Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

Nuclear is a very good and efficient way of producikg energy and I can see why it seems mad to step away. On a pure scientific basis the solution to global warming might just be nuclear powerplants.

But I don't share your optimism of consumers organising. Our entire system revovles around capital, not just capital but ammassing capital. So the rentiers have all the leverage to push consumers into a direction. This is a fundamentally broken system that enlargens the problems we as a society face in this day and age.
It's a system build by and build for the rentiers.

It's from here that the idea of walking away from nuclear energy stems. If we refuse nuclear and we tax fossil to death, the market will be incentivised to invest in renewable. Which is just a detour and a step back, instead of just admitting the system is the issue.

I'm trying to follow this post and I'm having trouble.

Are you saying that the pursuit of profit is preventing nuclear plants?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Compared to 1980, the real cost per passenger is 3% higher now. The network is also carrying 133% more passengers. Punctuality is now perpetually hovering around 90%, which is a 15% improvement on 25 years ago. I can't say if it's better than British Rail days (pre-1990), because BR didn't keep punctuality statistics...

Really? A bus ticket in the 80's cost 50p. A train ticket to visit my Gran on a Saturday was 60p. Now the bus costs £1.60. The train would cost £33.80.

 

[Famine]

Really? A bus ticket in the 80's cost 50p. A train ticket to visit my Gran on a Saturday was 60p. Now the bus costs £1.60. The train would cost £33.80.

Okay, but that doesn't mean anything in isolation.

Since privatisation in 1995ish (because it went on for a while), the average real cost per passenger per kilometer across all journeys has risen by 2.7%. Of course some have gone up by more - and some season tickets have gone down (because real cost accounts for inflation). Your bus journey beats inflation by the way, suggesting some subsidies, or cheaper and more efficient buses, or both.

 

[Rallywagon]

It ceases to be a joking matter when and if there are cold weather crop losses. Are there any cold weather crop losses? In the UK, China or the American midwest?

A few years ago Michigans cherry crop was all but completely wiped out when we had an early start to spring and the a late spring cold snap. Nearly happened again last year, and I am guessing by the way winter has gone it's going to be a real risk this year as well.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but if it's only generated over a relatively short time span then it shouldn't really have any negative impact on the environment. As far as I know, nuclear provides more energy than most renewable sources and is more reliable/consistent (you don't need wind, sun, etc). If Germany has found a way to get around that, then I guess there isn't an issue. It wasn't specified in the article so I'd assume that nuclear still holds it advantages, and if that is the case, I don't know why you would want to totally get rid of it yet.

As far as changing energy production in a capitalist system, you would need to convince enough people to care more about the environmental factor than prices (although I don't consider nuclear to be a "threat" at this point, and I feel that it is underutilized). I wouldn't mind seeing more initiative and organization on the part of consumers.

It's my understanding that currently, the amount of nuclear waste from all power plants all over the world from inception to today would fill only a warehouse the size of a football field. The amount of coal ash from running just a few years would create more waste than all nuclear power plants would in that same amount of time.
Edit:
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

 

[Tornado]

Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

So what you're saying is we should dump them in Gillette Stadium.

 

[Rallywagon]

So what you're saying is we should dump them in Gillette Stadium.

I mean, wouldnt want it in my back yard, but the Silverdome would have been good. They couldnt even blow it down with controlled explosives.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's my understanding that currently, the amount of nuclear waste from all power plants all over the world from inception to today would fill only a warehouse the size of a football field. The amount of coal ash from running just a few years would create more waste than all nuclear power plants would in that same amount of time.

Yes, because the physical volume of nuclear waste is the problem...

It should, hopefully, go without saying that nuclear waste is a tad more problematic that other forms of energy-related waste, insofar as it is itself radioactive and therefore requires a bit more consideration about not just how it is disposed of, but how it is secured indefinitely.

Damn right you wouldn't want it in your back yard.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A few years ago Michigans cherry crop was all but completely wiped out when we had an early start to spring and the a late spring cold snap. Nearly happened again last year, and I am guessing by the way winter has gone it's going to be a real risk this year as well.

