The solutions to Global Warming include. . .

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by freeztar

No worries, it was a Big Coal exec driving a Prius.

Speaking of which...little noted newsitem today:

Originally Posted by Think Progress, 1/30/2008

During Monday’s State of the Union address, Bush said, “Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions.”

Yet just 24 hours after his SOTU declaration, Bush’s Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman indicated the White House was pulling the plug on the ambitious FutureGen project, a clean coal plant that was touted as “the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world.”

How's that for securing his legacy of legislative achievements?

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises,
Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Buffy

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises,
Buffy

Do you have Irish genes?
I'm 50% Irish and even I don't get that

Pity about coal really.
It seemed like such a good idea at the time.
Perhaps we can use it as a garden soil amendment?
(See TP sub forum)

A friend who knows heaps about electricity said I could repost this as long as I didn't use his name. I have edited it as it was in response to a local pollies press release

The only real way to provision for more power is to increase generation, however, savings may be made using energy efficiency systems such as new fluro lights instead of incandescent
, however, the globes are full of mercury and they dont even recyle it, just dump it at the tip!!!
The state of electricity generation is abominable.
Putting in hot water systems only replaces energy consumption during the evening since we already have off peak, so it will do nothing to decrease daytime peak demand, which is where the shortage occurs.
I have no idea who would be dumb enough to buy coal fired generation stations when there is no carbon trading scheme yet designed, but it is well known one is coming.
Coal fired stations put out more radioactive material than nuclear stations of the same capacity.
They are Dickensian in nature, so I agree that we shouldn't be building more coal fired or thermal power stations,

I find it humbling, that for all our technology and cleverness, we cannot replicate what happens in every leaf, on ever tree, every day.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Buffy

How's that for securing his legacy of legislative achievements?

Great imho!

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises,
Buffy

"Instead of trusting in the judgement of people, they trust in the fedral government" - GWB SOTUA

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I just get livid when *some* people blithely imply that there's nothing to worry about with nuclear technology and all the "problems" are solved.

Many of them are far better understood problems then they used to be. Smarter reactor design makes disasters of like three mile island nearly impossible, and also dramatically reduces the amount of radioactive waste. Breeder reactors could be built that produce little waste, and would quench safely in emergency situations.

Unfortunately, its not viable for mostly political reasons. For the most part, no nuclear reactors is something upon which green peace and "big energy" can agree, hence unlikely to ever be built. Reactions against even the word "nuclear" are strong enough in the general public that (for instance) NMR was rebranded MRI.

Which is unfortunate, because personally I believe the comparatively small amount of radioactive waste that would be produced is a small price to pay for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, its technology we are already familiar with thats fairly well understood, and assuming we started building plants today, could provide a reasonable portion of our power.

This contrasts with other proposed ideas, like hydrogen cars and fusion. Hydrogen cars are a shell game (it takes more power to make hydrogen from water then you get out of the hydrogen. You can't burn water). And any realistic fusion scenario creates MORE nuclear waste then fission, very hot neutrons turn any first wall material into radioactive slag very quickly.

In short- nuclear is (as of now) the only thing we have thats viable, and we need to start taking measures now, not decades from now.
-Will

[Michaelangelica]

I guess it depends on the coal you use,
but this amazed me

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations
In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001.
He has an interesting take on coal power:-

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."

He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104

Dr Karl is a professor at Uni NSW and a local media /science person.
I have never heard him mention this on any media other than his books.

Then the Nuclear Industry's treatment of waste has been atrocious ( mendacious?)
Up until 1990 the USA was dumping it at sea!!!!!!!!!!!

We still have not dug a hole deep enough in the earth's core which does not contain some form of life that radioactive waste could possible affect/ effect?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Many of them are far better understood problems then they used to be. Smarter reactor design makes disasters of like three mile island nearly impossible, and also dramatically reduces the amount of radioactive waste. Breeder reactors could be built that produce little waste, and would quench safely in emergency situations.

Unfortunately, its not viable for mostly political reasons. For the most part, no nuclear reactors is something upon which green peace and "big energy" can agree, hence unlikely to ever be built.

I actually agree with most of what you say here, the big problem being that it would require strong government regulation to actually build safe plants and go for breeder designs that all spell one thing for the potential investors: *reduced profits*.

Luckily Bush and Cheney are oil men: otherwise we'd have a bunch of nuclear power plants under construction with none of the safety features and no breeder technology because they'd unduly restrict the power company's "freedom to innovate."

Its going to take a lot of rebuilding and re-balancing of public confidence to get there unfortunately, and although I agree this would sure be good in the short term *if* it were done right, I think we'll end up with "pebbles" and fusion sooner than it will take to get the right balance between free-market and necessary government regulation....

Just to clarify, the quote that you pulled from my earlier post was an objection to the "looking backward, we would have been much better off if we'd started building them like crazy 40 years ago," which at least statistically would probably have resulted in a nice sized Chernobyl-class event in Chicago, providing many more contenders for America's "Second City"....

How's that for a centrist position?

Sometimes when people are under stress, they hate to think, and it's the time when they most need to think,
Buffy

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Buffy

I actually agree with most of what you say here, the big problem being that it would require strong government regulation to actually build safe plants and go for breeder designs that all spell one thing for the potential investors: *reduced profits*.

Actually breeder designs are most often cheaper to run (they can use thorium for fuel, which is more abundant/cheaper = more profits).

A friend of mine who is a nuclear engineer makes the claim that reactors that quench rather then runaway in an emergency situation are actually cheaper to build, though a quick google search finds no information on this idea. She also makes the claim that the older style reactors are essentially less safe/produce more waste because they were designed to run on u235 and the government liked this because the byproduct of the enrichment was u238 for weapons rounds. I can also find nothing to verify online, but it seems plausible.

Anyway, my main point is that even pure,unregulated economics should result in the safer/less wasteful breeder reactors.
-Will

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Anyway, my main point is that even pure,unregulated economics should result in the safer/less wasteful breeder reactors.

In the example of the Clinch River reactor, it was not a purely economic issue, but a political one as well. In that case though, it was budgeted at $500 mil and was later estimated that it was going to cost $8 bil, after spending $1.5 bil.

It seems the political climate has shifted since then (or at least, is going to shift) and in that case it does become solely an economical issue.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Do you have Irish genes?

I'm 50% Irish and even I don't get that.

Angel, Angel, Angel!!!! I just found out there's Irish folk in my familiy's woodpile! Put 'em up!!! But first, a drink. What's a carpenter to do but make a shelali (sp)? Anyway, if'n ya see the little headphonicon after Buffaerianana's words ( ), then it is some quote of note. Take heart!! Simply copy the phrase, paste into Google, and stir. The last little bit is found in Bearce's Devil's dictionary as the definition of hypocrite.

The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary - Google Book Search

A solution to global warming is for everyone to regularly hold their breaths'.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

A solution to global warming is for everyone to regularly hold their breaths'.

I like that spin and it makes for an interesting quote, misleading as it may be.