Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

Oh come on, now you're just being disingenuous. Australia's power problems have nothing to do with renewables or the IPCC and everything to do with having a bloody rotating door in their prime minister's office. And you can hardly blame renewables or the IPCC either for constant one-upmanship as both sides play hot potato with energy policy to pander to their voters and corporate backers.

But why is that? Because they can't decide between the priority of supplying reliable power and the priority of being environmentally friendly. The sane policy is both: meet your power needs while trying to do right by the environment. Refusal to consider coal means you're going to have expensive and/or unreliable power. That's exactly what they got.

Wind mills are eating up a lot of land that could be used for farming here. I like the idea of the wind farms built in the water. But I imagine the maintenance costs alone is bad and same with potential ecological issues in building them in the water (not sure about that).

They cost about three times more per MWh generated (something like $110 versus $42). Understandably, not much investment in that area.

 

[R-T-B]

Just acknowledging there are segments/areas, it isn't
I can't tell you how many times I got asked "how much does a house in US cost?", only to answer "that's about as wise as asking how much a house in Europe costs". The less funny part is when you realize how many people hate the US that don't even know what the US is about. Spoiler alert: it's far from perfect, yet still better than most alternatives.

You say that like everyone isn't aware large countries are diverse.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A hurdle to nuclear power in the USA:
Supreme Court mulls Virginia ban on mining biggest U.S. uranium deposit

The state has banned uranium mining since 1982 because of health concerns. USA imports virtually all of its uranium.

 

[R-T-B]

A hurdle to nuclear power in the USA:
Supreme Court mulls Virginia ban on mining biggest U.S. uranium deposit

The state has banned uranium mining since 1982 because of health concerns. USA imports virtually all of its uranium.

Uranium is but one of many nuclear fuel options:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Granted almost all face their own regulatory hurdles.

I like the CANDU reactor model personally, though it does depend on Uranium (even if unenriched).

 

[bug]

You say that like everyone isn't aware large countries are diverse.

I'm saying I was surprised to discover that most people actually aren't.

 

[R-T-B]

I'm saying I was surprised to discover that most people actually aren't.

I think you are confusing intentionally selecting certain subgroups for lack of awareness, but meh, OT anyways.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Uranium is but one of many nuclear fuel options:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Granted almost all face their own regulatory hurdles.

I like the CANDU reactor model personally, though it does depend on Uranium (even if unenriched).

We should be building government operated Fast Breeder Reactors which transmute U-238 into Pu-239 to be used by commercial pebble-bed reactors. Neither designs can meltdown. The former can use spent nuclear fuel to make more usable nuclear fuel. Other than investment costs and risk of...bad people...getting their hands on the FBR material, there's really not much in terms of down sides.

 

[R-T-B]

We should be building government operated Fast Breeder Reactors which transmute U-238 into Pu-239 to be used by commercial pebble-bed reactors. Neither designs can meltdown. The former can use spent nuclear fuel to make more usable nuclear fuel. Other than investment costs and risk of...bad people...getting their hands on the FBR material, there's really not much in terms of down sides.

I agree with the premise provided security was provably up to spec. Those kind of sites always put a theft risk target over their head.

Of course we both know that sadly isn't practical given the present climate. Where we diverge is what is the better alternative given our constituents boneheadedness...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Most Americans support nuclear power but the noisy minority can stop any from being built due to safety/environment concerns. That lawsuit I pointed out might actually be more important than it appears on the surface: it's between federal necessity and state rights. Casual knowledge of the case suggests that state rights will win because federal had the opportunity to make necessity clear but it did not. The fact that SCOTUS was willing to hear it means there is more to it than just that casual knowledge. If SCOTUS rules that the energy needs of the nation trump local environmental protectionism, then that ruling can form the foundation for nuclear projects going up across the nation.

Then there's two subsequent problems: USA's nuclear power programs and industry are out of practice. Even China and France are still predominantly building 1950s (but updated) style PWRs and BWRs (originally designed for nuclear submarines). They are not PBR nor FBR like what made clear since the 1970s is the best way to produce commercial power. So what's really needed right now is rapid prototyping for next generation commercial nuclear reactors designed explicitly to produce power safely, cleanly, and cheaply. I just don't see it happening, not when the environmentalists are screaming for wind and solar.

My deep concern is that when the fusion power problem gets solved, they're going to continue to advocate for wind and solar over fusion. Are we doomed to 16th century energy sources forever?

 

[R-T-B]

I know given my... standings it can seem like all liberals drag their feet on this issue (advancing nuclear power).

Let me exist as proof that not all of them do. I would apologize for my peers behavior, but that would be something that would likely get me a demerit.