It's my understanding that currently, the amount of nuclear waste from all power plants all over the world from inception to today would fill only a warehouse the size of a football field. The amount of coal ash from running just a few years would create more waste than all nuclear power plants would in that same amount of time.
Edit:
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

As of 2010 there were about 250,000 tons of "High Level Waste" stored worldwide. Spent fuel is only part of the output. With that said I still think nuclear is a better option than coal, although renewables are better than either.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes, because the physical volume of nuclear waste is the problem...

It should, hopefully, go without saying that nuclear waste is a tad more problematic that other forms of energy-related waste, insofar as it is itself radioactive and therefore requires a bit more consideration about not just how it is disposed of, but how it is secured indefinitely.

Damn right you wouldn't want it in your back yard.

Sure, all valid points. But it's not exactly like coal ash is environmentally friendly, nor does it store well either. dont like the fact that I have an ash pool right off the river I live next to either. The difference is that a single facility or compound can be created to store a countries spent nuclear fuel, like the facilities in New Mexico and Kansas. Coal plants just dump their ash into a lake made by the power plant. A good number of them leak into local ground water. And when one of them busts, which is happening more frequently due to stronger storms cause by climate change, it really messes things up.

As of 2010 there were about 250,000 tons of "High Level Waste" stored worldwide. Spent fuel is only part of the output. With that said I still think nuclear is a better option than coal, although renewables are better than either.

I agree. The only issue is that I dont think anything renewable can handle large scale industrial processing such as running large scale arc furnaces.
That said, I think renewables on a house should definitely be better utilized as well as solar plants and wind farms to feed large cities, apartments and others where personal renewables might not be possible.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm trying to follow this post and I'm having trouble.

Are you saying that the pursuit of profit is preventing nuclear plants?

I'm saying it pushes to nuclear. It prevents expensive research into renewable energy. A nuclear powerplant is a very effecient way of peoducing electrical energy and as an investor it's your best choice if there would be no regulation.

So if you make nuclear illegal and put high taxes on fossil fuel, you might incentivise the investment into renewable energy.

 

[Exorcet]

But I don't share your optimism of consumers organising. Our entire system revovles around capital, not just capital but ammassing capital. So the rentiers have all the leverage to push consumers into a direction. This is a fundamentally broken system that enlargens the problems we as a society face in this day and age.

Well they need to compete against each other for support from consumers. Large corporations can have a lot of power (and sometimes they shouldn't, like with government lobbying) but they are still reliant on funding from the masses.

I'm saying it pushes to nuclear. It prevents expensive research into renewable energy. A nuclear powerplant is a very effecient way of peoducing electrical energy and as an investor it's your best choice if there would be no regulation.

So if you make nuclear illegal and put high taxes on fossil fuel, you might incentivise the investment into renewable energy.

Many people are scared of nuclear, even if what you say is true, there is a very strong push against it.

 

[Danoff]

As of 2010 there were about 250,000 tons of "High Level Waste" stored worldwide. Spent fuel is only part of the output. With that said I still think nuclear is a better option than coal, although renewables are better than either.

It weighs a lot. It doesn't actually take up much space. Apparently the amount of nuclear waste in the US is the size of a football field stacked somewhere around 20 feet deep (it ranges a lot depending on what the angle of the article quoting it is, I've seen as much as 80 feet).

Where is it stored right now? In the US we store it (the solid waste) in cans at the site that generates it. That was intended as a temporary solution but has been working so well that some people are calling for it to be permanent. The problems associated with transporting it are a little trickier than the problems associated with keeping it safe at the nuke facility. Although (relatively) low cost plans exist to transport it off site to mountains in Nevada.

Apparently the area needed for each nuclear facility to be able to store its own waste on site for decades to come is about the size of a a walmart. And it's stored in drums, which aren't that expensive, and it's solid (not green ooze, so no need to worry about mutant turtles).

Compared to the drawbacks of so many other energy types, including solar and wind, I'm surprised the nuclear waste even gets cited as an issue.

 

[Dotini]

I'm surprised the nuclear waste even gets cited as an issue.

