Climate Change

[MultiVerse]

My point of the article had NOTHING to do with pollution.
it was about the increase in radiation

PPS-the article is mainly about radiation releases. one paragraph mentions pollution
and that's your focus. too many other options out there to put all your energy eggs into 1 basket, especially one with catastrophic consequences if something goes wrong

What's getting ignored is even when something goes wrong with nuclear power, even downwind of Chernobyl, it's still less bad than air pollution from fossil fuels.

Electricity demand is outpacing renewable energy supply, with fossil fuels filling the gap. With a lot of effort about half of new demand can be met by renewable sources with fossil fuels making up most of the remainder. That's just for the new demand and doesn't address existing demand.

There's a paradox at play here: renewables symbiotically increase fossil fuel use. So the question isn't whether nuclear power is preferable to renewables, it's whether nuclear power is preferable over fossil fuels.


FWIW, Researchers find few adverse health effects in wildlife exposed to low levels of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear accident

[k2skier112]

What's getting ignored is even when something goes wrong with nuclear power, even downwind of Chernobyl, it's still less bad than air pollution from fossil fuels[/URL]

That is arguable and ignorant. Ask some folks, downwind of NV and Chernobyl. BTW, most of the radiation release from Fukushima was in the water, not the air
https://world-nuclear.org/informatio...-exposure.aspx
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean...rom-fukushima/

Again, my point was the radiation from Chernobyl will still be a problem for 10's of thousands of years

Now if we had an open and permanent UNF repository, and if nuclear was cost ineffective, I'd be all for it

I guess we have a difference of opinion of shitting in our own nest for instant gratification

When Japan starts releasing the radioactive water in the ocean, that's insanely criminal. We have no respect for the planet, especially our oceans

Yes fossil fuels, mainly coal, is killing and maiming people, but to jump to nuclear as the only option is shortsighted and ignorant

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...till-dominate/
Lobbyists, money, government and oil subsidies are why we aren't moving fast enough to get off of oil and into more renewables

An analogy, flying is the safest form of transportation until something goes wrong, then it's catastrophic. Same with a nuclear accident
It's far from over in Fukushima, there'll be consequences for thousands of years

[MultiVerse]

I think commercial air travel is a good analogy. From a safety standpoint nuclear energy is to air travel as commuting on a motorcycle is to fossil fuel energy.

And who said anything about jumping to nuclear as the only option? Didn't I argue for a mix of nuclear and renewables in the post above?

Anyway, studies indicate the health consequences of Chernobyl over the past 35yrs were small. About 7,000 excess thyroid cancers spread over the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, but no convincing evidence for an increase in leukemias and no increase in solid cancer. Those effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the health consequences associated with air pollution which is now the biggest environmental risk for early death not only for Ukrain but also worldwide.


The bottom line: there is no short-term replacement for fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. That's not a difference of opinion. It's a fact. The UK, for example, pursued a net zero strategy mainly of wind and solar generation before ultimately conceding they need to include nuclear in the future mix.

Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable. According to the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Finland’s pro-nuclear lobbying marks a U-turn within the Green Party.

The reason why all those countries are embracing nuclear is because so far, even the most committed countries to introduced wind and solar power have not achieved high enough growth rates, despite their generally speedier progression through the technology adoption cycle, required for global climate targets:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00863-0

[Skrilla Gorilla]

cough cough Japan cough cough cough. It's only as safe as our ability to predict and prevent earthquakes..

Did you know there was a station in Japan. Loser to the epicenter that kept functioning through the entire emergency?

Do you know how many people died from radiation exposure at Fukushima Daiichi? 0-1.

Do you know how many people died from the (irrational) fear of radiation exposure? Hundreds.

Do you know how many people will die if we continue to use coal to generate electricity because of your irrational fears? Tens of thousands, may e hundreds of thousands.

Do you know how many people will die of radiation exposure if commerical grade spent fuel is stored inside Yucca Mountain? Zero.

#facts

Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk

[Skrilla Gorilla]

I think commercial air travel is a good analogy. From a safety standpoint nuclear energy is to air travel as commuting on a motorcycle is to fossil fuel energy.

And who said anything about jumping to nuclear as the only option? Didn't I argue for a mix of nuclear and renewables in the post above?

