imagined hearing this drivel from the arbiter of science. Label my posts however you want. In 10 years, I will have a giant smirk on my face remembering this conversation if Germany is still using any of those 3 technologies. I guess there’s no need to speculate and we can just wait and see
Oh, it will very likely still be used. Gas especially - I mean nordstream 2 was build for a reason.
But this is the US thread and my point is simply that renewable energy forms (there are more of those than solar btw) are usually quicker to build than nuclear powerplants (which take way too long to build even if we ignore all the other problems surrounding them) and should therefore be a very important part of the effort to mitigate climate change. Gas, coal, and nuclear are not a viable solution for this.
I agree we can wait and see and you might be right but if you are then humanity took a wrong path and the climate disaster will hit us with full force.
|
Norway28561 Posts
Mohdoo, there are a few disagreements at hand, you seem to lump them all together. I'm going to try to organize them a bit.
The first disagreement - which I guess you kinda conceded but not really - is about the viability of sending nuclear waste to the sun. There you say 'it'll be possible in the future' (no source), while mostly everyone else is going 'that is an absurd/ridiculous suggestion, why are you doubling down on it instead of going 'okay, I guess that was silly by me'?'
Then, it's about nuclear as a source of power. There, you have a couple Germans (who frankly give me the impression they know the subject just as well as you do) who are more negative, but overall, people agree that 'nuclear can/should be part of how we deal with future energy needs' (even though we don't necessarily have a solution to the waste problem, going by our current solutions, that is still a lesser problem than climate change.) However, where you lose me, is by focusing on 'the next ten years'. Doesn't it take at least that long to get a nuclear power plant operational? If Norway decided to build a nuclear power plant today, would it be operational before 2030?
(Silvanel and m4ini had posts that seemed informative to me - Silvanel mentioned that China is building a molten salt reactor (I dunno what that means, but I'm guessing it's exciting) - but it's scheduled to start in 2030. I assume construction is well underway.) Personally, I would have been interested in seeing you address m4ini's post in particular, as that one is more technical in nature, and myself, I don't have the expertise to evaluate to what degree he, you, or Silvanel is right, or what you disagree with. (Even m4ini still writes 'In the end: i'm certainly not opposed to nuclear. But it's nowhere near enough and would work as supplement at best. You can't scale nuclear like you can renewables, and while renewables itself have issues (obvious ones), they're incredibly easy to scale.)
Then, nobody is saying that we're going to be entirely free of fossil fuels in 10 years. Why you choose that as a discussion point is beyond me. However, as far as fossil fuels go, it is my understanding that we should at least stop using coal, while gas and oil are going to be required for quite a bit longer.
|
On October 14 2021 18:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:Mohdoo, there are a few disagreements at hand, you seem to lump them all together. I'm going to try to organize them a bit. The first disagreement - which I guess you kinda conceded but not really - is about the viability of sending nuclear waste to the sun. There you say 'it'll be possible in the future' (no source), while mostly everyone else is going 'that is an absurd/ridiculous suggestion, why are you doubling down on it instead of going 'okay, I guess that was silly by me'?' Then, it's about nuclear as a source of power. There, you have a couple Germans (who frankly give me the impression they know the subject just as well as you do) who are more negative, but overall, people agree that 'nuclear can/should be part of how we deal with future energy needs' (even though we don't necessarily have a solution to the waste problem, going by our current solutions, that is still a lesser problem than climate change.) However, where you lose me, is by focusing on 'the next ten years'. Doesn't it take at least that long to get a nuclear power plant operational? If Norway decided to build a nuclear power plant today, would it be operational before 2030? (Silvanel and m4ini had posts that seemed informative to me - Silvanel mentioned that China is building a molten salt reactor (I dunno what that means, but I'm guessing it's exciting) - but it's scheduled to start in 2030. I assume construction is well underway.) Personally, I would have been interested in seeing you address m4ini's post in particular, as that one is more technical in nature, and myself, I don't have the expertise to evaluate to what degree he, you, or Silvanel is right, or what you disagree with. (Even m4ini still writes 'In the end: i'm certainly not opposed to nuclear. But it's nowhere near enough and would work as supplement at best. You can't scale nuclear like you can renewables, and while renewables itself have issues (obvious ones), they're incredibly easy to scale.) Then, nobody is saying that we're going to be entirely free of fossil fuels in 10 years. Why you choose that as a discussion point is beyond me. However, as far as fossil fuels go, it is my understanding that we should at least stop using coal, while gas and oil are going to be required for quite a bit longer.
