CDZ Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

[Grumblenuts]

I don't see your homework on what I quoted you claiming and just repeating your opinion is not even an argument let alone convincing. It could be argued that everything produces greenhouse gases in its fabrication. That says nothing. You need to provide the comparable numbers, methodologies, sources for the claims at least, something. EP is a known, though recently established, nuke industry front group with a track record of publishing lies. Hanson has clearly drunk the nuke Kool-Aid along with a few others. That's a shame but just proves almost anyone can be bought. If you really care about our future, stop drinking that shit.

perhaps it’s not surprising that Shellenberger, Hansen, Caldeira et al. signed a letter to Illinois legislators April 4 that repeatedly refers to nuclear power as “clean energy” and said that the two plants Exelon may close have saved lives that otherwise might have been harmed by coal plant emissions. The letter asserts that renewables like wind have an unfair market advantage over nuclear in terms of subsidies, and advocates that nukes be included in the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. (For the record, nuclear power is not a renewable energy source because it does not regenerate, according to the US Energy Information Administration—and nuclear power is heavily subsidized, not least through the Price Anderson Act, which caps liability for nuclear accidents at a tiny fraction of their potential cost.)

 

[Dick Foster]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

That's a question I've been asking. Clearly nuclear power using uranium fueled light water reactors is problematic and has very serious drawbacks. However there is a form of nuclear fission reactive power that answers and solves many of the problems with current nuclear power technology and that is thorium fueled liquid fluoride cooled reactors or LFTR technology that was developed in the late fifties and early sixties. The technology has already been largely developed and proven while there are abundant supplies of thorium avaliable right here in the USA. There is no good reason not to put it into place. As a matter of fact, LFTR reactors could be used to convert every existing fossil fueled power plant in use today over to clean cheap nuclear power in short order. However that would really piss off the fossil fuel industry along with the solar and wind kooks so apparently that's why few hear of it.
The information is out there, all you have to is look for it. Search on Thorium or LFTR and dig in. Then you too will be asking why aren't we doing this? Hell it can even be used to reduce the stockpiles of neuclear waste that we're stuck with today. It's all there, inherent safety aspects (it's inherently safe), waste byproducts (very little with much shorter half lives) heck containment isn't even necessary,, suitability for use for weapons grade material (it isn't) etc.
Everyone should boneup on it. You could even use it to make electric cars viable for a change but I would prefer hydrogen instead.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Solar produces a good bit of greenhouse gases in its fabrication along with the waste when they are no longer useful every 8-10 so years.

Now let's explore the truth:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) performed a meta-analysis of studies that examined the long term degradation rates of various PV panels. They found that the 1% per year rule was somewhat pessimistic for panels made prior to the year 2000, and today’s panels, with better technology and improved manufacturing techniques, have even more stamina than their predecessors. For monocrystalline silicon, the most commonly used panel for commercial and residential PV, the degradation rate is less than 0.5% for panels made before 2000, and less than 0.4% for panels made after 2000. That means that a panel manufactured today should produce 92% of its original power after 20 years, quite a bit higher than the 80% estimated by the 1% rule.

 

[sakinago]

Solar produces a good bit of greenhouse gases in its fabrication along with the waste when they are no longer useful every 8-10 so years.

Now let's explore the truth:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) performed a meta-analysis of studies that examined the long term degradation rates of various PV panels. They found that the 1% per year rule was somewhat pessimistic for panels made prior to the year 2000, and today’s panels, with better technology and improved manufacturing techniques, have even more stamina than their predecessors. For monocrystalline silicon, the most commonly used panel for commercial and residential PV, the degradation rate is less than 0.5% for panels made before 2000, and less than 0.4% for panels made after 2000. That means that a panel manufactured today should produce 92% of its original power after 20 years, quite a bit higher than the 80% estimated by the 1% rule.