Anyway, studies indicate the health consequences of Chernobyl over the past 35yrs were small. About 7,000 excess thyroid cancers spread over the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, but no convincing evidence for an increase in leukemias and no increase in solid cancer. Those effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the health consequences associated with air pollution which is now the biggest environmental risk for early death not only for Ukrain but also worldwide.


The bottom line: there is no short-term replacement for fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. That's not a difference of opinion. It's a fact. The UK, for example, pursued a net zero strategy mainly of wind and solar generation before ultimately conceding they need to include nuclear in the future mix.

Finland has joined France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic in lobbying the European Union to categorize nuclear power as sustainable. According to the Finnish Broadcasting Company, Finland’s pro-nuclear lobbying marks a U-turn within the Green Party.

The reason why all those countries are embracing nuclear is because so far, even the most committed countries to introduced wind and solar power have not achieved high enough growth rates, despite their generally speedier progression through the technology adoption cycle, required for global climate targets:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00863-0

I like you. No homo but there is nothing wrong with that. Clean and safe nuclear power for errbody.

Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk

[NakedShorts]

We are going to need another source of energy to make a difference. My bet is Atomic.



Yes, the chart shows we are at 82% derived from FF and if we all hit the Paris goals it will become 70%. Get comfortable with glowing shit.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-l...on-11632943155

[Sirshredalot]

I like you. No homo but there is nothing wrong with that. Clean and safe nuclear power for errbody.

Sent from my moto g stylus (2021) using Tapatalk

The big problem with nuclear remains the expense. That shit is wildly expensive compared to any other source of power generation right now. But that's not a good reason to decommission an existing power plant. The expense is all capex: operating costs are not high. It's also far safer than burning fossil fuels, any way you measure it.

Also, you guys know that strapping nuclear waste to a rocket is probably the dumbest place to put it on the planet, right? Because rockets sometimes explode and disperse their contents throughout the atmosphere? We have to deal with the waste here, on this planet, one way or another.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[shaft]

News Flash! They want you to talk about nuclear that you will never implement.

Electrify your fucking homes for the love of ULLR...and your whips if you can find a way to afford it. As of roughly 2010, any additional dollar spent on a gas furnace or water heater is like throwing trash out the window of a moving F-350, rolling coal, and driving over baby seals.

https://saulgriffith.medium.com/one-...s-48a7c3cf0694

Now back to your regurlarly scheduled programming;

• Nuclear is carbon free (except the exhorbinant embodied emission of buildings a $500b facility filled with nasty-concrete, and the associated mining operations for materials running up and down the periodic table.)
• It is cheap
• We don't know how to deal with the waste
• It will never be perfectly safe
• If we build enough capacity to handle the world's energy needs (33 times more plants just for electricity, call it 100 times more for all energy,) statistics says we'll have 100x the meltdowns. So...about 300 meltdowns every 50 years or so.

If I find out you buy a fossil-fuel powered water heater, I'm stealing your damn quiver.

Peace,
shaft

edited for Edgnar, who is the man

[Edgnar]

[
Now back to your regurlarly scheduled programming;

• Nuclear is carbon free
• It is cheap
• We don't know how to deal with the waste
• It will never be perfectly safe
• If we build enough capacity to handle the world's energy needs (33 times more plants just for electricity, call it 100 times more for all energy,) statistics says we'll have 100x the meltdowns. So...about 300 meltdowns every 50 years or so.

If I find out you buy a fossil-fuel powered water heater, I'm stealing your damn quiver.

Peace,
shaft

For those who don’t know- Nuclear is not carbon free. The cement and steel required to build nuke plants is extremely carbon intensive. Sure, producing power that way doesn’t produce carbon, but building the plants require producing thousands of tons of it. It also requires decades to permit and build. The Georgia Power Vogtle nuke plant is delayed AGAIN. At last check, that puts its roughly 15 years behind schedule and billions over budget. So much for cheap.

Definitely do electrify and insulate your home. Also put solar on the roof if you can. Call your electeds and tell them you want renewable energy and you want energy efficient buildings. Tell those assholes it’s time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. The energy transition needs to go faster.

I should add that I’m really glad that in the 8 years I’ve been away from this place this discourse has gone from “global warmingz aren’t real” to discussions of solutions.