Shooting waste into space is a solution to a problem that would occur hundreds of years from now. No one is going to shoot stuff into space without needing to. It’s a sarcastic response to a stupid, false dilemma, the idea that nuclear waste is an actual problem that can’t be mitigated with regulations.
10 years is the metric because 10 years is about the time to make a nuclear plant. If people say “but nuclear takes too long to build”, yet we are using gas, oil or coal in 10 years, the argument is silly. When we are facing a climate disaster from carbon emissions, saying “but what about waste in 100 years from nuclear” is insanely stupid.
We can be beyond fossil fuels if we use nuclear instead. We don’t have to be reliant on fossil fuels. It is a cultural decision and it’s a stupid one.
Edit: and as I pointed out in my giant post, the first option should be to max out all the renewables you can use, mostly dependent on which country. Max out solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, then fill in the gap with nuclear. You gotta fill the gap with something, so better nuclear than fossil.
|
Nuclear is also cheaper than the alternatives, ask the german posters about the rise of their energy price
0.320e per kWh for households and 0.210e for business compared to 0.180e for households and 0.126 for business in france.
+ Show Spoiler +
We need to stop looking at the german as if they were the poster child of clean energy
|
Norway28561 Posts
On October 14 2021 19:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 18:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:Mohdoo, there are a few disagreements at hand, you seem to lump them all together. I'm going to try to organize them a bit. The first disagreement - which I guess you kinda conceded but not really - is about the viability of sending nuclear waste to the sun. There you say 'it'll be possible in the future' (no source), while mostly everyone else is going 'that is an absurd/ridiculous suggestion, why are you doubling down on it instead of going 'okay, I guess that was silly by me'?' Then, it's about nuclear as a source of power. There, you have a couple Germans (who frankly give me the impression they know the subject just as well as you do) who are more negative, but overall, people agree that 'nuclear can/should be part of how we deal with future energy needs' (even though we don't necessarily have a solution to the waste problem, going by our current solutions, that is still a lesser problem than climate change.) However, where you lose me, is by focusing on 'the next ten years'. Doesn't it take at least that long to get a nuclear power plant operational? If Norway decided to build a nuclear power plant today, would it be operational before 2030? (Silvanel and m4ini had posts that seemed informative to me - Silvanel mentioned that China is building a molten salt reactor (I dunno what that means, but I'm guessing it's exciting) - but it's scheduled to start in 2030. I assume construction is well underway.) Personally, I would have been interested in seeing you address m4ini's post in particular, as that one is more technical in nature, and myself, I don't have the expertise to evaluate to what degree he, you, or Silvanel is right, or what you disagree with. (Even m4ini still writes 'In the end: i'm certainly not opposed to nuclear. But it's nowhere near enough and would work as supplement at best. You can't scale nuclear like you can renewables, and while renewables itself have issues (obvious ones), they're incredibly easy to scale.) Then, nobody is saying that we're going to be entirely free of fossil fuels in 10 years. Why you choose that as a discussion point is beyond me. However, as far as fossil fuels go, it is my understanding that we should at least stop using coal, while gas and oil are going to be required for quite a bit longer. Shooting waste into space is a solution to a problem that would occur hundreds of years from now. No one is going to shoot stuff into space without needing to. It’s a sarcastic response to a stupid, false dilemma, the idea that nuclear waste is an actual problem that can’t be mitigated with regulations. 10 years is the metric because 10 years is about the time to make a nuclear plant. If people say “but nuclear takes too long to build”, yet we are using gas, oil or coal in 10 years, the argument is silly. When we are facing a climate disaster from carbon emissions, saying “but what about waste in 100 years from nuclear” is insanely stupid. We can be beyond fossil fuels if we use nuclear instead. We don’t have to be reliant on fossil fuels. It is a cultural decision and it’s a stupid one. Edit: and as I pointed out in my giant post, the first option should be to max out all the renewables you can use, mostly dependent on which country. Max out solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, then fill in the gap with nuclear. You gotta fill the gap with something, so better nuclear than fossil.