 

[hat]

Personally I'd rather see coal burned than nuclear fission. Fission produces tons of crap that stays deathly radioactive for eons, and then you have to store it somewhere, and then the storage gets fucked up (broken/leaking drums etc). Fusion though, I'm all for. To my knowledge it doesn't produce that crap, and in fact there are supposedly ways we can use old radioactive waste as a fuel source, both producing power and cleaning up that mess at the same time. Also, fission, like fossil fuels, is fueled by finite resources. Fusion mostly runs on hydrogen, which is literally the most abundant thing in the universe by far.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's pollution trapped in a bottle instead of pollution wafting in the wind.

 

[hat]

True, but the bottle is leaky, and what's inside the bottle is many times worse than what's coming out of smokestacks. We do agree on fusion, though!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Fusion produces radiation too but more of the alpha and beta varieties rather than gamma. Gamma passes straight through organic material. But even worse, it's ionizing radiation, that causes thyroid problems. Consuming iodized salt is the best counter which works fantastic for human populations but...animal populations...serious delivery problems. As long as it doesn't leak to the environment, it's all good.

True, but the bottle is leaky, and what's inside the bottle is many times worse than what's coming out of smokestacks. We do agree on fusion, though!

Except that there can be trace amounts of uranium and thorium in coal.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

From editor's note:

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

 

[Space Lynx]

True, but the bottle is leaky, and what's inside the bottle is many times worse than what's coming out of smokestacks. We do agree on fusion, though!

we also store the nuclear waste very safely... we have 99 nuclear reactors, 61 plants in USA, and we seem to be storing all of that ok and safely. They do use special containers that do not leak... please give me a link to support your claim... I know in the past we did not do so well, but it seems like a solid system we have now, I have not heard of any issues since like 2005. even then it was rare

I doubt going from 61 nuclear plants to say 70 or 80 total would be that difficult if we get the same current people working on board, and its all Federally controlled with new hires, etc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The waste is being stored at each individual nuclear power plant. The federal government wanted to transport and store it all at the Yucca Mountain facility but Nevada (again, environmental/safety argument for state rights) put kibosh on that plan.

Having FBRs would give economic incentive to buy and transport the waste.


Edit: Whoa, it's happening!
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html
At least 28 more reactors are proposed or approved.

...going to go through this list...
Bell Bend - Application withdrawn in 2016.
Bellefonte, Units 3 & 4 - Units 3 & 4 application withdrawn. Units 1 & 2 have been "under construction" since 1975. They're trying to finish it now. I'm not sure if it's actually happening now or not.
Callaway, Unit 2 - Application withdrawn. Callaway is the most seismic stable reactor in the USA.
Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3 - Not happening. It was actually going to be a reactor of European design.
Comanche Peak, Units 3 & 4 - The door is still open to building these reactors but there is no effort to do so right now. Application is suspended.
Fermi, Unit 3 - Approved but no plans to construct.
Grand Gulf, Unit 3 - Application withdrawn.
Levy County, Units 1 & 2 - Canceled as part of a legal settlement.
Nine Mile Point, Unit 3 - Could not secure funding, expansion canceled.
North Anna, Unit 3 - Planned but haven't begun construction yet.
River Bend Station, Unit 3 - Indefinitely postponed.
Shearon Harris, Units 2 & 3 - Suspended.
South Texas Project, Units 3 & 4 - Planned but haven't begun construction in earnest.
Turkey Point, Units 6 & 7 - Planned but no construction.
Victoria County Station, Units 1 & 2 - Cancelled.
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 & 3 - Construction began on both units but then was canceled due to an inability to secure funding to complete them.
Vogtle, Units 3 & 4 - Under active construction.
William States Lee III, Units 1 & 2 - Suspended.

Only two reactors are actually being built, both at Vogtle. The rest either aren't building or quit trying to get approval. I think the cheapness of natural gas is the reason.

All of these plants cost in the billions to build and make operational.

They're shutting them down faster than they're replacing them. That said, all of the proposed reactors are substantially more powerful than the reactors they're replacing. Most are 1100-1600 MW where the outgoing are 600-700 MW.

 

[Space Lynx]

The waste is being stored at each individual nuclear power plant. The federal government wanted to transport and store it all at the Yucca Mountain facility but Nevada (again, environmental/safety argument for state rights) put kibosh on that plan.

Having FBRs would give economic incentive to buy and transport the waste.


Edit: Whoa, it's happening!
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html
At least 28 more reactors are proposed or approved.

