4 ms·

Yes, we need to expand nuclear, develop new nuclear technologies and agree upon a target global temperature. Sooner rather than later.

by joggery 10y ago

joantune 10y ago
Nuclear? what about solar and wind? Do you think that Denmark, Germany and others are doing it? You are changing the unbiled costs of emitting CO2 with the ones of cleaning up after nuclear waste and nuclear accidents
- joggery 10y ago
  What about a target temperature?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Nuclear generation takes over a decade to deploy per plant. Solar and wind can be up and running in months. We have no time for nuclear.
    - joggery 10y ago
      Solar is expanding nicely on its own. Nuclear is expanding, but too slowly. The reason it takes so long to build is because of bureaucratic regulation due to historical opposition. Now, if we're serious about ending climate change, why not agree to setting a global target temperature?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Because its a fuzzy target. Much better to target a reduction of carbon emissions to zero. That can be measured.
        joggery 10y ago
        Here's one existing measure of temperature: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Two decimal places looks pretty sharp to me!
        joantune 10y ago
        Yes they are, because throughout most of history, variations were very low, as you can see there, because, you know: It's a graph! If you notice, the graph is not distorted, it's linear. 1 Celsius degree changes our climate in a mix of predictable and unpredictable ways that you don't want for our planet. Plus: there's the added problem that the changes can be exponential after a while, melted Ice melts other ice more easily, permafrost defreezing releases methane that is worse than CO2 to the atmosphere, Ice changing color, etc.
sverige 10y ago
The problem with nukes is the required long-term storage of the byproducts. Ask the people who live near the salt mines in New Mexico.
- joggery 10y ago
  No thanks! Once we've stabilised the climate, which is more urgent, then we can deal with (legacy) waste problems. Besides, not an issue with technology under development like thorium and the many fusion projects which I hope we all support.
- shiny 10y ago
  There are reactor designs that leave virtually no waste, and can actually consume existing nuclear waste stockpiles. Check out the LFTR [1], for one. Thiel is a big Thorium fan, not sure if he will whisper that in Trump's ear. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...
- giardini 10y ago
  Yep. I once believed that salt mines were a perfect storage place for environmental/nuclear crap. That is, until I read "Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-Kurlansky/dp/0142001619 https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-Kurlansky/dp/... British towns in the 19th century collapsed when salt miners removed subterranean salt by pumping water in and brine out: https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+collapse&tbm=isch&sa=G&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=nEAnWNqpB8TUmwGDiIS4Bg https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+... Here's a nice picture(scroll down to see the leaning houses): http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.html http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.ht... Turns out that if you pour water into a salt deposit, dissolve the salt and pump out the brine, the terrain above may collapse (salt columns were supporting it). Any remaining brine not pumped to the surface may travel who-knows-where underground to dissolve other salt deposits. England went through decades of lawsuits and legislation wherein landowners cried for recompense of their collapsed lands from salt producers. The salt producers claimed it wasn't their mining that caused the collapses and the landowners usually lost. Fast forward to oil/gas fracking in Texas, Oklahoma and other states: most gas/oil deposits are under salt domes. Fracking injects water (and other chemicals) into the subterranean structures, the salt dissolves and the oil/gas is freed to rise. As in England, the brine that is not removed is free to travel miles underground, removing structure that has lain dormant for eons and collapsing the land above. But fracking also uses chemicals, not merely brine, and so the chance of pollution (esp. of water wells) is increased. The frackers say it does no harm. But funny sounds are coming from below and fracking chemicals are showing up in places (e.g., water wells) where they are not wanted: https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&btnG=Search&hl=en https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&b...

Yes, we need to expand nuclear, develop new nuclear technologies and agree upon a target global temperature. Sooner rather than later.

by joggery 10y ago

Yes, we need to expand nuclear, develop new nuclear technologies and agree upon a target global temperature. Sooner rather than later.

joantune 10y ago

Nuclear? what about solar and wind? Do you think that Denmark, Germany and others are doing it? You are changing the unbiled costs of emitting CO2 with the ones of cleaning up after nuclear waste and nuclear accidents

joggery 10y ago
What about a target temperature?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Nuclear generation takes over a decade to deploy per plant. Solar and wind can be up and running in months. We have no time for nuclear.
  - joggery 10y ago
    Solar is expanding nicely on its own. Nuclear is expanding, but too slowly. The reason it takes so long to build is because of bureaucratic regulation due to historical opposition. Now, if we're serious about ending climate change, why not agree to setting a global target temperature?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Because its a fuzzy target. Much better to target a reduction of carbon emissions to zero. That can be measured.
      - joggery 10y ago
        Here's one existing measure of temperature: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Two decimal places looks pretty sharp to me!
        joantune 10y ago
        Yes they are, because throughout most of history, variations were very low, as you can see there, because, you know: It's a graph! If you notice, the graph is not distorted, it's linear. 1 Celsius degree changes our climate in a mix of predictable and unpredictable ways that you don't want for our planet. Plus: there's the added problem that the changes can be exponential after a while, melted Ice melts other ice more easily, permafrost defreezing releases methane that is worse than CO2 to the atmosphere, Ice changing color, etc.

sverige 10y ago

The problem with nukes is the required long-term storage of the byproducts. Ask the people who live near the salt mines in New Mexico.

joggery 10y ago
No thanks! Once we've stabilised the climate, which is more urgent, then we can deal with (legacy) waste problems. Besides, not an issue with technology under development like thorium and the many fusion projects which I hope we all support.
shiny 10y ago
There are reactor designs that leave virtually no waste, and can actually consume existing nuclear waste stockpiles. Check out the LFTR [1], for one. Thiel is a big Thorium fan, not sure if he will whisper that in Trump's ear. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...
giardini 10y ago
Yep. I once believed that salt mines were a perfect storage place for environmental/nuclear crap. That is, until I read "Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-Kurlansky/dp/0142001619 https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark-Kurlansky/dp/... British towns in the 19th century collapsed when salt miners removed subterranean salt by pumping water in and brine out: https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+collapse&tbm=isch&sa=G&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=nEAnWNqpB8TUmwGDiIS4Bg https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+... Here's a nice picture(scroll down to see the leaning houses): http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.html http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.ht... Turns out that if you pour water into a salt deposit, dissolve the salt and pump out the brine, the terrain above may collapse (salt columns were supporting it). Any remaining brine not pumped to the surface may travel who-knows-where underground to dissolve other salt deposits. England went through decades of lawsuits and legislation wherein landowners cried for recompense of their collapsed lands from salt producers. The salt producers claimed it wasn't their mining that caused the collapses and the landowners usually lost. Fast forward to oil/gas fracking in Texas, Oklahoma and other states: most gas/oil deposits are under salt domes. Fracking injects water (and other chemicals) into the subterranean structures, the salt dissolves and the oil/gas is freed to rise. As in England, the brine that is not removed is free to travel miles underground, removing structure that has lain dormant for eons and collapsing the land above. But fracking also uses chemicals, not merely brine, and so the chance of pollution (esp. of water wells) is increased. The frackers say it does no harm. But funny sounds are coming from below and fracking chemicals are showing up in places (e.g., water wells) where they are not wanted: https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&btnG=Search&hl=en https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&b...