Individual-1 (Donald Trump)

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20500  (ISO)  » Wed May 22, 2019 11:48 pm

In post 20499, Lycanfire wrote:Like with nuclear power. I think it's great, except for the fact that we can't recycle the waste worth a damn, so as a renewable energy resource I'm strictly anti-nuclear for this reason alone, and I do sneer at anyone that promises that the tech will come. It's easy to put the burden on an already over burdened class (people with a college diploma) and never think about issues, but it's much more fair in delegating responsibility if we were to talk about cultural problems, and it would be likely, as a solution, one that would yield results sooner as well.


haha turns out im an advocate for next generation nuclear-energy as a full time job...

the waste problem isn't actually an issue worth worrying about. 3000 plant-years of operation have resulted in less than a football field's worth of waste. If this sounds like a lot, it's not in the grand scheme of things. But more importantly, it means that the technological solution to containing/reusing the current level of waste is the same scale as the solution for if we operate plants for another 3000 plant-years. Continuing to split the atom doesn't make the problem harder.

Right now the electric utility industry is moving towards a combination of renewables backed up by natural gas. Renewables cannot function without some sort of back up. If we're going to mitigate climate change, we're going to have to get off natural gas at some point. The current options to replace it are batteries and advanced nuclear (current gen will never build another plant in the US. ever.) Batteries might be the answer, but the tech isn't there yet to feasibly scale up. It's my opinion that we shouldn't stop working on nuclear because, well, batteries simply might not get there, and then what?

Further, the idea that there are perfect energy sources is silly. Coal ash contaminates rivers, and burning it pollutes our skies. Natural gas explosions are deadly and routine in this country. Solar panels have a not-so-long lifespan, and when they're finished, they go into the same electronics-waste stream as all other electronics. Usually this ends with children in China or some other country pulling them apart with their hands, extracting the valuable materials, and burying the waste in the ground. Wind has similar issues, and both have a surprisingly high (still low, but higher than you think) cost in human lives from construction accidents. Nuclear is as clean as wind and solar from a CO2 standpoint, but has the waste issue, and is about 3x more costly than the cheapest wind energy, and 2x more costly than the cheapest storage option. Those costs may come down as we get along an experience curve like wind and solar.

We all want the lights to go on, but there is no unicorn spitting rainbow energy out of its ass.
103-11 0-2

chamber
Cases are scummy
 
User avatar
Joined: November 20, 2005
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20501  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:18 am

A battery in that context just needs to be some way of storing potential energy, not a chemical battery. Pumping water against gravity, and then using it to later spin turbines is a currently used solution I'm aware of.
Taking a break from the site.

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20502  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:22 am

yup that's called pump hydro. the problem with pump hydro is that you can't do it cost effectively without terrain cooperating with your efforts. I've spoken personally with a number of utilities that would love to do pump hydro but can't because there simply isn't a place to do it.
103-11 0-2

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20503  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:24 am

Hydro itself (forget the pump) is a near perfect energy source... except we've already done just about all the hydro that our rivers can support.

if someone tries to sell you an obvious answer to our energy issues, I promise you they're not telling you the catch.
103-11 0-2

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20504  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:29 am

In post 20502, u r a person 2 wrote:yup that's called pump hydro. the problem with pump hydro is that you can't do it cost effectively without terrain cooperating with your efforts. I've spoken personally with a number of utilities that would love to do pump hydro but can't because there simply isn't a place to do it.

not to mention the still unresolved issues of damage to river ecosystems (pump hydro is almost always done on a river for obvious reasons. after you release the water and turn the turbines, the water has to go somewhere), and the effects of storing massive amounts of water along rivers where there are down stream needs for that water. The western half of this country is already nearly using all of the water available to it. They're considering doing pump hydro at the hoover dam, and the people whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the water flowing down stream are going batshit about the potential effects of such a project
103-11 0-2

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20505  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:33 am

you think the idea of a lithium ion battery fire in your consumer products is scary...

https://yourvalley.net/yourvalley/busin ... ry-mishap/
103-11 0-2

Porkens
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: June 21, 2008

Post Post #20506  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:36 am

Nuclear power plant meltdowns are a Chinese hoax

Fluminator
Best LSG/MishMash Player
 
User avatar
Joined: May 15, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20507  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:42 am

Yeah, research into better energy sources should be such a bigger priority but there's so much corruption. I still think nuclear energy is one of the better routes.

Basically my life goal is to find a way to better harness energy.
Currently working on a modified Stirling engine (something that gets power from any heat gradient) and I think there's a lot of untapped potential into the concept behind them. The only problem is they don't scale up easily (which hopefully the modification will let it.) But they're extremely green and you plop one in a lake and you could hypothetically get loads of energy.