Hey, this post I largely agree with. I totally prefer nuclear over fossil fuels and am entirely on board with using nuclear to fill the shortcomings of renewables. (I guess now, the main question I have is, 'with a change of mentality and a concentrated effort, how many nuclear plants could we plausibly have operational by the early 2030s') - which isn't really a question I expect you to have an answer to.
Phasing out fossil fuels asap, starting with coal, is the main priority. (And while I normally speak positively of Norway, in this regard, we deserve serious admonishment. Our new government isn't even willing to pledge to not open new oil fields, even in lieu of the recent climate report stating that we've already found significantly significantly more oil than we can plausibly harvest. That is - I understand that we can't immediately stop with the extraction of oil - but not looking for new oil fields, ones that will - like nuclear - take 10 years to develop - should be an absolute demand. I hope for serious international pressure to hit us over this.)
|
On October 14 2021 19:38 Erasme wrote:Nuclear is also cheaper than the alternatives, ask the german posters about the rise of their energy price 0.320e per kWh for households and 0.210e for business compared to 0.180e for households and 0.126 for business in france. + Show Spoiler +We need to stop looking at the german as if they were the poster child of clean energy
Nobody is saying that.
Germany screwed up a lot recently with shutting down the already running nuclear reactors and replacing them with coal of all things. Unfortunately, most of the politicians of our previous ruling party are openly on the payroll of energy companies who are using fossil fuels. Still we have a quite high percentage of renewable energy production and I see no reason why that should not be possible in other countries who already produce more than enough nuclear energy to "fill the gaps". Of course there are different possibilities for each country. It is far easier for switzerland or norway to satiate their demand with renewable energy. But you cannot tell me that it would be harder in the US than it is in germany.
|
I want to chip again into discussion (which is progressing to fast for me, so sorry for missing some points).
#Regarding shooting nuclear waste into the sun. I dont think this is solution but not for reasons mentioned here.
-A 1GW reactor produces 25-30 tonnes of HLW (high level waste) a year. Source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx
-It costs around $2700 currently for lifting 1kg into space. Hence the cost of lifting waste from one 1GW reactor would be $67-81 mil . Thats actually a lot, but it is doable. Shoting things into sun once they are in orbit is actually quite simple (comparable to getting them into the orbit).
The problems are:
-Rockets being shoot into the space are quite dengerous. There actually are space engine designes (for reserach vessels) involving nuclear reactors but thay all have been abondoned due to fear of shooting nuclear material into space (and fuel being spread all over atmoshpere in case of rocket explosion). That danger is even bigger in case of waste.
-I actually didnt make the calculations, but i am expecting that huge amount of HLW could interfere with electronics (similarly to what they do to biological materials) and shielding would be too heavy for fixing this obstacle.
Hence I would say this solution is not feasible right now. We would need huge advances in space travel or orbital elevator for this. The main problem is getting waste into orbit both safely and cheaply.
#Molten salt reactor
Here is the link providing some info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Three main things about those types of reactors.
-They are MUCH safer
-The waste is MUCH less radioactive
-They can work on thorium rather then uranium. Some designs even can burn spent fuel from other type of reactors.
If China proves this design to be succesful it will be a huge step forward. But:
-It still need to be proven commercially
-As always there are some engineering obstacles
-The date is 2030 (assuming no delays) and building of nuclear powerplant takes really long. Even if China proves molten salt reactors to be succesful and west immediately shifts is policy and adopts them the sooner we can have energy from new powerplants is 2040-2050.
|
|
|
On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying.
I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process?
The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials.
|
|
|
Right on. I’ll check these out tonight, thanks you.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Some pretty impressive hot takes over the last few pages - fitting they'd go into the age-old topics of fictional rockets and LFTRs as "underappreciated" solutions to the climate problem. Seems less realistic than inventing lasers that will reverse climate change, rendering all of these silly ideas obsolete.
