Politics and Global Warming

[uke2se]

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than about the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year due to fossil fuel polution?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than the wars over oil like the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than about hostile anti-democratic regimes like Iran, Venzuela and Russia using their oil wealth to fund terrorism, WMD programs and turning our own money against us?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than about non-climate related ecological disasters like the Exxon Valdez and the Gulf oil spill?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than the untold economic damage that would result from running away from the obvious solution while not solving the problem?

Am I supposed to care more about global warming than the misery and privation in the third world and where the energy is going to come from to lift them out of it?

I never said you need to care more about AGW than any of the items on your list. I just questioned why you wouldn't care about it at all.

As I said, AGW is just one symptom. There is a solution to all of these problems and I am a staunch advocate of it. Why should my feelings about one symptom compared to all the rest be an issue?

If you're talking nuclear energy, I'm on your side.

 

[lomiller]

If you're talking nuclear energy, I'm on your side.

I doubt it. I expect that you, (as am I) are on the side of nuclear power while SoT prefers a version of nuclear power that is more like science fiction.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

SoT prefers a version of nuclear power that is more like science fiction.

Only if you think France is another planet.

Whereas you operate from the false assumption that "can't be done by next tuesday" = "can't be done".

 

[DC]

Only if you think France is another planet.

Whereas you operate from the false assumption that "can't be done by next tuesday" = "can't be done".

now Nuclear power with zero carbon emissions sound pretty much like science fictions, well more like fiction. maybe if you would not make such false claims, people would not think you sound like some dude from a science fiction movie

 

[lomiller]

now Nuclear power with zero carbon emissions sound pretty much like science fictions, well more like fiction. maybe if you would not make such false claims, people would not think you sound like some dude from a science fiction movie

France has 59 Nuclear Plants and accounts for 1/6 of global production of nuclear power. It would take ~18 000 similar power plants to supply the worlds energy needs. Meanwhile according to the IAEA proved Uranium reserves are sufficient to supply the world’s 400ish nuclear reactors for ~90 years.

Calling the notion that build or fuel anything close to the number of Nuclear Power Plants required to supply the worlds energy needs “science fiction” is being generous IMO.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Meanwhile according to the IAEA proved Uranium reserves are sufficient to supply the world’s 400ish nuclear reactors for ~90 years.

The era of cheap and abundant petroleum and natural gas is drawing to a close. Many alternative replacements are proposed. The only clear alternative today is nuclear energy extracted from uranium and thorium. During the past seventy years, this new energy source has been fully developed and installed as a second-rank contributor to the world’s energy supply. During the next 50 to 100 years it can and will grow to become a predominant force in sustaining the health and well being of all humanity. If necessary, fission energy can continue this role for many millennia.
- Dr. Dan Meneley of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology at the 2010 Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference

Nuff sed.

lomiller and I have had this discussion before. If he follows his usual pattern he's now going to respond with the "can't be done by next tuesday" argument, leaving out the "next tuesday" part.

 

[lomiller]

Nuff sed.

Umm no you said nothing to address the facts I presented.

What's is a fuel cycle that doesn't do what you claim (according the the IAEA reprocessing + breeder reactors only gets you a 4X -5X increase in fuel utilization.) and exists only in concepts not designs or even road-maps for future designs. IOW you presented us with sciecne fiction

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Umm no you said nothing to address the facts I presented.

Ummm yes, I provided expert opinion by one of the top minds in civilian nuclear energy. You've provided nothing that disputes any of Dr. Meneleys claims.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

(according the the IAEA reprocessing + breeder reactors only gets you a 4X -5X increase in fuel utilization.)

This is not true either. Under current fuel cycles, only ~2% of the full potential of natural Uranium is utilized. Breeding makes the full 100% available. 40x to 50x is more accurate.

Why your numbers are off by a factor of 10 is irrelevant. Wrong information is wrong.

 

[lomiller]

Ummm yes, I provided expert opinion by one of the top minds in civilian nuclear energy. You've provided nothing that disputes any of Dr. Meneleys claims.

I'm not disputing his claims I'm disputing yours. Nothing he said supports you claimed that it's possible to build 18 000 nuclear plants and keep them fueled.

That fuels cycle could exist some day that isn't the issue. You are the one saying we can run out right now and build 18 000 of them and keep them fueled, which is pure science fiction.

 

[lomiller]

This is not true either. Under current fuel cycles, only ~2% of the full potential of natural Uranium is utilized. Breeding makes the full 100% available. 40x to 50x is more accurate.

Not according the the IAEA documents I have supplied you multiple times in the past. An ALL FAST REACTOR fuel cycle could hit 10X - 20X but that's not what you presented.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm not disputing his claims I'm disputing yours.

His claims are my claims.

Nothing he said supports you claimed that it's possible to build 18 000 nuclear plants and keep them fueled.