If this ends up being a dead end, magnets would be my next area to look at. I think there's got to be some way to use them effectively for energy.

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20508  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 12:43 am

I don't even like to get into the deaths per TWh of electricity produced because they show that nuclear is ridiculously safe. And I mean that literally. People simply refuse to believe the numbers, and they ridicule the messenger. But if you have an open mind

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear ... ted_States

take a look at the fatalities column in the table of accidents

and when you look at those deaths, make sure you look at the causes. They might surprise you

"A worker at the Wolf Creek Generating Station falls through an unmarked manhole and electrocutes himself when trying to escape"

not exactly the fault of the technology =P
103-11 0-2

Lycanfire
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: June 04, 2016
Pronoun: It

Post Post #20509  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 7:47 am

URAP: I get that you're excited about this technology but I don't think you're making a very convincing case. There's no market force that will create the motion that begins recycling nuclear waste faster than it is created, and the markets, if encouraged, will make more of this waste. Burying it in doomsday vaults is a tough sell and is running contrary to my caution of appealing to science to solve problems. This is at least two of those 'cultural problems' I mentioned summed up.

The only way to get my support on nuclear power is a real, binding resolution based on fact that all waste will be reserved for recycling by X date. What will make me wag my finger at so-called techbros is the approach of: "well, science is basically magic anyway. in twenty years my iphone will probably run on nuclear waste." What I'm trying to say is:

(take your pick)



or


T-Bone
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: February 18, 2011
Location: Shrug City
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20510  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 8:29 am

Nuclear is a great source of energy, and it should be part of our zero emission future. Sadly, our current infrastructure is aging, and rather than upgrading or replacing them, we're opting to shut them down instead (probably cause that's cheaper).
#TeamLizzy (or I will ban you)

"Playing in a Newbie game doesn't count" ~ PenguinPower, Feb 2019

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20511  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 9:04 am

In post 20509, Lycanfire wrote:URAP: I get that you're excited about this technology but I don't think you're making a very convincing case. There's no market force that will create the motion that begins recycling nuclear waste faster than it is created, and the markets, if encouraged, will make more of this waste. Burying it in doomsday vaults is a tough sell and is running contrary to my caution of appealing to science to solve problems. This is at least two of those 'cultural problems' I mentioned summed up.

The only way to get my support on nuclear power is a real, binding resolution based on fact that all waste will be reserved for recycling by X date. What will make me wag my finger at so-called techbros is the approach of: "well, science is basically magic anyway. in twenty years my iphone will probably run on nuclear waste." What I'm trying to say is:


my point is that there is no functional difference between the waste problem with the amount of waste we have now, and 5 times the waste. None.

We've been running nuclear power plants for ~60 years. We could run a shit ton more of them for another 60 years and the problem still doesn't change because the total volume is so remarkably small. It's the same problem at this volume and 5 times the volume.

So, given that the problem doesn't get harder,

and given that we eventually have to figure out what to do with the waste anyway (because it exists now and it isn't going anywhere for thousands of years)

the nuclear waste issue is not actually a legitimate reason to oppose nuclear.
103-11 0-2

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20512  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 9:07 am

like, the world gains no benefit from having this volume of nuclear waste rather than 5x this volume because the harms are no larger (it sits in storage and is small volume), and the problem must be solved eventually (because it isn't going away).
103-11 0-2

shaft.ed
dem.agogue
 
User avatar
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20513  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 9:30 am

I love infrastructure week


Hoping they are only doing the one indictment to get the others to start talking

Lycanfire
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: June 04, 2016
Pronoun: It

Post Post #20514  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 11:35 am

We're talking about two different worlds, URAP. I don't want a future of exponential growth and numbers getting bigger. I do not have faith in capitalism driving technology past a curve where our present limitations can be damned. I'm at the end of my rope in giving the markets any more inches in controlling the carbon threat. I want an immediate paradigm shift towards people giving a shit about problems today.

Frankly, if the heartbeat poll wasn't worded in a way I found presumptuous, seemingly being limited to American-only scummers I would have filled it out and voted for Warren. Mistaking me as a capitalist or communist would be very misinformed, but I'm at a crossroads and without proof that the system works everyone should expect more extreme politics in the years ahead. Americans probably have the most say out of anyone about how it's going to play out, and I've been watching politics very closely. I consider anyone besides Warren being president a complete capitulation (mainly, because I don't see even a hypothetical President Sanders doing anything with congress.) When you talk about burying the problem and saying we're going to solve climate change I wonder if anyone actually listens to you, or if words pass through them and they decide to nod their head because it's easy to do so. Consider what you're doing.

u r a person 2
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: December 09, 2018

Post Post #20515  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 2:19 pm

you're right, we are in two different worlds because I don't even understand the terms of the debate you're suggesting.