...going to go through this list...
Bell Bend - Application withdrawn in 2016.
Bellefonte, Units 3 & 4 - Units 3 & 4 application withdrawn. Units 1 & 2 have been "under construction" since 1975. They're trying to finish it now. I'm not sure if it's actually happening now or not.
Callaway, Unit 2 - Application withdrawn. Callaway is the most seismic stable reactor in the USA.
Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3 - Not happening. It was actually going to be a reactor of European design.
Comanche Peak, Units 3 & 4 - The door is still open to building these reactors but there is no effort to do so right now. Application is suspended.
Fermi, Unit 3 - Approved but no plans to construct.
Grand Gulf, Unit 3 - Application withdrawn.
Levy County, Units 1 & 2 - Canceled as part of a legal settlement.
Nine Mile Point, Unit 3 - Could not secure funding, expansion canceled.
North Anna, Unit 3 - Planned but haven't begun construction yet.
River Bend Station, Unit 3 - Indefinitely postponed.
Shearon Harris, Units 2 & 3 - Suspended.
South Texas Project, Units 3 & 4 - Planned but haven't begun construction in earnest.
Turkey Point, Units 6 & 7 - Planned but no construction.
Victoria County Station, Units 1 & 2 - Cancelled.
Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 & 3 - Construction began on both units but then was canceled due to an inability to secure funding to complete them.
Vogtle, Units 3 & 4 - Under active construction.
William States Lee III, Units 1 & 2 - Suspended.

Only two reactors are actually being built, both at Vogtle. The rest either aren't building or quit trying to get approval. I think the cheapness of natural gas is the reason.

All of these plants cost in the billions to build and make operational.

They're shutting them down faster than they're replacing them. That said, all of the proposed reactors are substantially more powerful than the reactors they're replacing. Most are 1100-1600 MW where the outgoing are 600-700 MW.

I wonder why Congress just doesn't raise the debt ceiling some more and keep printing more money, they had no problem doing that for the 6 trillion dollars in unpaid middle east wars, that we still have not paid off. Year 2000 total debt was 5.6 trillion, now its what close to 23 trillion last I checked. Wages are mostly the same for vast majority of people, so can't count for inflation too much... lol Doesn't seem to be any consequence to just spend freely, so why not go all the way and fund those reactors that did not secure enough funding, lol?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Congress isn't the one paying for these. In fact, they've been quite resistant to even giving loans (as in gets paid back with interest) to build them.

 

[Space Lynx]

Congress isn't the one paying for these. In fact, they've been quite resistant to even giving loans (as in gets paid back with interest) to build them.

Sounds dumb from a strategic standpoint then, the several billion required for these plants is a mere drop in the water of the Federal budget, but I guess they can pay the coastal cities a ton of money when the flooding starts, will cost 1000x more but whatever works for ya i guess lol

 

[hat]

Fusion produces radiation too but more of the alpha and beta varieties rather than gamma. Gamma passes straight through organic material. But even worse, it's ionizing radiation, that causes thyroid problems. Consuming iodized salt is the best counter which works fantastic for human populations but...animal populations...serious delivery problems. As long as it doesn't leak to the environment, it's all good.


Except that there can be trace amounts of uranium and thorium in coal.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

From editor's note:

That sounds... awfully misleading. How do we go from "trace amounts of uranium and thorium" to "100x more radioactive"? I've spent a good deal of time in direct contact with fly ash, much more than the average person, and I don't have a third arm growing out of my chest. If I had come into contact with waste from nuclear reactors in the same way, I'd be a very dead man. A very dead, radioactive man, at that.

 

[R-T-B]

Fission produces tons of crap that stays deathly radioactive for eons

Depends on the method of fission. We've come a long ways since the early reactors. Many can reuse a lot of waste as fuel, produce less waste or with a far shorter halflife, etc. Some reactors literally cannot meltdown. It's really not all Chernobyl/Three Mile Island grade tech anymore.

That sounds... awfully misleading. How do we go from "trace amounts of uranium and thorium" to "100x more radioactive"? I've spent a good deal of time in direct contact with fly ash, much more than the average person, and I don't have a third arm growing out of my chest. If I had come into contact with waste from nuclear reactors in the same way, I'd be a very dead man. A very dead, radioactive man, at that.

Depends on if the dry cask storage is intact and also the type of fissile material. On average they are probably correct.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sounds dumb from a strategic standpoint then, the several billion required for these plants is a mere drop in the water of the Federal budget, but I guess they can pay the coastal cities a ton of money when the flooding starts, will cost 1000x more but whatever works for ya i guess lol

It's the risks. Vogtle expansion is the only one going forward in the 21st century and when the project was announced, they estimated $4.418 billion in overnight cost. Now (and they're still not done) the estimate is $25 billion. When Westinghouse went under, the federal government did step in to give both companies (Westinghouse and Duke Energy whom owns Vogtle) loan guarantees of $9 billion so the project wouldn't get abandoned like Virgil C. Summer did. So it's not like the federal government isn't doing anything, it's just reluctant to. Like I said, USA is out of practice in terms of building reactors. Until the wheels start turning again, it's bumpy. Hopefully Vogtle being completed will change investment perceptions.

