Does CO2 cause global warming? Is it good to reduce CO2? Who the Frack cares!

[ginjawarrior]

See what you did there? Idealism about Nuclear not being risky, but continuing with the idea that it is helping to do nothing and wait for the government to build you a nuclear plant

[h=1]Fileeaths per twh per energy source.jpg[/h] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

• File
• File history
• File usage
• Global file usage

waa the bogey man is coming....

 

[abandonconflict]

Fileeaths per twh per energy source.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

• File
• File history
• File usage
• Global file usage

waa the bogey man is coming....

Solar not even on the graph. Also deaths per TwH is a terrible measure of risk.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Solar not even on the graph. Also deaths per TwH is a terrible measure of risk.

these are people dying for every twh produced and your claiming a possible risk is worse?

nuclear has been about for a very long time and still hasnt killed anywhere near say coal...

you need to get real

 

[canndo]

Fileeaths per twh per energy source.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

• File
• File history
• File usage
• Global file usage

waa the bogey man is coming....

How funny - I used a similar actuarial to argue that speeding was not such a bad thing in traffic school. If the country went 10 miles an hour faster, we would have more deaths but over all we would be more productive. They hated me.

 

[ginjawarrior]

How funny - I used a similar actuarial to argue that speeding was not such a bad thing in traffic school. If the country went 10 miles an hour faster, we would have more deaths but over all we would be more productive. They hated me.

you'll have to explain that to me again because across the board nuclear is safer

and you still havent addressed my advocation of gen 3 plants

EDIT:"A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

 

[canndo]

you'll have to explain that to me again because across the board nuclear is safer

and you still havent addressed my advocation of gen 3 plants

EDIT:"A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

This is a traditional dilema. We weigh the benefit of the small percentage that something could go wrong against the damage that would be cause if that small percentage is the case. If a dam breaks, thousands may drown. If a nuclear facility melts down, millions would be harmed.


But as I said, I could go with exteme measures - like placing the plants far away from fault lines or tsunamis or heavy weather but the sequestration of spent fuel is still an issue - a big one. Suppose we managed to go 100 years having dependable and clean energy only to pay for that with the contaminatgion of a major aquifer. Was it worth it?

 

[abandonconflict]

these are people dying for every twh produced and your claiming a possible risk is worse?

nuclear has been about for a very long time and still hasnt killed anywhere near say coal...

you need to get real

when did I say anything about coal?

 

[abandonconflict]

This is a traditional dilema. We weigh the benefit of the small percentage that something could go wrong against the damage that would be cause if that small percentage is the case. If a dam breaks, thousands may drown. If a nuclear facility melts down, millions would be harmed.


But as I said, I could go with exteme measures - like placing the plants far away from fault lines or tsunamis or heavy weather but the sequestration of spent fuel is still an issue - a big one. Suppose we managed to go 100 years having dependable and clean energy only to pay for that with the contaminatgion of a major aquifer. Was it worth it?

incoming boogy man comment

 

[ginjawarrior]

This is a traditional dilema. We weigh the benefit of the small percentage that something could go wrong against the damage that would be cause if that small percentage is the case. If a dam breaks, thousands may drown. If a nuclear facility melts down, millions would be harmed.

theres been 2 major nuclear disaters and both of them havent come close to the death toll that conventional power has produced
1 of those disaters was by carefree russian technicians in an unsafe design, the other was in one of the worlds oldest reactors that survived one of the biggest eathquakes in history and a tsunami with only the underground generators failing
and they still haventkilled the millions your emotional pleading claims

and your still not addressing my advocation of gen 3 reactors

But as I said, I could go with exteme measures - like placing the plants far away from fault lines or tsunamis or heavy weather but the sequestration of spent fuel is still an issue - a big one. Suppose we managed to go 100 years having dependable and clean energy only to pay for that with the contaminatgion of a major aquifer. Was it worth it?

at the start of the nuclear race there was a big demand for fissionable materials for bombs thats why we've been stuck with the current design for reactors and the offshot of that is radioactive material that has on had a few percentage of energy extracted from it and will stay radio active for hundreds of thousands of years

we know how to remove pretty much all of the energy from that waste and have it radioactive for just a couple of hundred years about the same time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere but without the ecoshpere changing effect

you need to read up on what nuclear is rather than resorting to these emotive attacks on it

 

