How to make Nuclear Power safer

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

There is no simple solution.

We are all living on stored wealth in the form of fossil fuels. This has allowed us to overrun Planet Earth like vermin. Yes I am one of these vermin.


If all the current known fossil fuel reserves were burnt at the current increasing rates we would have a planet that was uninhabitable. We have about ten years before the tipping points of our climate occur.

Any form of nuclear fission power just puts this grim future back by about fifty years.

The long held promise of unlimited energy from fusion reactors is tainted by the fact that the reactor vessel made of exotic metals will become structurally unsafe due to the high neutron flux within about twenty years. These reactors are too dangerous to dismantle! The solution is to build another next door etc.

We have a nuclear reactor that will last for about another five billion years.

It is the Sun.

If we do not learn how to use renewable energy and limit our greed to this limited energy, we do not have a future as a species.

It is down to ALL of US!

Bert

I respect your opinion as I do all others. Obviously we have differing ideas. But all your premise is based on todays technologies.
We have enough nuclear material already mined to stop using coal and run the planet for 500 years. according to Barry in his video. People can argue that with him.
Uranium mining is a far less disturbance on the land than is strip mining coal.
Burning coal releases tonnes of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Most are not aware of that. I wasn't

But while Australia has an abundance of coal and the unions control the government be it ALP or Libs we will continue to run coal. That is no.1 reason libs dumped the tax.

I have solar power. was the 1st thing I put on my recently purchased home. If Kevin Rudd was really so caring about the environment instead of handing out free money he would have paid for panels on every roof top.

By the time we consider seriously nuclear fusion power or some other great saviour will be discovered. I'm all for that.
Maybe instead of calling it a Carbon tax they should have just called it and environmental tax. After all we did away with CFC with legislation. Didn't need a tax for that

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

The last thing we need is nuclear power on Earth. It will create more pollution than a millenium of coal and gas. Let the Sun create all the nuclear power we want.

Wind power is too expensive and erratic. Besides the more energy we remove from the circulating winds the more it will alter climate.

The best source of power is to build dams to store water when it rains and release the stored energy to drive generators. However we can't store enough energy this way to supply all our needs.

In the short term the safest and cheapest is coal fired power that has been improved in efficiency over the years so much that all the pollutants are removed before the left over CO2 is released to continue the carbon cycle.

Of course this surmise won't go over well with the people that are pushing political agenda.

There are not enough rivers on the planet to dam and doing so would screw many many ecosystems.

Coal can NEVER be pollution free for the simple reason that its number one by-product is CO2. Releasing that C02 is is not part of the carbon cycle that allows us to continue to exist. There is no way in hell we could survive it.

No political agenda involved, just yr 8 Science.

Sorry

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by sn1987a

The singularity will be here soon and all these problems will be solved.... one way or another

Didn't someone theorize just the other day we're on the event horizon already?

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by el_draco

There are not enough rivers on the planet to dam and doing so would screw many many ecosystems.

Coal can NEVER be pollution free for the simple reason that its number one by-product is CO2. Releasing that C02 is is not part of the carbon cycle that allows us to continue to exist. There is no way in hell we could survive it.

No political agenda involved, just yr 8 Science.

Sorry

Sorry you only have year 8 science. I have 60 years behind me and I studied before the corriculum became tainted.

As I keep saying CO2 is not a pollutant. Besides it makes up so little of the atmosphere its effect is minimal. By the way What is the difference of CO2 from Breathing, Burning coal, Burning gas or any other combustion. It is still CO2!

At my age with terminal cancer I can afford to rock the boat!

Barry

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

What is the difference of CO2 from Breathing, Burning coal, Burning gas or any other combustion

Apart from different isotopic ratios (fossil-derived CO2 has no C14 and little C13), nothing on a molecular basis. However, the CO2 that comes from your breath was in the atmosphere a few moments before. The CO2 that comes from burning coal and gas is ancient and has been trapped/sequestered away from the atmosphere for millions of years.

So your breath is not contributing to a net increasing in the number of CO2 molecules in the modern atmosphere. The latter is.

[sn1987a (Barry)]

Hi....

Sorry just looking for the hat trick


cheers
Barry

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Apart from different isotopic ratios (fossil-derived CO2 has no C14 and little C13), nothing on a molecular basis. However, the CO2 that comes from your breath was in the atmosphere a few moments before. The CO2 that comes from burning coal and gas is ancient and has been trapped/sequestered away from the atmosphere for millions of years.

So your breath is not contributing to a net increasing in the number of CO2 molecules in the modern atmosphere. The latter is.

So you and Ian Plimer don't see eye to eye Barry?

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

So you and Ian Plimer don't see eye to eye Barry?

