3 ms·

Wake me up when we start building fast breeder reactors that recycle nuclear waste [1], and start building large scale thermal depolymerization plants to turn o

by delbel 11y ago

Wake me up when we start building fast breeder reactors that recycle nuclear waste [1], and start building large scale thermal depolymerization plants to turn our trash into oil. [2] I also want to know how he think we should address this mini-ace age that it appears I'll be spending half my life in.[3] 1. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186023-russia-bets-its-energy-future-on-waste-free-fast-breeder-nuclear-reactors http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186023-russia-bets-its-en... 2. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil 3. http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-ag...

tstactplsignore 11y ago
You should read your sources: >"The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030" A grand solar minimum would have little to no effect on our warming climate.[1][2] The work this paper is reporting on did not even make any claims about climatic changes, and the impact of a grand solar minimum has been extensively explored in the literature with the conclusion being that it will be a fraction of the anthropogenic warming trend. It's not entirely your fault, that's some pretty bad pop journalism from livescience. 1. http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-d... 2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...
Retric 11y ago
Wind is cheaper than safe nuclear power, so spending a lot on R&D for a more expensive version of Nuclear seems pointless. Nuclear can work well for huge boats and subs, but on land it's extremely expencive and only gained traction through huge subsides.
- sanxiyn 11y ago
  Wind has low power density, so it requires much more space. This probably is not a problem for US, but a serious problem for other countries.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    That space can be used for other things too though such as grazing livestock. Relatedly, Elon Musk claims that if you cover the area used up by a Nuclear plant with solar panels than you can get equal power production. The actual reactor is small, but the security etc. means that there's a large boundary zone. Plus of course no-one wants to live near one.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      On sunny days, or on average?
  - ovi256 11y ago
    Even countries who have no unused land, like the Netherlands and Belgium, have managed to build big wind farms. They've mostly placed them offshore.
    - stevesimmons 11y ago
      In the Netherlands at least, onshore is far bigger than offshore: roughly 90% by capacity, 85% by production. Detailed stats are here: http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70802ned&D1=0,2-6&D2=a&D3=152,169,186,203-206,208-210,212-214,216-218,220-226&VW=T http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70802...

by delbel 11y ago

tstactplsignore 11y ago

You should read your sources: >"The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030" A grand solar minimum would have little to no effect on our warming climate.[1][2] The work this paper is reporting on did not even make any claims about climatic changes, and the impact of a grand solar minimum has been extensively explored in the literature with the conclusion being that it will be a fraction of the anthropogenic warming trend. It's not entirely your fault, that's some pretty bad pop journalism from livescience. 1. http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-d... 2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...

Retric 11y ago

Wind is cheaper than safe nuclear power, so spending a lot on R&D for a more expensive version of Nuclear seems pointless. Nuclear can work well for huge boats and subs, but on land it's extremely expencive and only gained traction through huge subsides.

sanxiyn 11y ago
Wind has low power density, so it requires much more space. This probably is not a problem for US, but a serious problem for other countries.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  That space can be used for other things too though such as grazing livestock. Relatedly, Elon Musk claims that if you cover the area used up by a Nuclear plant with solar panels than you can get equal power production. The actual reactor is small, but the security etc. means that there's a large boundary zone. Plus of course no-one wants to live near one.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    On sunny days, or on average?
- ovi256 11y ago
  Even countries who have no unused land, like the Netherlands and Belgium, have managed to build big wind farms. They've mostly placed them offshore.
  - stevesimmons 11y ago
    In the Netherlands at least, onshore is far bigger than offshore: roughly 90% by capacity, 85% by production. Detailed stats are here: http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70802ned&D1=0,2-6&D2=a&D3=152,169,186,203-206,208-210,212-214,216-218,220-226&VW=T http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70802...