If each state is willing to deal w their own waste, go for it, but stop shipping it to other states!
To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
591–600 of 666 posts
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The downside of solar is approximately 0 Solar doesn't work at night, and suffers greatly on cloudy days. How will baseline demand overnight be supplied with solar? How will people run their air conditioners and datacentres?
> How will baseline demand overnight be supplied with solar? How will people run their air conditioners and datacentres? Coal, natural gas, and hydro, the way we've always done it.
So in other words, solar can't replace fossil fuels.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foul! The Fukushima plants were among the oldest in service. They were indeed not modern in design by any definition.
The two direct deaths where from an insufficient sea wall not the reactor design. Saying future reactor designs fix the problem is a mistake. Because again it was not the reactor design that caused their deaths. So again, saying some hypothetical perfect design exists and it would obviously have a large enough see wall, and that is what your defending is a true Scotsman argument. PS: Remember, future designs also hav…
When people think of the Fukushima disaster the two direct and unfortunate deaths caused by the insufficient sea wall are not what come to mind. The meltdown of the reactor is the primary concern. If a meltdown had never occurred the Fukushima incident would have never been mentioned on this thread or in any other conversation about the safety issues with nuclear power. So I'm sorry but bringing up the inadequate sea wall is a complete straw man argument when talking about safety issues from nuclear power.
Now, back on topic, the nuclear reactor meltdown at Fukushima was caused by a faulty reactor design. Really it was a poorly designed safety system. The Tsunami that came after the initial earthquake took out the backup power generators at the plant. These backup generators were responsible for powering the cooling pumps that are supposed to prevent a meltdown. This is the main fault in the design and one that is not present in modern reactor designs. Modern reactors now have passive safety systems, i.e. if the power fails the safety measures will be triggered automatically and will not depend on outside power to complete their task. One example of this is using an elevated water tower to store the cooling water with a valve that is kept shut electronically. In the case of a power failure the valve would automatically open (since that is where it's in a stable equilibrium) and gravity would 'pump' the cooling water onto the reactor preventing a meltdown.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I won't even touch your other points." That's too bad. As for your comments I just refer you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
So you dispute that the scientific method only rejects null hypotheses, as opposed to proving a hypothesis? I left unstated that you can also reject the hypothesis, but that's implied from what I've said--you can only reject, not prove, any particular theory of causation. But we now live in bizarro world, where people who don't actually understand science or logic rationalize their conclusions by redefining the very…
Nothing you have said addresses the substance of my comment. You just keep insisting that showing one correlation is the same as, say, proving the theory of general relativity. After all it's all equivalent, it's all the scientific method.
These days indignation is a tool of bullying. Yeah just keep being indignant as a way to engage and convince others and then wonder why people still disagree with you.
Maybe next you'll be incredulous that we don't have a scientific understanding of even the development of a wing in evolution. It's at very early stages of conjecture. But don't let that stop you from throwing tantrums when people point it out.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by assessing, among other things, 1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially consistent, multi-dimensional correlations…
The point about a scientific theory is that you test it and if its predictions do not agree with the observed facts - it's wrong. No ifs or buts. Back to the drawing board. At least that should be the approach. https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw . What do we see in climatology? "The IPCC have produced 102 climate models to predict our future climate. The world’s meteorological organizations use weather models to forecast a…
As ever, activists take over institutions by pushing an ideology or agenda. And then when people try to inquire about the holes and bring up facts, they start personal attacks and bullying, while providing very little in on-point substantive answers.
"Troll", "Racist", "Creationist", "Climate change denier".
So much easier than just engaging with the substance and proving people wrong with facts, answering questions, admitting when we don't know and being intellectually honest.
Reasonable people are open to being proven wrong. But throwing an epithet while providing inadequate answers does the opposite. "Oh, I'm a troll? Ok I changed my mind I am convinced! Thanks!" That's not how it works. You're covering up your own lack of knowledge with emotion.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#596Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, and sorry I guess I misspoke. Whatever works: pumping water up hill, spinning flywheels etc. all sound fine to me. It's simply a question of whether it meets current energy demand, environmental impact, and cost. Come to think of it, I've only ever looked at the per KW hour cost of batteries (lead-acid seems to be the clear winner). You wouldn't happen to have references for other energy storage methods?
A company called ARES is working on a system that basically consists of automated electric trains carrying bricks uphill to store and then coasting back downhill with them to retrieve power. Basically pumped hydro but without a need for large quantities of water (and really ideal for installation in the desert, where there's a lot of open land with gentle slopes). They say efficiency near 80% with a first installatio…
Huh. That's some pretty impressive efficiency. I don't know why, but the thought of a train carrying a brick uphill only to bring it back down again strikes me as a little bit comical :)
Very interesting though. I wonder how far those trains travel, and if there's some way to use them simultaneously as energy storage and transmission infrastructure. I guess it depends on how the energy is recaptured. I'm just wondering because that could solve some of the cost issues associated with putting big solar arrays out in the middle of the desert...
Something like a linear alternator maybe?
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except, he's missing quite a few facts. Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors. Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all. Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates. In reality, the ROI level of renewables ha…
> It's no coincidence that the only success story for nuclear is a country where all reactors are government-owned and don't have to turn a profit necessarily. I don't have the numbers, but I would also have to imagine that the government-owned reactors are the most expensive on paper because there will always be political powers that will want to make it appear more expensive than it is.
Well, France has no reason to do that – they (with > 80% nuclear) have every reason to make them seem as good and effective as possible.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#598Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two direct deaths where from an insufficient sea wall not the reactor design. Saying future reactor designs fix the problem is a mistake. Because again it was not the reactor design that caused their deaths. So again, saying some hypothetical perfect design exists and it would obviously have a large enough see wall, and that is what your defending is a true Scotsman argument. PS: Remember, future designs also hav…
When people think of the Fukushima disaster the two direct and unfortunate deaths caused by the insufficient sea wall are not what come to mind. The meltdown of the reactor is the primary concern. If a meltdown had never occurred the Fukushima incident would have never been mentioned on this thread or in any other conversation about the safety issues with nuclear power. So I'm sorry but bringing up the inadequate sea…
Without the damage from the tidal wave Fukushima would have been far less of an issue. With a proper wall there would not have been significant issues with the Tsunami, thus making that wall a critical safety feature that failed.
As to passive safety systems, many modern designs can't be left unattended for a month. Because they are not passively safe only being able to go longer without issues.
Anyway this is all abstract pick a design that would have been safe without a sea wall or direct intervention after the fact. While being both proven and cost effective.
PS: On second thought as you said modern design, the worst plant built in the last 10 years is still a 'modern design' and close to where many people live.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s, and I would wonder how costs were hidden back then, and how much subsequent safety overhauls cost.
> I wouldn't want a plant from the 60s Me neither. Unfortunately, that's all we have, since we're not building any more :(
I feel like you're missing why I said this. I was responding to this sentence in the message above mine: "Actual, real-life plants (like from the 60s) have much lower costs than recent estimates have claimed (adjusted for inflation)."
Why were those plants cheap? First a) they probably actually weren't, thanks to hidden costs, and b) they probably weren't nearly as safe.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fukushima is up to $200bn and rising.
Fukushima is not a "newer reactor." It was built in the 70s.
Yeah, and I still remember when Chernobyl happened in 1986 and they told us that it was all due to shitty Russian design and that it could never happen to a reactor like Fukushima.
Those goal posts keep conveniently moving.
Today's brand new reactors eventually become the 30 or 40 year old reactors that are allowed to have meltdowns that "could never happen with new reactor design".