IMO the main reason nuclear waste is cited as an issue is because of the long term costs. These people worry too much. The danger of eventual leakage and contamination of water tables, rivers and such is easily mitigated through long term vigilance and maintenance. If our civilization were to fail to be able to do this, only then would the issue be real to those having to live with contaminated water and environment. But I ask, why should we care about the future? Since the future is not here and real, we should assume that our civilization is permanent, forever wise, prosperous, peaceful and vigilant, and will never fail to be responsible for our actions today. We can do no wrong.

 

[Danoff]

IMO the main reason nuclear waste is cited as an issue is because of the long term costs. These people worry too much. The danger of eventual leakage and contamination of water tables, rivers and such is easily mitigated through long term vigilance and maintenance.

You mean "leaking" solid control rods? There's no liquid waste. Or did you mean leaked radiation due to cracks in the barrels and walls of the facility?

If our civilization were to fail to be able to do this, only then would the issue be real to those having to live with contaminated water and environment.

It's a super easy problem compared to... every single alternative. Including the "return to the stone ages" alternative.

 

[Tired Tyres]

You mean "leaking" solid control rods? There's no liquid waste. Or did you mean leaked radiation due to cracks in the barrels and walls of the facility?



It's a super easy problem compared to... every single alternative. Including the "return to the stone ages" alternative.

Other than safe storage for something deadly for vastly longer than the entirety of recorded human history you mean.

 

[Danoff]

Other than safe storage for something deadly for vastly longer than recorded human history you mean.

"Deadly" is a bit overstating it.

The "problem" for how to deal with nuclear waste is how to get drums full of heavy solid material and put them somewhere for a very long time. The degree of this problem shrinks with time. After 30 or 60 years, the radioactivity contained in one of these barrels is significantly reduced. And if you're worried about what we're going to do with it in 1000 years, when we have more of it... uh... we'll probably just bury it by having the Enterprise dig a hole with it's primary phaser banks. Because it's not that big a deal.

Conversely, every single alternative has much larger problems.

 

[Exorcet]

Other than safe storage for something deadly for vastly longer than the entirety of recorded human history you mean.

Even if it's long lived, if there isn't a lot of it, that reduces the damage that can be done. I think nuclear is a very good intermediate power source. We should use it until we can obtain fusion power, or have vastly improved renewable sources.

Also, when it comes to the risks, I sometimes wonder if they overblown. Chernobyl isn't a wasteland. You probably wouldn't want to live there, but even the worst nuclear plant disaster in history wasn't able to wipe out the ecosystem.

https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050808/full/news050808-4.html

There's also Nevada in the US, which has suffered the most nuclear bomb detonations of any location in the world.

 

[Danoff]

IMO the main reason nuclear waste is cited as an issue is because of the long term costs. These people worry too much. The danger of eventual leakage and contamination of water tables, rivers and such is easily mitigated through long term vigilance and maintenance. If our civilization were to fail to be able to do this, only then would the issue be real to those having to live with contaminated water and environment. But I ask, why should we care about the future? Since the future is not here and real, we should assume that our civilization is permanent, forever wise, prosperous, peaceful and vigilant, and will never fail to be responsible for our actions today. We can do no wrong.

Ok, I shouldn't say there is "no liquid waste". There is liquid waste, but it's treated, stored very temporarily, and then released into the environment when it is safe to do so. The liquid waste is not what is generally discussed when "nuclear waste" is discussed.

 

[Touring Mars]

Today has been the hottest February day ever recorded in the UK (20.3 degrees C at Ceredigion, Wales) - it is also the highest winter temperature ever recorded in the UK.

2019 is predicted to be the hottest year on record - the four hottest years on record thus far have all occured in the last four years...

 

[DK]

But it's snowing in Calgary! Checkmate liberals!

 

[Tired Tyres]

Today has been the hottest February day ever recorded in the UK (20.3 degrees C at Ceredigion, Wales) - it is also the highest winter temperature ever recorded in the UK.

2019 is predicted to be the hottest year on record - the four hottest years on record thus far have all occured in the last four years...

If that happens in the summer, percentage wise, we won't be able to go outside. Actually, we wouldn't be able to stay in either. Our houses are not built to stand that level of temperature.