I'm with you on warren btw. She's my candidate of choice

I'm just saying that nuclear waste (the energy is carbon free, btw. The only carbon costs are in construction and maintenance, and are on par with wind and solar) is not an actual reason to reject nuclear energy as a piece of the puzzle in achieving a carbon free future, and that's because the problem already exists and additional nuclear doesn't worsen the problem even at the margins.

I'm not talking about burying the problem. The problem of nuclear waste exists. It's not going away, and at some point in our future we're going to have to solve it. It's just naive to think that stopping the production of nuclear waste does anything to alleviate that problem now or in the future.

At the core of the energy issue is the lie that any technology is perfect. All energy technologies have costs in terms of dollars, lives, and environmental damage. If we want the lights to turn on - and I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people DO enjoy having on demand electricity - we're going to have to continue making trade offs. Compared to fossil fuels, it has a higher cost in terms of dollars, and a vastly lower cost in terms of lives and environmental damage. Compared to wind, solar, and batteries, it has a higher cost in terms of dollars, and a lower cost in terms of lives, and an on-par cost in terms of environmental damage.

As to your comments about communism vs capitalism, I have no interest in the discussion. Energy is a large enough issue for me, atm =)

As to climate change, I don't know if anyone is listening to me, but god damn do I have to try. What could possibly be more important?

As to what I'm doing, it's the only thing my conscience allows me to do: Do my best to help us solve this problem.
103-11 0-2

BROseidon
Expert Marxman
 
User avatar
Joined: April 18, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20516  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 2:44 pm

In post 20503, u r a person 2 wrote:Hydro itself (forget the pump) is a near perfect energy source... except we've already done just about all the hydro that our rivers can support.

if someone tries to sell you an obvious answer to our energy issues, I promise you they're not telling you the catch.


If we've hydrod all our rivers clearly we should just hydro the other planets' rivers as well. Duh

shaft.ed
dem.agogue
 
User avatar
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20517  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 2:53 pm

In post 20513, shaft.ed wrote:I love infrastructure week


Hoping they are only doing the one indictment to get the others to start talking

huh, this seems like it may have some implications

Flubbernugget
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 26, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20518  (ISO)  » Thu May 23, 2019 5:14 pm

In post 20514, Lycanfire wrote:We're talking about two different worlds, URAP. I don't want a future of exponential growth and numbers getting bigger. I do not have faith in capitalism driving technology past a curve where our present limitations can be damned. I'm at the end of my rope in giving the markets any more inches in controlling the carbon threat. I want an immediate paradigm shift towards people giving a shit about problems today.

Engineers are really good at using 110% of the resources allocated to them and I'm not sure that can be completely attributed to capitalism

talah
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: June 03, 2013

Post Post #20519  (ISO)  » Fri May 24, 2019 8:14 am

Hrm. 110% based on what.

If you're just saying that they're great at going above and beyond then yeah sure.

If you're saying that Engineers are great at giving extra output because they're constrained by capitalism which drives them

Fluminator
Best LSG/MishMash Player
 
User avatar
Joined: May 15, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20520  (ISO)  » Fri May 24, 2019 9:10 am

Last I'll post about the issue since we moved on, but I thought this video eloquently explained my problems with the approach most pro-choicers take.

shaft.ed
dem.agogue
 
User avatar
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20521  (ISO)  » Fri May 24, 2019 9:25 am

oh shit
I hadn't thought of the AG Barr as Russian mole angle of this whole shitshow
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/th ... e-dropping
Last edited by shaft.ed on Fri May 24, 2019 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

talah
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: June 03, 2013

Post Post #20522  (ISO)  » Fri May 24, 2019 9:41 am

I've seen The Prestige documentary and it's fairly obvious this is Dick Cheney

Papa Zito
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: April 05, 2009
Location: Tejas
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20523  (ISO)  » Fri May 24, 2019 11:26 am

Just catapult trebuchet all the nuclear waste into the Sun.
Kappa
Just Monika
Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

Kublai Khan
Khan Man
 
User avatar
Joined: August 05, 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL

Post Post #20524  (ISO)  » Fri May 24, 2019 12:08 pm

In post 20523, Papa Zito wrote:Just catapult trebuchet all the nuclear waste into the Sun.

Can't. Rocket might explode while in the atmosphere and make half the planet radioactive.
Occasionally intellectually honest

PreviousNext
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion