Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
I feel that nuclear energy is somewhat promethean: it may be a better beast than we know how to handle. Storage is a problem as many have mentioned, as are potential accidents. The lady who cuts my wife's hair used to live near this sleepy Russian town called Chernobyl. She's dying of cancer now.
Also, to respond to Rick's point (really a diatribe against Harry Reid) about Yucca Mt. Two thirds of Nevadans were against it, so the dude was merely sticking up for his constituency. If that makes him a bad politician then perhaps we need something other than a representative form of government.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
^^^ In other words, the lifetime of the plant (including its full decommission). Sounds about right to me, although the real lifespan needs to account for the waste (of course).
Saw this today:
The Trump transition team has asked for a list of Energy Department employees and contractors who attended United Nations climate meetings and worked on key Obama administration climate policies, including the social cost of carbon, according to a Bloomberg report.
The requests, detailed in a memo sent to the Energy Department by the Trump transition team, suggests that President-elect Trump is not backing down from his campaign promises to completely abandon the Obama administration’s approach to U.S. climate and energy policies, and instead adopt a policy that is much friendlier to fossil fuels and much more hostile to regulations that seek to curb greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
That couldn't possibly happen...ha, ha..
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
As far as nuclear "waste" is concerned, the used fuel could be recycled, with the highly radioactive fission products removed and the Uranium made into new fuel. The products would be stored, but they represent a much smaller volume than throwing out all of the "used" fuel.
That technology doesn't exist yet, and the "waste fuels" stored around the country could be recycled anytime during the next century, so they are actually a resource. We have time to figure out how to reuse this "waste" and recycle the good bits into a nuclear energy economy.
This was scoped out by an MIT energy group that Moniz led before he became DOE secretary.
As with most "alternative energy" schemes, the cost of nuclear energy is not competitive with the current fossil fuels, largely because the full costs of fossil fuels is not included in the pricing... that would change with a carbon tax, whereas the full cost of the nuclear fuel cycle, including decommissioning and waste storage make nuclear less advantageous.
I, personally, am not as concerned about the radiation issues of modern nuclear reactors, especially if the plant sizes are reduced, which would also reduce the overall costs of construction and greatly reduce the risks of a major accident as happened in Japan.
But I also think the political resistance to nuclear power is too great to overcome at this time.
|
|
labrat
Trad climber
Erik O. Auburn, CA
|
|
I mostly worry about the "stupid human factor" of nuclear energy. Hope that it can be engineered out in time.
Wind and solar everywhere don't seem to be the solution.
I'm not happy about the Scott Pruitt nomination......
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
People pay their insurance annually. You won't see a major insurance outlay issue - the premiums will go over-the-top crippling before the seas arrive, people won't be able to get insurance, and those who could afford it (I don't care about that much) will more likely shuffle to higher ground.
I think insurance rates will be an issue but I'm not sure it will be a solution. I did a quick search and didn't find it, but I seem to remember the state of Florida adding a state guarantee to homeowners coastal flooding insurance policies. Whether that has happened or not, if faced with prohibitive insurance policy rates, I could easily see a place like Florida putting a tax payer guarantee if they don't like what the private sector is telling them.
The tab for Katrina in New Orleans was picked up more by tax payers than by rate payers. I expect that another $100+ billion disaster in New Orleans is much more likely than not in the next 50~100 years.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Storing nuclear waste in the Walker Lane (Yucca Mtn) is an idiotic idea and a non-starter for me. Why? Plate tectonics, look it up.
Minnesota salt dome mines, far better storage sites. Stable, inert, isolated; and a blue state to boot!
I don't know anything about the Minnesota salt dome mines, but storing the waste at Yucca is better than leaving it above ground like it currently is.
I'm in favor of nuke power so long as the investors are required to carry full, long term liability. No foisting of disaster costs on the public coffers and the liability insurance must be in place before ground is broken.
I would be too, but that is hard to do. I don't think this country has the political will to do nuclear power in an economically sound manner.
I don't Japan has the political will to do it in a safe manner.
France seems to be best at being both safe and economic although EDF is struggling with its latest nuclear design.
China scares me as far as nuclear power goes.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
I find it rather amusing (and depressing) that when it comes to nuclear waste storage, people are concerned about being able to store it safely (without further intervention) for thousands of years.
But when it comes to climate change and rising sea levels, the time horizon is 84 years (aka 2100).
In the next 84 years, sea level rise might only be a foot or so. But based on the amount of CO2 that has already been added to the atmosphere, sea level rise of 15 to 30 feet will happen on a time scale of centuries.
So what, if a thousand years from now Yucca mountain leaks? Pretty small potatoes by comparison.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630253-300-latest-numbers-show-at-least-5-metres-sea-level-rise-locked-in/
Much uncertainty still surrounds the pace of future rises, with estimates for a 5-metre rise ranging from a couple of centuries – possibly even less – to a couple of millennia.
Unfortunately, most of the article is behind a pay wall. The full article said that the 5 meter rise is based only on Antarctica. The confidence in the science behind that melting was reasonably high. Greenland could add another 30 to 60 feet of sea level rise over the next thousand years, although the confidence in that is less certain.
But hey, lets focus on how we might screw up one tiny spot thousands of years from now but ignore what will happen all along the coast 500 years from now.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
The idea that engineers, specifically, are not necessarily good scientists is something that I have been aware of and pondering for at least a couple of decades. I have very smart brothers with civil and mechanical engineering degrees who are skeptics, for example. I'll be seeing them over Christmas and will try to set them straight.
I must say though that I've been reading a fair bit about why people believe as they do, and how things like facts - specifically those that are contrary to one's established point-of-view, are not nearly as important as I would have thought (hoped).
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
The thing to remember about TGT is that he's really not interested in the truth. Any article that he links up is more than likely dredged from the depths of the right-wing gumby misinformation swamp, and isn't worth a second of any thinking persons time.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Anymore, my starting point is going to be that you can't persuade people with a deep or long-held (or maybe any) belief to believe differently than they do. Don't even go there. It has to be more subtle. That's not my strong suit...
Having said that, surely there is a fairly large group of people who are well aware of the science, but see a personal profit in proliferating doubt about that science to the general population or in expressing false beliefs (lying) in general, as Malemute has been hammering on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
If a scientist is wrong, he gets a bigger grant.
not quite... scientists who are incompetent don't get grants, and don't get recognition, it is the complaint of the majority of "non-consensus" climate scientists who have tried to press their cases well after their ideas have been shown to be "wrong."
Hypothesis testing, on the other hand, where the hypothesis can fail, is not "wrong," it is a test of something for which "right" or "wrong" have not yet been demonstrated. You can get grants for that, that is what science is all about, making the hypotheses and testing them...
The hypothesis that the 20th century (and now 21st century) climate has changed because of human activity is consistent with all the tests so far thrown at it... not so for the various "natural causes" hypotheses... all of which have been tested and failed the test. Once your hypothesis has failed, you can't keep resurrecting... you have to abandon it and move on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
TGT2 - so how many people have you killed in your engineering career?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
The simple truth is that when the major funder (Government) of research pays for anthropogenic global warming (or more popularly known as climate change now) studies you get anthropogenic leaning studies. No more clear example of bias is seen in the scientific world.
|
|
Al Barkamps
Social climber
Red Stick
|
|
The essence, (and beauty) of academic freedom is that you are allowed to be wrong.
Wow.....
Just...WOW!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
except that's not how it happened, rick...
it started out looking at weather and climate and trying to make sense of what was being observed...
the result of that study was the conclusion that human activity was changing the climate.
That's what explains the observations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!