No

[Camelopardalis (Dunk)]

It's not the CO2 that's the problem, in that respect, from coal power stations, it's all the nitrogen and sulphuric oxides...those are more damaging to the environment, i.e. the green bits like trees and plants...ever heard of acid rain? Was a big problem in northern Europe when I was a kid.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Sorry you only have year 8 science. I have 60 years behind me and I studied before the corriculum became tainted.

As I keep saying CO2 is not a pollutant. Besides it makes up so little of the atmosphere its effect is minimal. By the way What is the difference of CO2 from Breathing, Burning coal, Burning gas or any other combustion. It is still CO2!

At my age with terminal cancer I can afford to rock the boat!

Barry

Rock the boat as much as you like The carbon in sinks like coal and oil have been accumulating for millions and millions of of years to the point where carbon represents only a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. Its that situation that has allowed the "current equilibrium" to exist and life, as we know it, to thrive. If we continue to empty the sinks back into the biosphere, life, as we know it, wont survive, period. The fact that burning these fossil fuels also dumps a bunch of other toxics into the environment is yet another major problem to contend with and their effects are well documented.

I teach Science, by the way...

[PeterEde (Peter)]

What about the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been up as high as 4000ppm and the life thrived?
CO2 even at todays levels are far from toxic and have not been proven one iota to be the cause of any warming esp when we've had no warming for 15 years now?
Plants die without CO2 We die without plants.
One volcano can produce more CO2 in one week than Australia in a year.
China building how many coal burners now as well as nuclear reactors (hedging their bet?)
We've had how many ice ages long before man and the industrial age. Infact aren't we still in an ice age as long as there's ice on the poles?
Greenland was in fact Green once.
People derided Abbotts direct action plan but I remember years ago as a kid planting trees. In fact why are why blaming the production or release of CO2 and not the fact that we humans have been deforesting the planet since we figured out how to farm. How much impact has the deforestation of the planet increase the CO2 levels?

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

What about the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been up as high as 4000ppm and the life thrived?
CO2 even at todays levels are far from toxic and have not been proven one iota to be the cause of any warming esp when we've had no warming for 15 years now?
Plants die without CO2 We die without plants.
One volcano can produce more CO2 in one week than Australia in a year.
China building how many coal burners now as well as nuclear reactors (hedging their bet?)
We've had how many ice ages long before man and the industrial age. Infact aren't we still in an ice age as long as there's ice on the poles?
Greenland was in fact Green once.
People derided Abbotts direct action plan but I remember years ago as a kid planting trees. In fact why are why blaming the production or release of CO2 and not the fact that we humans have been deforesting the planet since we figured out how to farm. How much impact has the deforestation of the planet increase the CO2 levels?

Well, here we go again... Of the Scientific work that has been peer reviewed the overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real and its leading to climate change... Amongst those who KNOW the science, there is NO doubt what so ever. PERIOD. Get over it, suck it up or whatever else but the verdict is in and it's guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by PeterEde

What about the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been up as high as 4000ppm and the life thrived?

Yep, but NOT US! If you want to try living in a 4000 ppm state, please completely seal a room in your house and stay in there for a couple of days... Report back.

Originally Posted by PeterEde

CO2 even at todays levels are far from toxic and have not been proven one iota to be the cause of any warming esp when we've had no warming for 15 years now?

Nobody said CO2 was toxic, but to much of it will sure wreck your day. Quote whatever denialist claims you like, I refer to the above.

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Plants die without CO2 We die without plants.

Also true, but the carbon cycle is a dynamic equilibrium that must be maintained within certain limits or the biosphere starts dialing out species... Come on, this is BASIC science

Originally Posted by PeterEde

One volcano can produce more CO2 in one week than Australia in a year.

Yeah. So what? We are adding to the background releases and it's causing problems. Again, there is NO serious dispute in the Scientific community

Originally Posted by PeterEde

China building how many coal burners now as well as nuclear reactors (hedging their bet?)

Point being? Coal burners take a lot less time to build. Their population is stupidly high and they are trying to meet demand. They are also investing massive amount in renewables. Maybe they are responding to the fact that its to frigging toxic to breathe outside in many areas and the population is starting to defy the firing squads.

Originally Posted by PeterEde

We've had how many ice ages long before man and the industrial age. Infact aren't we still in an ice age as long as there's ice on the poles?
Greenland was in fact Green once.

Yeah. So what? Whats the point? Are you happy to just go along with the way things are? We appear to be at the start of the next catastrophic global extinction... Do you REALLY, REALLY want to do anything to risk make that worse???? Try this experiment. Stick some coal in a bucket, light it up. When its burning strongly, stick your face in the smoke. Breath deep. Record the reaction. Apply to planet earth...