Still produces 300 times the waste. So, what’s your point? And I highly question the 92% at 20 years. I talked to a salesmen a year ago who was eager to tell me that the higher end models last 10 years, and he wasn’t selling to me so it’s wasnt any sort of scheme.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Nice analysis of the comparative waste baloney here and much more. Don't wish to quote any of it because the whole is such a great read. But near the end the author touches upon the fake argument repeated in the title of this topic. Painting the nuke industry as though an actual abuse victim. Aside from being pathetic, the trouble is obvious. No one is ever quoted making the claim being argued against. It's pure nonsense, top to bottom.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I highly question the 92% at 20 years. I talked to a salesmen a year ago who was eager to tell me that the higher end models last 10 years, and he wasn’t selling to me so it’s wasnt any sort of scheme.

And compared to NREL you and this unnamed salesman are what? Where's your scientific study results? I've had solar panels on my roof for nearly five years. Work like a charm. Zero maintenance. No problem. Even extend the life of my asphalt shingles. Get serious.

 

[Grumblenuts]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

That's a question I've been asking. Clearly nuclear power using uranium fueled light water reactors is problematic and has very serious drawbacks. However there is a form of nuclear fission reactive power that answers and solves many of the problems with current nuclear power technology and that is thorium fueled liquid fluoride cooled reactors or LFTR technology that was developed in the late fifties and early sixties. The technology has already been largely developed and proven while there are abundant supplies of thorium avaliable right here in the USA. There is no good reason not to put it into place. As a matter of fact, LFTR reactors could be used to convert every existing fossil fueled power plant in use today over to clean cheap nuclear power in short order. However that would really piss off the fossil fuel industry along with the solar and wind kooks so apparently that's why few hear of it.
The information is out there, all you have to is look for it. Search on Thorium or LFTR and dig in. Then you too will be asking why aren't we doing this? Hell it can even be used to reduce the stockpiles of neuclear waste that we're stuck with today. It's all there, inherent safety aspects (it's inherently safe), waste byproducts (very little with much shorter half lives) heck containment isn't even necessary,, suitability for use for weapons grade material (it isn't) etc.
Everyone should boneup on it. You could even use it to make electric cars viable for a change but I would prefer hydrogen instead.

First off, clearly you yourself are "opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power" "using uranium fueled light water reactors" which happens to comprise all the "nuclear power" we've ever experienced. Yet you appear "sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change.". Go figure?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You've met someone opposed to Thorium reactor research?

Countless energy technologies are being explored and promoted now. Who's against them? I'd bet it's been the old nuke industry itself holding back Thorium reactor progress far more than anyone else.

 

[sakinago]

I highly question the 92% at 20 years. I talked to a salesmen a year ago who was eager to tell me that the higher end models last 10 years, and he wasn’t selling to me so it’s wasnt any sort of scheme.

And compared to NREL you and this unnamed salesman are what? Where's your scientific study results? I've had solar panels on my roof for nearly five years. Work like a charm. Zero maintenance. No problem. Even extend the life of my asphalt shingles. Get serious.

Cool. Not the issue at hand though. The point is solar panels alone produce 300 times more waste compared to nuclear for the same amount of energy created. We’re not even talking about other waste directly associated with solar energy. We’re not even talking about the many shortcomings of solar like the real estate used up, the overall practicality, how the technology has been just 5 years away from a breakthrough for the past 30 years, and the cost that also makes it far inferior to nuclear. Nuclear is the most reliable, cleanest, and is almost comparably as cheap as other cheap forms of fossil fuel energy. It truly is the best energy at our disposal. The resistance to it is like if there were a weird cult of blockbuster fans who want to ban all streaming services. It truly is a head scratcher.

If you need to know the name of the salesmen, (suggesting I use nefarious unnamed sources like a two-bit journalist to go after my anecdotal story is a hilarious and telling tactic btw) it’s Steve K, and he’s my buddy’s older brother.

 

[oldsoul]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Yep. The two are definitely tied together. If you want to guarantee REAL climate change, there is no better way than a runaway nuclear reactor! It's GUARANTEED to change your climate!

Until we outgrow the need for fossil fuels, the only real solution to greenhouse gas is for humanity to get control of itself and start bringing down population. It isn't the fossil fuels that are so bad as it is the NUMBER of people all burning them!

the only real solution to greenhouse gas is for humanity to get control of itself and start bringing down population. It isn't the fossil fuels that are so bad as it is the NUMBER of people all burning them!

I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.