It all falls under the umbrella of "climate change is real and man-made, but doesn't matter because science will come up with a solution" - a group that is regrettably quite populous. It leads to a whole lot of really bad ideas under the guise of "innovation" taking precedence over things that actually help relative to what we have, but aren't as shiny (e.g. coal -> gas, public transport, conventional nuclear, hydroelectric dams). Would be a great time to be an ostensibly green fraudster in light of how many people lap that kind of thing up.
Hmm, I didn't know that wind turbines also had the "rare earth elements" problem - thought they were made of much more common materials. Another negative to add on top of "lack of consistency in power production" I suppose.
|
On October 14 2021 23:18 LegalLord wrote:Some pretty impressive hot takes over the last few pages - fitting they'd go into the age-old topics of fictional rockets and LFTRs as "underappreciated" solutions to the climate problem. Seems less realistic than inventing lasers that will reverse climate change, rendering all of these silly ideas obsolete. It all falls under the umbrella of "climate change is real and man-made, but doesn't matter because science will come up with a solution" - a group that is regrettably quite populous. It leads to a whole lot of really bad ideas under the guise of "innovation" taking precedence over things that actually help relative to what we have, but aren't as shiny (e.g. coal -> gas, public transport, conventional nuclear, hydroelectric dams). Would be a great time to be an ostensibly green fraudster in light of how many people lap that kind of thing up. Hmm, I didn't know that wind turbines also had the "rare earth elements" problem - thought they were made of much more common materials. Another negative to add on top of "lack of consistency in power production" I suppose.
Wind turbines require highly efficient magnets, which are made of an alloy of neodymium, dysprosium and a bunch of less rare metals. Mining neodymium and dysprosium is a big problem. The theory is that once they're out of the ground we can recycle them, but in practice I don't think wind turbine magnets are currently recyclable, although there is obviously a lot of work being done to make the recycling process cost effective. I'm guessing we'll eventually be doing something similar soon with discarded wind turbines as South Africa is doing with their gold mine dumps: seeing as the refining process is improved they can go through the mine dumps and extract more gold more easily than trying to dig into the ground for it.
|
United States42005 Posts
On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials.
How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make.
Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x
But even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”.
It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”.
|
On October 14 2021 23:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 23:18 LegalLord wrote:Some pretty impressive hot takes over the last few pages - fitting they'd go into the age-old topics of fictional rockets and LFTRs as "underappreciated" solutions to the climate problem. Seems less realistic than inventing lasers that will reverse climate change, rendering all of these silly ideas obsolete. It all falls under the umbrella of "climate change is real and man-made, but doesn't matter because science will come up with a solution" - a group that is regrettably quite populous. It leads to a whole lot of really bad ideas under the guise of "innovation" taking precedence over things that actually help relative to what we have, but aren't as shiny (e.g. coal -> gas, public transport, conventional nuclear, hydroelectric dams). Would be a great time to be an ostensibly green fraudster in light of how many people lap that kind of thing up. Hmm, I didn't know that wind turbines also had the "rare earth elements" problem - thought they were made of much more common materials. Another negative to add on top of "lack of consistency in power production" I suppose. Wind turbines require highly efficient magnets, which are made of an alloy of neodymium, dysprosium and a bunch of less rare metals. Mining neodymium and dysprosium is a big problem. The theory is that once they're out of the ground we can recycle them, but in practice I don't think wind turbine magnets are currently recyclable, although there is obviously a lot of work being done to make the recycling process cost effective. I'm guessing we'll eventually be doing something similar soon with discarded wind turbines as South Africa is doing with their gold mine dumps: seeing as the refining process is improved they can go through the mine dumps and extract more gold more easily than trying to dig into the ground for it.
I think as long as we make sure to hold on to the magnets, we'll eventually find a good way to recycle them. Just a chemistry problem really. We'll solve it just like all the others. Tesla recently made progress in being able to recycle their batteries.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”.
The guy says he's willing to change his mind even after the first post you made (where I get the rudeness), and thanked Silvanel for the links he provided. No need to further berate him - it's probably even counter-productive.
|
On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”.