Originally Posted by PeterEde

People derided Abbotts direct action plan but I remember years ago as a kid planting trees. In fact why are why blaming the production or release of CO2 and not the fact that we humans have been deforesting the planet since we figured out how to farm. How much impact has the deforestation of the planet increase the CO2 levels?

Funnily enough, for generations people have been fighting to protect forests around the world and deforestation has massively accelerated in the last century; its called industrial logging and we are dropping a Belgium a year at the moment. Sustainable???
Yep, trees suck up CO2 but most of it gets released again when the tree dies.. decomposition, (you know, part of the carbon cycle)

The problem is, you release all that FOSSIL carbon, the stuff that's been sucked out of the atmosphere for millennia, and BURIED, and you have a recipe for deep ****e guaranteed. Abbotts a moron; totally owned by big coal and making a laughing stock of Australia on the international stage. This dim witted twit ripped $100 million out of the CSIRO and gave it to bible-bashers in schools. Speaks volumes for his other policies, including "direct obfuscation"

Really folks... It is scary that people with an interest in Science should argue over really basic stuff or is it, as I heard on the radio this morning, that policy on climate change is driven by political ideology rather than rational thinking? REALLY????

What are you going to say to your kids when you hand them a devastated planet? We didn't know??? B.S.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by el_draco

I teach Science, by the way...

That is what disturbs me more than anything else.

Barry

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

That is what disturbs me more than anything else.

Barry

If it was most other people I know, I'd share your concerns, but I am pleased to advise, I teach old style... and I get results.Of course, if you can do better, please do... Become a teacher and see just what you have to put up with in the classroom. You might also ask why this is so? Teachers fault... Yeah right. The average teacher gets 6 dedicated minutes per kid per week, PROVIDED nobody else fires up in class. Before making statements about teachers, make them about parenting, government policy and social attitudes towards anything that requires more than 3 brain cells and 30 seconds to do...

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Teaching science doesnt make you right. The science is not settled. All the computer models based on your science fail to predict anything meaning full.
Being a science teacher makes you no more a scientist than me unless you have a history of reseach. Your facts are no better and no worse than mine

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

Teaching science doesnt make you right. The science is not settled. All the computer models based on your science fail to predict anything meaning full.
Being a science teacher makes you no more a scientist than me unless you have a history of reseach. Your facts are no better and no worse than mine

never said it did and my knowledge is far from "authority" in any field but the Science is absolutely settled and those that claim its not either have a vested interest or are deluded. The consensus is there and thats just a reality. However, since there still seem to be those who prefer to say the science is NOT settled, I pose the question... " ARE YOU PREPARED TO RISK IT?"

[PeterEde (Peter)]

Who has settled the science? The much discredited IPCC. I would never believe anything that came from them and they were "The Authority"
There are as many scientists against IPCC findings if not more but since our media had or still has a left slant they never get a mention.
I have no doubts climate change is real. Seasons shift over time always have. Our seasons now are roughly a month out of whack with the calendar. Summer does not actually start until the 20th Dec.
What about the effect the great big thing in the sky we all bow down to. The greatest influence on our climate.
We have only just past the perihelion which will cause a rise in temps to a plateau and then it drops away again.

No I am not a scientist. But I refuse to believe the garbage from the IPCC. The IPCC published crap from anyone calling themselves a "Climate scientist" They did no research but were quiet happy to fudge the numbers they had.

I'll risk it. No tax is going to change a thing. But legislation will. Why didn't the Labor party just legislate companies to reduce the production of CO2? They did it years ago to end CFC in the atmosphere.
We know why. It was a money raising venture and nothing more.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by PeterEde

I'll risk it. No tax is going to change a thing. But legislation will. Why didn't the Labor party just legislate companies to reduce the production of CO2? They did it years ago to end CFC in the atmosphere.
We know why. It was a money raising venture and nothing more.

Well, its down to politics and you are prepared to risk the planet.. Wow.
I, for one, consider it a risk I am not prepared to make with the lives of my children and their children, let alone the many other species that will pay the consequences of our "gambling".

Frankly, I gave up on politics and politicians years ago because they are just totally and utterly incompetent at everything they do. Pick up any newspaper for the proof of that. The Scientific consensus is clear, unless you believe there is a global conspiracy by the worlds Scientists... of course!, and the likes of Abbott respond by shooting the messenger.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

I just don't believe throwing money at climate change is going to do diddley squat. Gillards tax did nothing but cost the country billions. Change the temp by what? No one has managed to put any measurable number on that and any number that small certainly don't justify billions.
It's even been mentioned here already the the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 has by no means been proven to cause anything.

[PeterEde (Peter)]

The end of my say. Probably pissed off enough people in my few days here already