[canndo]

theres been 2 major nuclear disaters and both of them havent come close to the death toll that conventional power has produced
1 of those disaters was by carefree russian technicians in an unsafe design, the other was in one of the worlds oldest reactors that survived one of the biggest eathquakes in history and a tsunami with only the underground generators failing
and they still haventkilled the millions your emotional pleading claims

and your still not addressing my advocation of gen 3 reactors


at the start of the nuclear race there was a big demand for fissionable materials for bombs thats why we've been stuck with the current design for reactors and the offshot of that is radioactive material that has on had a few percentage of energy extracted from it and will stay radio active for hundreds of thousands of years

we know how to remove pretty much all of the energy from that waste and have it radioactive for just a couple of hundred years about the same time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere but without the ecoshpere changing effect

you need to read up on what nuclear is rather than resorting to these emotive attacks on it

I just took a look at Gen 4 reactors with molten cores. Perhaps you are right, it may be time to put away our fears. We harbor the same fears individualy when flying even though our rate of aircraft failure is very very low. What I still have a problem with however is that it is non-renewable and that it remains based on a central location. I believe that we should be looking at fabric infrastructure rather than what we have currently. Wind and solar go in that direction, produce NO byproducts and do not need involved mining, refining and distribution of fuel. If we are altering the way we do our energy business then why stick to the same 100 year old model of distribution?

 

[abandonconflict]

I just took a look at Gen 4 reactors with molten cores. Perhaps you are right, it may be time to put away our fears. We harbor the same fears individualy when flying even though our rate of aircraft failure is very very low. What I still have a problem with however is that it is non-renewable and that it remains based on a central location. I believe that we should be looking at fabric infrastructure rather than what we have currently. Wind and solar go in that direction, produce NO byproducts and do not need involved mining, refining and distribution of fuel. If we are altering the way we do our energy business then why stick to the same 100 year old model of distribution?

I think they compliment each other. May as well do both, maybe I'm crazy but that would ween us off the fossil fuel imo.

 

[ginjawarrior]

when did I say anything about coal?

you've been holding germany up as a shiny example of renewables.. they are currantly building more coal fired powerstations to take up the slack that renewables cannot cover...

"“Germany is still building a lot of coal and lignite plants; even though they are modern and efficient, they release quite a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere,” said Fabien Roques, senior director for European power and carbon at the energy consulting firm IHS CERA in Paris."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-green01.html?_r=0

 

[ginjawarrior]

I just took a look at Gen 4 reactors with molten cores. Perhaps you are right, it may be time to put away our fears. We harbor the same fears individualy when flying even though our rate of aircraft failure is very very low. What I still have a problem with however is that it is non-renewable and that it remains based on a central location. I believe that we should be looking at fabric infrastructure rather than what we have currently. Wind and solar go in that direction, produce NO byproducts and do not need involved mining, refining and distribution of fuel. If we are altering the way we do our energy business then why stick to the same 100 year old model of distribution?

while not renewable it certainly is sustainable if we use the fuel well and thats talking about time scales up to 60000years with everybody on this planet consuming a similar amount of energy that we currently enjoy
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

you think that supplying all the steel and concrete for the thousands of windturbines to match just 1 powerstaion won't involve mining? or the concrete and steel to build a beefed up energy grid?

you say no byproducts but at the end of each windmills life you still have the concrete plinth and steel structure that needs to be taken down and considering the thousands upon thousands needed it all starts to add up to a pretty big problem per GWH produced

 

[abandonconflict]

you've been holding germany up as a shiny example of renewables.

No, I was pointing to the potential of solar, I also said they are doing it wrong.

 

[ginjawarrior]

No, I was pointing to the potential of solar, I also said they are doing it wrong.

well when they can only achieve 3% production thru the year not only are they doing it wrong but the "potential" isnt something something you should be shouting about

 

[abandonconflict]

well when they can only achieve 3% production thru the year not only are they doing it wrong but the "potential" isnt something something you should be shouting about

My meters were running backwards until I moved to a place with out meters. Germany is doing it wrong.

I already know your response that it doesn't help people in high rises so before you get the urge to get the last word, bear in mind, I'm not contradicting you, I'm just saying not to overshadow individual responsibility. See post #151 and try to be less of a twat waffle. It seems to be your goal to silence all voices that don't unequivocally acquiesce to your supremacy by getting the last word and having the only correct idea. If you would just pull the wrinkles out of your panties you would probably have more friends. For fuck's sake, I'm probably the most radical nonconformist with views diverging further than anyone on this board and I still generally get along with people, even Dr Kynes. All I see you doing is trying to dictate. Chill homie, have a bong load.