You don’t have to talk down to someone to make a convincing argument. Had I not been the better and more intelligent person here, I might have dismissed you outright. Instead I looked at your article that you googled, (probably quickly and without drinking coffee,) and found it to be ok, if a bit dull. I prefer prettier pictures and graphs like this one.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints
Humor aside, I didn’t realize wind had made this much ground in the past decade. It’s pretty close to solar and nuclear now. I still have a few other articles to read now. I only brought up the refining aspect of natural gas to highlight the simplicity of it. Not that it’s better than any other type of energy.
|
United States42005 Posts
On October 15 2021 00:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2021 23:55 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 22:30 Husyelt wrote:On October 14 2021 15:13 KwarK wrote:On October 14 2021 11:38 Husyelt wrote:
Even with SpaceX's Starship fully operational, (100-150 metric ton payload,) you wouldn't want to launch nuclear waste out of earths orbit. I'm just an average joe, but nuclear to me has seen some progress with the microreactors, I'd go with nuclear power over bloated wind turbines any day of the week.
No energy is really renewable or green. To create one wind turbine you need hundreds of tons of raw material, (which requires fossil fuel vehicles to extract,) then ship to refine the materials, (fossil fuel trucks,) then refine them (fossil fuel) then ship to the final customer and build. Finally in operation you get the actual "renewable wind energy." Then after 20-30 years their life is up, and you throw the blades into a landfill and bring out the heavy equipment to go digging for more raw materials. This is ridiculous. The adjective bloated doesn’t apply to wind turbines and the carbon footprint of creating a wind turbine is a negligible proportion of the carbon not consumed due to the energy output. Wind turbines are absolutely green and renewable, you’re just repeating some idiotic right wing talking points without spending a second to consider what you’re saying. I’m willing to change my mind, but I assumed the actual energy required to get the raw materials > and refine them > truck them out > create an actual wind turbine > transport wasn’t worth the output. Do you have any article or paper that covers that entire process? The great thing about natural gas for instance is that once you refine the “raw material” it’s done. You can ship it to homes or businesses. For turbines and nuclear you need to set up a lot of shit first. And both require 50, 100, 1000 specific types of raw materials. How are fossil fuels simultaneously so cheap that we should use them and so ridiculously inefficient that trucking a wind turbine to the installation site is more energy than it’ll make. Median carbon equivalent cost (takes into account methane etc.) is 11g per kWh compared to 980g for coal and 465g for natural gas. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.xBut even if I didn’t have the numbers available you really need to be smarter than this. When you hear a claim like “the carbon impact of making a wind turbine is more than it saves” you need to start thinking “that’s a very odd sounding claim” and “if that were true nobody would build them”. It’s one of those right wing Twitter “gotchas” that work along the lines of “you say you care about X but actually did you consider Y”. Other examples are “you say you care about the environment but actually did you consider the average wind turbine kills and eats over four million birds per day”. The guy says he's willing to change his mind even after the first post you made (where I get the rudeness), and thanked Silvanel for the links he provided. No need to further berate him - it's probably even counter-productive.
Peer shame is one of the more powerful motivators for behaviour change in humans. The right wing propaganda farms on Twitter that spread this nonsense get around that by a combination of creating a bubble where there are no facts through blocking and simply having no shame. That creates this situation where people repeat the lies to an outside audience and need to be corrected. He should be embarrassed that he fell for what is essentially the political equivalent of a Nigerian prince email. He should be angry at the people who made him look like an idiot by lying to him. He should want to avoid that happening in the future, either by practicing greater skepticism or by not trusting known liars so much.
If nobody laughs at him for doing this then he’ll just keep doing it and you’ll have to disprove every single lie they can come up with, one by one. And that’s a lot of lies. We need to get to the point where he realizes those liars are making a fool of him so that he stops trusting them.
|
Norway28561 Posts
As a pedagogue, I'm going to call absolute, complete bullshit on that. To me (and while I've stated that I am not an expert on various subjects we've recently discussed, this is an area where I actually am an expert), the idea that 'peer shame' is a good way to make people change their mind is much dumber than what he posted.
Paradoxically, I guess you can prove yourself right by changing your behavior and never attempt to peer shame again, but I really doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