Can't help it if two people come to similar conclusions for two very different reasons. But whereas Adolf wanted to exterminate people other than Germans because he thought them inferior, I merely recognize the scientifically indisputable fact that virtually every negative environmental and societal problem mankind faces today is a function of his massively increasing numbers on the planet. Name me one problem we face today that wouldn't be helped if not solved by cutting world population down to half? And I don't mean by extermination but simply by regulating birth rates to bring things back around eventually to a manageable number over the next 50 years.

Because, if mankind cannot find a way of doing it, believe me, sooner or later, nature is going to do it for us in the form of famine, war or disease. Which do YOU prefer?

I don't think you had bad intentions at all for bringing up population control..

Of course not, I don't know why anyone would think that. I didn't say I had a good solution in how to IMPLEMENT that, but the inescapable fact is that in most places of the world, cities are being strained to the limit, their infrastructure, utilities, electrical grid, sewerage, water supply, waste disposal are all being strained to the limit.

We are running out of places to bury our waste, food production is being pushed to the limit. Hospitals and educational facilities are being overrun. Minerals and resources are being depleted. Oceans are being scooped dry of fish. Our forests destroyed, countless species run to extinction. Whole ecosystems of coral reefs and other things wiped out.

Our problem is that we are barely keeping up, we have no headroom left. All it will take now is a severe drought, a major power outage from a CME or some disease blight and a LOT of people are going to be in trouble.

The collective smog and pollution beginning to take a toll on the planet. Cities thick with smog and haze. Light pollution from artificial illumination has wiped out our night skies. We nearly destroyed our ozone with CFCs then went almost as bad with the HFCs which replaced them which turned out to be a terrible greenhouse gas. And we don't know if there is some other yet unseen toxin we've released as yet undetected. As it is, pieces of plastic now turn up in EVERY air sample, every fish sample we test. We ourselves are certainly full of plastics. And I feel certain there is a DIRECT LINK between over-population and urban life, noise and pressure and the crimes we are seeing today. Whatever the long-term technological solution to all of this, all I know is that the immediate short term solution to a cleaner, healthier, better planet is to bring our population back down to maybe half it is today. That alone would cut our impact on the environment by 75%.

in most places of the world, cities are being strained to the limit, their infrastructure, utilities, electrical grid, sewerage, water supply, waste disposal are all being strained to the limit.

This is one reason I refuse to live in a "metro area".

All it will take now is a severe drought, a major power outage from a CME or some disease blight and a LOT of people are going to be in trouble.

This would be a non-issue, if people remembered how to be self sufficient. I'm not saying that people need to go be self-sufficient all the time. How many people do you know that can go into the woods, find food, find/build shelter, start a fire (to cook on), and generally have the skill necessary to survive on their own for more than a few hours? That's what I mean, most people have no idea how to do it. If they don't have their smart phone they can't even find a forest, let alone survive in it.

Cities thick with smog and haze. Light pollution from artificial illumination has wiped out our night skies.

Another reason I refuse to live in a metro area.

As for the rest of your post, where are you getting your info? I have seen very little evidence of this first hand. Then again, I don't live in a heavily populated area, so maybe that's why...

 

[toobfreak]

How many people do you know that can go into the woods, find food, find/build shelter, start a fire (to cook on), and generally have the skill necessary to survive on their own for more than a few hours?

The vast majority of people would die in a true catastrophe having nearly zero preparedness nor skills. We place no value in teaching survivor training and preparedness. I guess it offends the officials to suggest that our infrastructure could fail us and that they could somehow lose control. Ask your local school district why they place more emphasis on teaching how to deal with 27 different gender identities than they do how to live with no electricity, gas or water?

 

[oldsoul]

How many people do you know that can go into the woods, find food, find/build shelter, start a fire (to cook on), and generally have the skill necessary to survive on their own for more than a few hours?

The vast majority of people would die in a true catastrophe having nearly zero preparedness nor skills. We place no value in teaching survivor training and preparedness. I guess it offends the officials to suggest that our infrastructure could fail us and that they could somehow lose control. Ask your local school district why they place more emphasis on teaching how to deal with 27 different gender identities than they do how to live with no electricity, gas or water?

