WouldBe
Dislicksick
Apart from the radioactive waste the big problem with nuclear is it takes 25 years to build power station.
you can build loads of wind, solar, hydro, tidal etc in that time.
Is it too late?
- Thread starter frogwoman
- Start date
you can build loads of wind, solar, hydro, tidal etc in that time.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Co-Founder of Greenpeace Envisions a Nuclear Future
Wired News speaks with Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who now co-chairs a pro-nuclear power coalition.
Greenpeace don't like hydroelectric options btw. I guess they feel that they disrupt local ecosystems.
Cid
Proper break this time
Tidal energy has proven really hard to develop... I'm not up to date mind you, but it's problems like extreme variation in wave height, extremely hostile environment (seawater), high relative cost. With the most established technology, barrages, you're also basically building a dam filled with whirling blades across a major body of water. The ecosystem disruption is pretty much inevitable, and consequences hard to predict.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Patrick Moore has long been pro nuclear. He no longer has anything to with Greenpeace, hasn't for yonks, but the link is always mentioned when the topic of nuclear power rears it ugly head.Co-Founder of Greenpeace Envisions a Nuclear Future
Wired News speaks with Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who now co-chairs a pro-nuclear power coalition.www.wired.com
Greenpeace don't like hydroelectric options btw. I guess they feel that they disrupt local ecosystems.
Greenpeace's opinion, or George Monbiot's, is not the final word on the matter anyway. Even he only resorts to the nuclear option because he sees it as a stopgap, to be replaced in time with something more renewably sustainable. Trouble is that more nuclear will just lead to more nuclear.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
If you look up Patrick Moore on Wikipedia you will see that his association with Greenpeace ended in 1986, 36 years ago. He has since championed nuclear power and GM foods, excused unsustainable logging and denied Global Warming. In short he's a complete twat.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I thought there was a legitimate Green argument for nuclear power? I think Friends Of The Earth were pro-NP at some point?
8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
Well there’s that climate change thing..
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I think on reflection it was fusion that the Greens/FotE were/are keen on
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I'm pretty sure FoE were never pro-nuclear but about 10 years they moved from basing their opposition from H&S to the fact that nuclear has such an unbelieveably shit record that it wasn't credible. At least part of that shift was due to the massive evidence that had slowly piled up about the unhealthiness of burning fossil fuels and how many deaths globally were due to them. In comparison nuclear is great.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Nuclear power is really crap in terms of climate change. The largest source of GHG emissions from nuclear is the milling and mining of the uranium - i.e it is ongoing. It is a "low carbon" source of energy not a no-carbon one - although no one has a meaningful definition of "low carbon" and arguably nuclear is is a higher emitter than highly efficient gas. And this is before we get on to its actual delivery record which is appalling.
It's a comfort blanket for anyone who really really wants to believe that everything is going to be ok amd nothing much needs to change.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
It's a disputed claim of course, why I called it "arguably" lower. There are so many claims being made by massively vested interests on all sides and there's big money at stake & there's a shit ton of bad (or at least partial) science being published to back it all up. The key takeaway for me is that nuclear is absolutely not zero carbon and is no where near it although imo it is probably down somewhere in the gray zone between trad fossil fuels and renewables. But gas is fundamentally quite efficient, whereas centralised electricity production in massive plants fundamentally isn't - there are huge distribution losses.
The GHG cost of nuclear is very hard to calculate - how to spread the carbon cost of a Fukushima? How do you even calculate the GHG cost of a Fukushima? What about future storage facilities? Even the milling and mining figure is almost completely dependent on how many other active nuclear plants there are globally and what capacity they are running at - this will determine what richness-level of uranium ore it is worth mining. Anything down to 0.02% is worthwhile in terms of EROEI but obviously the closer you get to that figure, the higher the GHG load, particularly in the milling - you are looking at grinding a fairly small amount out of a tonne of rock, all that is done with fossil fuels.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Ha ha literally just watching a prog on BBC2 right now about the lost decade 2010-2020 and it's all about Big Oil's attempts to rebrand 'clean gas' as green. So I'm guessing that some of the science I'd have been reading 2012-13 when I was working on this was from these wankers. This is literally exactly the same strategy as that of the nuclear industry now, i.e. desperately trying to make itself look like part of some nebulous "green solution" when it obviously isn't.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
20 years still
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Was that Big Oil v the World? If so it's well worth watching the two episodes prior to that one, which looked at the original burying of their discoveries and then their planting of Cheney, Bush et al in the White House.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Not at all. It is still the greatest thing that has never been successfully achieved.
And perhaps the reason is, that the sums being invested in it are less over a year than the weapons and munitions being supplied to Ukraine per day. It needs serious funding if it is ever to be achieved.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Oil. Always oil.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Just watched all three b2b - like you say, very much worth watching. Lots of the company big wigs on tape. Also the very depressing reality that the US of A is the worlds leading methane polluter as of now, via fracking.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Scientists in China Discover Rare Moon Crystal that Could Power Earth
A rare lunar crystal found on the near side of the moon is giving scientists hope of providing limitless power for the world – forever.
China discovers rare lunar crystal and nuclear power source on near side of the moon
It's not aliens; It's an incredibly rare source of helium.
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
It might as well be too late, absolute fucking dickheads:
www.theguardian.com
US puts Italy-sized chunk of Gulf of Mexico up for auction for oil drilling
In latest blow to Joe Biden’s reputation as the ‘climate president’, 73.3m acres of the gulf will be offered for fossil fuel extraction
Humberto
Justice is order
They are talking about 'energy security' (ostensibly because of wars and cold-wars) similar to noises coming from the Tories in the context of them wanting to go for more exploitation of North Sea fossil fuel resources. As massive as the impact of the Gulf of Mexico drilling and extraction proposals would be, they would still represent I think less than 1% of the USA's current production. But it's a real step in the wrong direction, a long-term move, and a failure to recognise where we need to get to fast.
As the article says:
So a 'pro-coal' US Senator had to be pacified. By the way he happens to have his campaigns significantly funded by 'oil and gas' according to this:
www.opensecrets.org
As the article says:
So a 'pro-coal' US Senator had to be pacified. By the way he happens to have his campaigns significantly funded by 'oil and gas' according to this:
Sen. Joe Manchin - Campaign Finance Summary
Fundraising profile for Sen. Joe Manchin - West Virginia
www.opensecrets.org
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it'll be used for balloons for children's partiesScientists in China Discover Rare Moon Crystal that Could Power Earth
A rare lunar crystal found on the near side of the moon is giving scientists hope of providing limitless power for the world – forever.
China discovers rare lunar crystal and nuclear power source on near side of the moon
It's not aliens; It's an incredibly rare source of helium.www.livescience.com
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
Dr Zarkov says there is no cause for concernScientists in China Discover Rare Moon Crystal that Could Power Earth
A rare lunar crystal found on the near side of the moon is giving scientists hope of providing limitless power for the world – forever.
China discovers rare lunar crystal and nuclear power source on near side of the moon
It's not aliens; It's an incredibly rare source of helium.
Similar threads
- Poll