 

[canndo]

while not renewable it certainly is sustainable if we use the fuel well and thats talking about time scales up to 60000years with everybody on this planet consuming a similar amount of energy that we currently enjoy
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

you think that supplying all the steel and concrete for the thousands of windturbines to match just 1 powerstaion won't involve mining? or the concrete and steel to build a beefed up energy grid?

you say no byproducts but at the end of each windmills life you still have the concrete plinth and steel structure that needs to be taken down and considering the thousands upon thousands needed it all starts to add up to a pretty big problem per GWH produced

One time expenditures such as steel and concrete are inconsequential when compared to the ongoing process of mining for or drilling for energy sources. I am not going to do the numbers here but imagine the initial cost to build a coal plant - expensive of course but it is a one time thing. That plant will use 30 or 40 years of coal, that coal being dug out of the ground after the overburden is removed using machinery that burns energy and then that coal is transported perhaps a thousan miles.

So far as byproducts, I am presuming that the wind turbine will never be decomissioned, or at least not for hundreds of years. Now you aren't really comparing the decomissioning of a nuclear facility with all of the contaminated parts that would need to be sequestered to a wind turbine and it's pilon assembly are you?

Solar is a different matter. I don't know, but I suspect that solar may need some exotic rare earths and the process that makes these things may well involve toxic chemicals. If we are talking about net energy production, we don't know how much energy a KWH yielding piece of solar requires to create in the first place.

 

[canndo]

My meters were running backwards until I moved to a place with out meters. Germany is doing it wrong.

I already know your response that it doesn't help people in high rises so before you get the urge to get the last word, bear in mind, I'm not contradicting you, I'm just saying not to overshadow individual responsibility. See post #151 and try to be less of a twat waffle. It seems to be your goal to silence all voices that don't unequivocally acquiesce to your supremacy by getting the last word and having the only correct idea. If you would just pull the wrinkles out of your panties you would probably have more friends. For fuck's sake, I'm probably the most radical nonconformist with views diverging further than anyone on this board and I still generally get along with people, even Dr Kynes. All I see you doing is trying to dictate. Chill homie, have a bong load.

That, sir, is my job and not Gin's.

 

[ginjawarrior]

My meters were running backwards until I moved to a place with out meters. Germany is doing it wrong.

I already know your response that it doesn't help people in high rises so before you get the urge to get the last word, bear in mind, I'm not contradicting you, I'm just saying not to overshadow individual responsibility. See post #151 and try to be less of a twat waffle. It seems to be your goal to silence all voices that don't unequivocally acquiesce to your supremacy by getting the last word and having the only correct idea. If you would just pull the wrinkles out of your panties you would probably have more friends. For fuck's sake, I'm probably the most radical nonconformist with views diverging further than anyone on this board and I still generally get along with people, even Dr Kynes. All I see you doing is trying to dictate. Chill homie, have a bong load.

individual responsibility isnt the whole story and theres only so far the individual can go before life starts to look different to how it is now. im all for reducing where reducing can be done but you also need to look at the industry side the part that makes our society and that needs a constant supply of energy that cannot be met by renewables without a major overhaul of everything

you might think im trying to be supreme over everything and perhaps my discussion style is slightly abrasive but i'm not fresh to this argument and some years back i was against nuclear like you are now

you might be radical but you cannot see the wood for the trees atm

 

[ginjawarrior]

One time expenditures such as steel and concrete are inconsequential when compared to the ongoing process of mining for or drilling for energy sources. I am not going to do the numbers here but imagine the initial cost to build a coal plant - expensive of course but it is a one time thing. That plant will use 30 or 40 years of coal, that coal being dug out of the ground after the overburden is removed using machinery that burns energy and then that coal is transported perhaps a thousan miles.

So far as byproducts, I am presuming that the wind turbine will never be decomissioned, or at least not for hundreds of years. Now you aren't really comparing the decomissioning of a nuclear facility with all of the contaminated parts that would need to be sequestered to a wind turbine and it's pilon assembly are you?

Solar is a different matter. I don't know, but I suspect that solar may need some exotic rare earths and the process that makes these things may well involve toxic chemicals. If we are talking about net energy production, we don't know how much energy a KWH yielding piece of solar requires to create in the first place.

no i was never equating the difference between a nuclear power plant and "a wind turbine and it's pilon" i was eqauting a nuclear power plant to the thousands of wind turbines and pilons needed to compare the GWH involved