[Sirshredalot]

For those who don’t know- Nuclear is not carbon free. The cement and steel required to build nuke plants is extremely carbon intensive. Sure, producing power that way doesn’t produce carbon, but building the plants require producing thousands of tons of it. It also requires decades to permit and build. The Georgia Power Vogtle nuke plant is delayed AGAIN. At last check, that puts its roughly 15 years behind schedule and billions over budget. So much for cheap.

Definitely do electrify and insulate your home. Also put solar on the roof if you can. Call your electeds and tell them you want renewable energy and you want energy efficient buildings. Tell those assholes it’s time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. The energy transition needs to go faster.

I should add that I’m really glad that in the 8 years I’ve been away from this place this discourse has gone from “global warmingz aren’t real” to discussions of solutions.

Ultimately, we need breakthroughs in lower or zero carbon ways to produce cement and steel along with other industrial products that require that kind of heat. This is an area where we need a big r&d push from Uncle Sam in addition to some sort of carbon price.

We have the technology for carbon free transportation mostly solved. We have the technology for carbon free power generation solved. Concrete and steel production is not a problem that we are particularly close to solving.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[Bunion 2020]

Ahem....

https://zeroenergyproject.org/2020/1...the-ground-up/

[WMD]

https://twitter.com/thejuicemedia/st...743739393?s=21

These videos are awesome.

[Bunion 2020]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-59274686

Totally normal, nothing to see here.

[PB]

Damn; locusts were badf enough, but a Plague of Fucking Scorpions?!?!?


Seems ominous.

[raisingarizona13]

Ski areas around the Four Corners region are postponing their planned opening dates. It's been very warm.

[WMD]

Warm and possible delayed openings seems to be the happening at areas in WY, MT, and UT near me too. There has been a lot of news about spring coming earlier, but I'm sure winter also will generally arrive later bow. I know West Yellowstone used to have reliable enough snow in November that Nordic teams from around the world would head there for early season on-snow training. The last decade or so the snow has not been reliable at all. Probably will get worse too. Biking at Thanksgiving instead of skiing anyone?

[raisingarizona13]

Warm and possible delayed openings seems to be the happening at areas in WY, MT, and UT near me too. There has been a lot of news about spring coming earlier, but I'm sure winter also will generally arrive later bow. I know West Yellowstone used to have reliable enough snow in November that Nordic teams from around the world would head there for early season on-snow training. The last decade or so the snow has not been reliable at all. Probably will get worse too. Biking at Thanksgiving instead of skiing anyone?

Well I actually moved to Flagstaff to have those options and often, high elevation riding through most Novembers but this feels warmer than the usual and it sure is weird for the places you mentioned. It's no longer when or if it happens, it's happening right now.

[raisingarizona13]

Colorado's November fire season...

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...ts/8638268002/

[Bunion 2020]

70 degrees in Helena yesterday. Today its windy as fuck and colder but there is very little snow for a base right now and much in the way of skiing at Big Sky next Thursday seems overly optimistic. BB is not even talking about an opener until 12/10.

[frorider]

Anyone know of seasonal prediction graphics similar to these but based on inclusion of more recent data ? https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/hig...future-climate

It’s interesting how the Tahoe region in these models gets historically similar precip amts in Winter but less in Spring. Coupled with the modest temp rise predicted (relative to some other regions), might actually result in higher altitude resorts staying in business.

Utah looks fucked though.

[WMD]

The 2021 Yellowstone Climate Assessment shows that since 1950 snowfall has decreased 24" inches (25%). Precipitation is the same now but 25% that was snow is now falling as rain. https://www.gyclimate.org/

Even with increased winter precipitation it may not be snow, which is not good for skiing or snowpack.

[JONG SLAUGHTER]

AT LEAST YOU DUMB CUNTS THINK YOU KNOW WHY IT'S NOT SNOWING NOW. BLAME THE CHINESE FOR NO SNOW AND COVID....OH WAIT, THAT'S NOT POPULAR WITH BEIJING BIDEN VOTERS

[k2skier112]

you're pedantic schtick used to be funny when it wasn't about such a serious and obvious
issue

[JONG SLAUGHTER]

you're pedantic schtick used to be funny when it wasn't about such a serious and obvious
issue

YOUR RELIGION IS ANNOYING.

[SumJongGuy]

The dumber they are the louder they yell..