China, US and the environment - Page 9
Forum Index > General Forum |
ZerOCoolSC2
8704 Posts
| ||
JimmiC
Canada22810 Posts
On November 20 2019 01:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: inb4 oil companies run this into the ground. Might be hard to run it into the ground when it is backed by the worst 2nd richest man, now that he passed Bezos only Putin is in front. But really, I think it is too public for that to work. They would have had to shut down the technology before everyone knew about it. They could maybe promote it as unsafe if there any accidents or something? | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8704 Posts
I hope this does take off and something wonderful comes of it. I think we need something like this to move forward and start pushing the technological envelope even further for our species to survive long term. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22810 Posts
On November 20 2019 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Any time a market/industry is about to be disrupted, the people with the most to lose will find a way. I fully expect some kind of story about the people behind it to come to light (child molester or whatever) and it doesn't even have to be real. They will just want the technology to not take a big bit of their bottom line. You can look at how they did buses and rail in the US cities with cars. I hope this does take off and something wonderful comes of it. I think we need something like this to move forward and start pushing the technological envelope even further for our species to survive long term. It wouldn't be the first time, but until it happens might as well be hopeful! Old bill Gates will be hard to push around. Just have to hope the tests turn out well and it is safe, with that level of heat safety will always be the biggest concern. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8704 Posts
On November 20 2019 02:12 JimmiC wrote: It wouldn't be the first time, but until it happens might as well be hopeful! Old bill Gates will be hard to push around. Just have to hope the tests turn out well and it is safe, with that level of heat safety will always be the biggest concern. Agreed. I want it to succeed and we know we need something like this to shake things up. If this takes off, I could see a lot of 'new' tech being revealed suddenly. | ||
Yurie
11533 Posts
Though maybe it will be cheaper and a few industries can't use electric heating. I don't understand the technology well enough to know. Secondly, wouldn't it only heat during the day? A lot of heat intensive industries run 24/7, 300+ days a year since the equipment and re-heating is too expensive to have it just standing there during night. | ||
Belisarius
Australia6177 Posts
I mean it's still very impressive, and if the efficiency stacks up or it's more scaleable etc etc it could be great. But I don't think it enables anything fundamental that wasn't possible before. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22810 Posts
That they are announcing the tech is good news, but it is still a long way from actually doing what they say it can do, and as you both mentioned there will be things it just cant do. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8704 Posts
| ||
Erasme
Bahamas15893 Posts
| ||
Belisarius
Australia6177 Posts
The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism. That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage. There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15564 Posts
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy. meh, nuclear energy production is not a panacea. I'm glad to see the USA and Germany go with the less expensive power generation options. Where I used to live had the lowest electricity and heating prices in North America. The people and industry benefited accordingly. It was great. For many decades Ontario was Canada's "land of opportunity". That ended when they stopped generating electricity via coal and went all nuclear. Prices skyrocketed. It screwed both industry and the people. I moved a couple hours down the road to a place where electricity prices are super low and the people and industry benefits accordingly. I'd like to see Ontario do what Germany is doing and go back to coal. I come from a family of economic migrants. As is my family's tradition I voted with my feet and left Ontario, Canada and went to a place with better opportunities. Its pretty hilarious listening to Canadians talk about how the decisions they make could either destroy or rescue the global environment. Nothing Canada does matters much. Even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct its the USA, India, and China that matters. Its going to be interesting to see Canada try to compete with the USA now that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord and repealed all the laws that were intended to have the USA abide by the rules in the Paris Accord. I think Canada is going to get crushed. Ontario has been getting crushed for 10 years. Canada has one legit hope and that is Trudeau's promise to plant 2 billion trees. Trudeau's environmental projection specialists can start predicting its ok to ignore CO2 emission limits because in 30 years all these new trees will soak up all the carbon, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and whatever else these environmentalists can dream up, LOL. On August 28 2019 21:09 Broetchenholer wrote: Australia and Canada make some sense due to the weather which also explains the States numbers to some extent, which is 20t. Canadas 27 million people have a high carbon footprint of 24t and this should be solved, the next big nation on the list would be Russia with 14t and then we come to the 10t mark where most of the other g20 nations sit at or under. So yeah, America is not the worst polluter per capita, just one of the worst. You are calling into question someone else's #. However, at least 1 # you have is not correct. Canada has a population of ~ 37 million. I don't think "solving" Canada means much. Again, this is even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28262 Posts
| ||
JimmiC
Canada22810 Posts
On November 21 2019 07:25 Belisarius wrote: The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism. That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage. There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere. I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another. That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21791 Posts