I never said we should build 18,000 plants right away. I've said we should start right here at home (US, Canada, etc...).

That fuels cycle could exist some day that isn't the issue.

Yes it is. And someday can a helluva lot closer than people like you who think that tomorrow never comes think it will be.

You are the one saying we can run out right now and build 18 000 of them and keep them fueled, which is pure science fiction.

Again, I never said that. Keep up with those strawmen though, they're all you got.

 

[JihadJane]

... As i said so often, you have lost all objectivity.

ftfy

 

[bit_pattern]

I doubt it. I expect that you, (as am I) are on the side of nuclear power while SoT prefers a version of nuclear power that is more like science fiction.

Less science, more fiction.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Not according the the IAEA documents I have supplied you multiple times in the past.

The breeder cycle is ideally suited to develop and use thorium. Thorium is terrestrially three times more abundant than uranium. The energy outlook at present rates of use for uranium and thorium combined, looks like about 300,000+ years.

- Dr. John K Sutherland, CANDU reactor radiation protection expert

Keep quoting the IAEA report as though it's the Holy Bible, and I'll keep quoting experienced experts from the actual nuclear industry who say otherwise.

An ALL FAST REACTOR fuel cycle could blah blah blah...

An all fast reactor energy infrastructure isn't necessary as excess fissile material could be removed from breeders and put into more conventional LWRs, PWRs and HPWRs (as per Dr. Meneleys proposal above).

 

[lomiller]

- Dr. John K Sutherland, CANDU reactor radiation protection expert

So one guy proves tie International Atomic Energy Agency has it all wrong

:dl


Again, the IAEA says that reprocessing + breeder reactors extend the life of fuel reserves from ~90 years to ~400. This is assuming no increase in nuclear power[/b generation which is a far cry for the 18 000 nuclear plants you want to run out and build.


I think it's important to note here, that the guy you are linking does not seem to support your position. he doesn't even consider trying to use Nuclear to replace fossil fuels, in fact he doesn't even propose expanding the use of nuclear power at all and talks only about maintaining current production levels. So again the issue probably isn't so much that he is wrong it's more that you are wrong about what he's saying.

BTW you are still off into the real of science fiction because

1. reprocessing + breeder reactor fuel cycles are a concept, the technology to do it not only don't exist it's not even on the road-map.

2. the thorium reactors you appeal to do not exist and are not on the road-map. (CANDU can burn some Thorium but it's extensive use of heavy water make it expensive and impractical for the large number of reactors required to replace fossil fuels)

3. the resource extraction technologies you appeal to do not exist and are not on the road map. You assume we would be able to extract every spec of Uranium and Thorium in the earths crust. Oil is an easy resource to extract by comparison and we are unlikely to ever extract more than 5% - 10%


I'm going to have to harp on the science fiction thing again. You want to use notional technologies than are not even on the road-map for mainstream use. The use of possible future technologies to solve current day problems pretty much defines the genre of science fiction.

 

[lomiller]

In addition to the fact that you want to use technologies that do not exist on a scale no one is proposing is possible I think it;s also important to note the economic implications of building tends of thousands of nuclear plants.

By it's very nature, nuclear power is something that is only particle with government sponsorship and control. The capital requirements are huge, the regulatory requirements are huge and the underwriting requirement s are beyond the capabilities of not only private industry but probably most governments. We are talking about potential liabilities that run into the hundreds of billions and in some cases trillions of dollars.

The scale of what you are proposing is essentially a complete government takeover of the economy indefinitely. A more practical assessment of nuclear power would be that we may want to double or triple our use of it and even that may be a stretch. Anyone expecting more than that (AKA You) is living in a dreamworld.

 

[DC]

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1540_web.pdf

Sounds like alot of work has still to be done in order for Thorium cycles to be mature enough for commercial use.

i wonder if there are studies wich look at how much Co2 will be produced from all the reprocessing etc that is needed for those thorium cycles.

but sofar it seems to be the best solution for energy production we have. together with solar wind and other alternatives i think it can make a promising package for the future.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Again, the IAEA says that reprocessing + breeder reactors extend the life of fuel reserves from ~90 years to ~400.

Wrong again.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

-Scientific American, January 2009

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm going to have to harp on the science fiction thing again.

It's frustrating when a soundbite is all you have, isn't it?

You want to use notional technologies than are not even on the road-map for mainstream use. The use of possible future technologies to solve current day problems pretty much defines the genre of science fiction.

To all these, Loewen's answer is a tour of the U. S. S. North Carolina, a World War II battleship anchored near downtown Wilmington... The point is, PRISM isn't half as complicated — and they built a fleet of these battleships overnight. Now it's a fleet of nuclear reactors Loewen sees. "That's how I answer the naysayers who say we can't build this till 2040," he says.

- President of the American Nuclear Society, Dr. Eric Loewen