That sounds... awfully misleading. How do we go from "trace amounts of uranium and thorium" to "100x more radioactive"? I've spent a good deal of time in direct contact with fly ash, much more than the average person, and I don't have a third arm growing out of my chest. If I had come into contact with waste from nuclear reactors in the same way, I'd be a very dead man. A very dead, radioactive man, at that.

Because you're comparing radioactive elements that are completely contained for its entire life span versus radioactive elements that are accidentally incinerated and vented into the atmosphere. These are both normally operating plants not undergoing any kind of emergency.

Later on, you're talking about an emergency event (Chernobyl NPP and Fukashima NPP) where containment failed and radiactive material leaked into the environment. That's where the radiation gets much, much, much worse than coal. Even so, radiation exposure isn't necessarily a death sentence. In fact, it is quite survivable if you're able to remove yourself from the radiation and take iodine pills. In the 60+ year history of nuclear power, I believe there were only 22 that died from accute radiation poisoning and virtually all of those were at Chernobyl NPP when it exploded. In terms of actual deaths, nuclear is by far the safest power source humanity has ever created (even besting hydro because of construction deaths).

Depends on the method of fission. We've come a long ways since the early reactors. Many can reuse a lot of waste as fuel, produce less waste or with a far shorter halflife, etc. Some reactors literally cannot meltdown. It's really not all Chernobyl/Three Mile Island grade tech anymore.

RBMK that Chernobyl NPP used was quite...stupid. You could literally walk out there and stick your hand in the water that the nuclear fuel rods were in. There was virtually nothing in the way of containment and what the events leading up to the meltdown were human stupidity compounded on human stupidity. They basically were testing how low they could go with control rods out, the core suddenly started reacting, the cooling systems weren't ready to deal with the heat, the hot uranium swelled so the control rods couldn't reinsert, the reaction ran out of control so once they got the cooling systems going, they couldn't keep up, the uranium melted down (2000+C) which caused steam to form on contact leading to a steam explosion, and there was no containment structure so...panic? What else could they do?

Three Mile Island had a partial meltdown in Unit 2 that resulted in a minor leak of radioactive gas. They were doing maintenance on Unit 1 at the time and as a function of that, emergency systems for Unit 2 were also disabled. Unit 2 should have been in cold shutdown because of that fact. Instead, they broke NRC rules and operated it at 97% capacity only for the improbable to happen and the situation to run out of control.

Unit 1 at Three Mile Island is still operating to this date. The owner of Three Mile Island is considering shutting Unit 1 down September 30, 2019, because natural gas is about half the price per MWh ($25 vs $44).

Hanson explicitly stated the reason for the shutdown is because of the unprofitability of Unit 1. Unit 1 has lost the company over 300 million dollars over the last half-decade despite it being one of Exelon's best-performing power plants.

And that's why nuclear is still mostly dead in the USA: natural gas is too damn cheap.

 

[hat]

Depends on the method of fission. We've come a long ways since the early reactors. Many can reuse a lot of waste as fuel, produce less waste or with a far shorter halflife, etc. Some reactors literally cannot meltdown. It's really not all Chernobyl/Three Mile Island grade tech anymore.



Depends on if the dry cask storage is intact and also the type of fissile material. On average they are probably correct.

Sounds like we ought to be using some of that waste that's stored up, then, if we can do it already.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You need breeders to recycle nuclear waste. There's only four in the world operating (they're all quite old) and none are in the USA.

India is building a fifth now. It is 8 years behind schedule and is expected to achieve criticality next year. If this breeder is successful, they're planning to build six more of them based on its design.

 

[wtfisgoingon]

More than 97% of published articles that expressed a conclusion about anthropogenic climate change endorsed human-caused global warming.

Yes, scientific consensus can be overturned. But it’s not a vote, nor is it a debate. It is scientific evidence of equal or better quality and quantity than what established the consensus. And since science is not dogmatic and close-minded, there can be a glacial change from one consensus to another.

The level of scientific agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is overwhelmingly strong. The consensus is so clear that many scientists call it the “Theory of anthropogenic climate change,” which would mean it’s at the pinnacle of scientific principles, essentially an unassailable fact.

There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.