Sometimes a bad piece of legislation doesn’t die, it just returns in another form—call it a zombie bill. In this case, the zombie is a bill that morphed into a proposed rule that would upend how the federal government uses science in its decisionmaking. It would allow the US Environmental Protection Agency to pick and choose what science it uses to write legislation on air, water, and toxic pollution that affects human health and the environment. Republicans tried to pass this type of legislation from 2014 to 2017, with titles such as the Secret Science Reform Act, followed the next year by the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act. The idea, which on the surface seems like a good one, was to force the EPA to use only research that is publicly accessible, reproducible, and independently verified. Critics, including much of the US scientific community, complained it would throw out nearly all epidemiological studies in which patients give consent to use their medical information but not their names, to protect their privacy. That would mean limiting studies on the effects of air pollution on lung disease or toxic chemicals’ effects on Parkinson’s disease and cancer, for example. Scientists also argued that some data, by its nature, can never be reproduced. That would include, for example, the collected particles spewed out by erupting volcanoes, or oil-stained creatures from the Deepwater Horizon spill, or tissue samples taken from soldiers exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. www.wired.com On nuclear, the nuclear industry has been pushing for less oversight, and it’s working. Fewer mock commando raids to test nuclear power plants’ defenses against terrorist attacks. Fewer, smaller government inspections for plant safety issues. Less notice to the public and to state governors when problems arise. They’re part of the money-saving rollbacks sought by the country’s nuclear industry under President Trump and already approved or pending approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, largely with little input from the general public. The nuclear power industry says the safety culture in the U.S. nuclear industry — 40 years after a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania — is “exceptional” and merits the easing of government inspections. Opponents say the changes are bringing the administration’s business-friendly, rule-cutting mission to an industry — nuclear reactors — in which the stakes are too high to cut corners. While many of the regulatory rollbacks happening at other agencies under the current administration may be concerning, “there aren’t many that come with the existential risks of a nuclear reactor having a malfunction,” said Geoff Fettus, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council on nuclear issues. www.latimes.com | ||
Erasme
Bahamas15893 Posts
On November 21 2019 08:33 JimmiC wrote: I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another. That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries. Nuclear waste is only "dangerous" in movies. You can dig a hole and it won't move an inch. It's not going to "infect" anything. Nuclear power is the most eco friendly energy we have by far. I am deeply angry at merkel and at the direction germany took post fukushima as it enabled france's own idiots to try to close as many nuclear plants as possible. Also, it works, as seen in France. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22810 Posts
On November 21 2019 08:50 Erasme wrote: Nuclear waste is only "dangerous" in movies. You can dig a hole and it won't move an inch. It's not going to "infect" anything. Nuclear power is the most eco friendly energy we have by far. I am deeply angry at merkel and at the direction germany took post fukushima as it enabled france's own idiots to try to close as many nuclear plants as possible. Also, it works, as seen in France. Can you site that? It is not what I have read. | ||
Erasme
Bahamas15893 Posts
On November 21 2019 09:06 JimmiC wrote: Can you site that? It is not what I have read. Which part ? 90% of nuclear waste can be disposed in a shallow grave where it will not have any impact until the radiation wears off. 10% is considered "high level waste" (which is mostly the fuel used). Of those 10%, 96% is uranium, 1% is plutonium and 3% is the actual waste, as the uranium and plutonium are reprocessed and recycled into new fuel. The rest has to be buried deeper where it can stay indefinitly, with no impact on the ecosystem, until we can remove it. Sites for that waste in France have to be built with a removal option. I will agree that it's a short/middle term solution. However it is clearly better than shutting down nuclear plants, opening more coal plants and building 200k solar panels or w/e. Weve had the solution for decades but fearmongering and private interests fucked us congrats source + Show Spoiler + On November 21 2019 07:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy. meh, nuclear energy production is not a panacea. I'm glad to see the USA and Germany go with the less expensive power generation options. Where I used to live had the lowest electricity and heating prices in North America. The people and industry benefited accordingly. It was great. For many decades Ontario was Canada's "land of opportunity". That ended when they stopped generating electricity via coal and went all nuclear. Prices skyrocketed. It screwed both industry and the people. I moved a couple hours down the road to a place where electricity prices are super low and the people and industry benefits accordingly. I'd like to see Ontario do what Germany is doing and go back to coal. I come from a family of economic migrants. As is my family's tradition I voted with my feet and left Ontario, Canada and went to a place with better opportunities. Its pretty hilarious listening to Canadians talk about how the decisions they make could either destroy or rescue the global environment. Nothing Canada does matters much. Even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct its the USA, India, and China that matters. Its going to be interesting to see Canada try to compete with the USA now that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord and repealed all the laws that were intended to have the USA abide by the rules in the Paris Accord. I think Canada is going to get crushed. Ontario has been getting crushed for 10 years. Canada has one legit hope and that is Trudeau's promise to plant 2 billion trees. Trudeau's environmental projection specialists can start predicting its ok to ignore CO2 emission limits because in 30 years all these new trees will soak up all the carbon, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and whatever else these environmentalists can dream up, LOL. You are calling into question someone else's #. However, at least 1 # you have is not correct. Canada has a population of ~ 37 million. I don't think "solving" Canada means much. Again, this is even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct. First, what makes you think that coal is cheaper than nuclear ? Unless you're literally sitting on a coal mine, then nuclear is cheaper than coal at every step of the way. And that is counting the disposing of nuclear waste. source + Show Spoiler + Also environmental doomsayers are not being realistic. The situation is actually worse. | ||
Belisarius
Australia6177 Posts
On November 21 2019 08:33 JimmiC wrote: I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another. That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries. I'm not saying we wouldn't have problems in a hypothetical world where every coal plant has been a nuclear reactor for 30 years. We'd have lots. There would have been several more significant incidents and a lot of "minor" ones. There would be tons of issues with safety standards in developing countries, there would be accidents transporting waste to stable locations, several "stable" locations would have turned out not to be. Venezuela would be even more crazy if there were half a dozen reactors there right now. But those problems are different to the one we have now, and the one we have now is so spectacularly large that it changes everything. We could re-run Chernobyl and Fukushima ten times over without even coming close to the amount of land and population that we will lose to rising seas and ecological collapse in the next century. The bar was, in my mind, as low as it could go and we still chose not to jump it. | ||
Sermokala
United States13541 Posts
| ||
| ||