Some estimates put the number at about 90% in the first year, after a major EMP. Could be man-made, or natural. Either way that's around 325 million people in the U.S. Pretty scary. The number of people who have died from being misgendered? none, zero, zich. Not one person has ever died as a direct result of being called a gender they do not identify with.

To be sure though, one is far less likely than the other, but the consequences of being unprepared are quite literally lethal for most.

 

[mamooth]

Solar produces a good bit of greenhouse gases in its fabrication along with the waste when they are no longer useful every 8-10 so years. With solar energy you’re also going to have to create a substantial chemical battery storage system, that also needs to be replaced every 8-10 years.

Your numbers are delusional. All of your claims about waste and cost appear to be delusional.

Why don't you show everyone the source of your "homework"? if you didn't just make up all of your claims, that shouldn't be a problem

 

[mamooth]

Is there a pro-nuker here who isn't preaching unicorns and rainbows, while cursing the heretics who don't believe in the unicorns and rainbows?

They all talk about the cheap miracle reactors that are just around the corner, just you wait and see. The cheap miracle reactors have been just around the corner for the past 50 years, and we never seem to get to that corner, but this time it's different, really it is.

Practical people don't put their faith in such unicorns and rainbows. Practical people look at the technology that works at a cheap price, which is now the renewable technologies.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, those any-day-now-coming breeder reactors were all the rage back when I was in college 40 years ago. The Tokamak Fusion Reactor was definitely going to work any day now... Mercifully, "TFTR shut down in 1997 after fifteen years of operation" and a fton of expense rooted in way overblown promises and expectations. They always think they know exactly what they're doing. Never have. Still don't.

Thorium breeder reactors were nothing new back then either. Definitely a step in the right direction simply due to going up the periodic table rather than further down. But much has been learned since then. Far better things are in the works.. Until then, the clean, renewable energy tech we already have will just have to serve.

 

[HenryBHough]

I'd really like to get 10 years out of the solar panels I've installed on four mountains. Three (3, liberals) is more typical. Equally I'd like to get one (1, liberals) full year out of the wind machines tried on those mountains.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Mountains are inherently rough on equipment. Try (3, conservatives) rooftops next time.

 

[HenryBHough]

Mountains are inherently rough on equipment. Try (3, conservatives) rooftops next time.

Oh, OK, now get hopping and outlaw mountains!

 

[sakinago]

Solar produces a good bit of greenhouse gases in its fabrication along with the waste when they are no longer useful every 8-10 so years. With solar energy you’re also going to have to create a substantial chemical battery storage system, that also needs to be replaced every 8-10 years.

Your numbers are delusional. All of your claims about waste and cost appear to be delusional.

Why don't you show everyone the source of your "homework"? if you didn't just make up all of your claims, that shouldn't be a problem

Already posted source home girl

 

[flacaltenn]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Because nuclear power is incredibly expensive.

Cost matters in the real world. For the price of that nuclear plant, we could build far, far more renewable capacity. Thus, the cost-effective choice is to not build more nuclear power plants.

Don't bring up the cheaper nuclear power plants that are supposedly just around the corner, because they've been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

And I say that as a person who used to run nuclear reactors. I'm as pro-nuke as they get. I just recognize that on a cost basis, nuclear power is totally impractical. Existing plants should be maintained for baseline load, but the idea of new plants is a joke.

Solar energy is almost triple the cost of nuclear, and it produces more waste per joule of energy created than nuclear. Solar is not clean energy as it is advertised as. Yes there’s a good bit of cost that goes into building a nuclear plant, after it’s built it is quite cheap. Nuclear is by far more reliable, produces much less waste than solar, and zero emissions. Solar on the other hand requires a lot of upkeep. Both panels and battery storage systems have to be replaced every 10 or so years, so you’re basically making a new power plant every 10 years for solar. Nuclear plants are good to go for at least 80 years and are only getting better.

Not mention the 20 or 25 lifetime of a good solar panel.. When you 40 acres of them, that's a lot of unrecycleable waste..

I generally go with -- solar is NOT an "alternative" to grid generation.. It's a PEAKER technology to relieve the daytime PEAK usage.. PERIOD.. NEWS FLASH -- there's 15 hours of the day in a GOOD LOCATION, where the panels are not efficient or dead.. Also no worky when there's clouds or rain or inches of snow/ice on them...