 

[TexRex]

I'm getting really tired of the "climate change doesn't exist because people mistakenly call it global warming and there are places that are cold" argument made by stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid* people. It's not an argument made to reject the implication that it's caused by the actions of humans, nor is made to reject the implication that humans now need to do something about it; one can acknowledge its existence and still deny any sort of ownership and therefore any obligation.

*Typed out entirely manually--without copy/paste--to emphasize my frustration.

/rant

*sigh*

I overheard a statement to that effect this morning and kept quiet at the time, but I really needed to get that off my chest. Carry on.

 

[Novalee]

But it's snowing in Calgary! Checkmate liberals!

Weather and climate are not the same thing .

 

[Touring Mars]

Weather and climate are not the same thing .

Methinks it was a joke...

...however, a new record has been set today - 21.2°C in London today, a full 1.5°C hotter than the old record set in 1997.

 

[TenEightyOne]

a new record has been set today - 21.2°C in London today, a full 1.5°C hotter than the old record set in 1997.

A colon instead of a hyphen would have helped me understand that better at first reading

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Methinks it was a joke...

...however, a new record has been set today - 21.2°C in London today, a full 1.5°C hotter than the old record set in 1997.

Considering one city here broke the record for snow in a single day, and many areas that don't see snow did see such. Or Hawaii recently seeing very strange winter weather that it typically doesn't or snow in Las Vegas last week...

I don't disagree with your view but "how hot something is", is only one indicator something is out of wack with the entire ecology.

 

[Touring Mars]

Considering one city here broke the record for snow in a single day, and many areas that don't see snow did see such. Or Hawaii recently seeing very strange winter weather that it typically doesn't or snow in Las Vegas last week...

I don't disagree with your view but "how hot something is", is only one indicator something is out of wack with the entire ecology.

Indeed - yet we still get climate change denialists citing record low temperatures and snow in Las Vegas as if it somehow refutes the idea that the climate is changing beyond the bounds of natural variation.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Indeed - yet we still get climate change denialists citing record low temperatures and snow in Las Vegas as if it somehow refutes the idea that the climate is changing beyond the bounds of natural variation.

Hard to see how (I know you're not just as a general aside). When as I said the same record heats are just as statistically viable as record lows, the polar vortex earlier in the month here in the U.S. set records that had long been established. The weather I mention in my last post, while viable with or without climate change happened to such an extreme in areas that either don't expect it or don't get nearly as much of it as seen. Thus prompting the question why, and coincidence seems to be to easy a reason to keep using for anyone to really deny there being some inclement change as well.

I also wonder if many of these people who do deny do so based on jargon that was used. I still here people use the washed up joke of "how can it be global warming if it's cold". When the more accurate term is clearly climate change.

 

[Dotini]

Hard to see how (I know you're not just as a general aside). When as I said the same record heats are just as statistically viable as record lows, the polar vortex earlier in the month here in the U.S. set records that had long been established. The weather I mention in my last post, while viable with or without climate change happened to such an extreme in areas that either don't expect it or don't get nearly as much of it as seen. Thus prompting the question why, and coincidence seems to be to easy a reason to keep using for anyone to really deny there being some inclement change as well.

I also wonder if many of these people who do deny do so based on jargon that was used. I still here people use the washed up joke of "how can it be global warming if it's cold". When the more accurate term is clearly climate change.

Yes, the weather is weird all over the northern hemisphere due to the spastic antics of the polar vortex. No doubt there is climate change. One big question is whether it is entirely due to man's activities, or if the sun and other natural factors play a major role. Other questions are what can and should be done about it, how it is to be paid for, and how far in what direction it is all going in the immediate future.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes, the weather is weird all over the northern hemisphere due to the spastic antics of the polar vortex. No doubt there is climate change. One big question is whether it is entirely due to man's activities, or if the sun and other natural factors play a major role. Other questions are what can and should be done about it, how it is to be paid for, and how far in what direction it is all going in the immediate future.

Honestly, the question of how is going to be paid for, or perhaps, who is going to profit from it is more genuine, is really the only question. After that, the rest will be figured out, but probably not before that. Hurray our hero capitalism. It got us here, and by golly it will leave us here without financial incentive.