Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

[Squidfayce]

google him. nuke industry guy. was involved in that ridiculously bad Michael Moore film...

Its misinformation at best.

cheers.

 

[Haakon]

He is up there with Lomborg and gets his opeds published in the Australian. That should tell you all you need to know...

 

[Squidfayce]

I think the conversation/argument for Nuclear is interesting in any case. Scares the hell out of me. I have family in eastern europe who were impacted by Chernobyl and the subsequent fall out (pun intended) from it.

 

[Haakon]

I think the conversation/argument for Nuclear is interesting in any case. Scares the hell out of me. I have family in eastern europe who were impacted by Chernobyl and the subsequent fall out (pun intended) from it.

I agree with keeping the existing ones running for a while if need be, but building new ones is dumb as dog shit. Stupid expensive way to make power, we dont need them.

If anyone ever uses the term "baseload" in any pro nuke or fossil argument, smile and walk away...

 

[Squidfayce]

i read that SA recently ran the entire state on renewables for 6 days straight . Havent had a chance to check out the details yet.

 

[Tubbsy]

I think the conversation/argument for Nuclear is interesting in any case. Scares the hell out of me. I have family in eastern europe who were impacted by Chernobyl and the subsequent fall out (pun intended) from it.

I was living in Western Europe at the time - I distinctly recall being at a restaurant with my parents and the news filtering through the kitchen's radio. Everyone kind of finished up their meals and hurried home.

Then we were on long life milk and relatively little fresh veg and meat for some months if I recall correctly.

 

[Oddjob]

I agree with keeping the existing ones running for a while if need be, but building new ones is dumb as dog shit. Stupid expensive way to make power, we dont need them.

If anyone ever uses the term "baseload" in any pro nuke or fossil argument, smile and walk away...

Can you explain to me how we are going to have enough energy globally to start sucking millions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere without nuclear? Because I'm pretty sure that's what we will need to do by 2050.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

[Squidfayce]

Can you explain to me how we are going to have enough energy globally to start sucking millions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere without nuclear? Because I'm pretty sure that's what we will need to do by 2050.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

aliens

 

[The Dude]

Can you explain to me how we are going to have enough energy globally to start sucking millions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere without nuclear? Because I'm pretty sure that's what we will need to do by 2050.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

Ask ScrotoMo.

He has it all worked out.....

 

[Haakon]

Can you explain to me how we are going to have enough energy globally to start sucking millions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere without nuclear? Because I'm pretty sure that's what we will need to do by 2050.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

what makes you think we need nukes? We need power, and get to the most power we need the cheapest power. That aint nukes...

 

[Squidfayce]

what makes you think we need nukes? We need power, and get to the most power we need the cheapest power. That aint nukes...

Im not sure that answers the question posed.

given the goal to reduce greenhouse emissions is key, how will that be achieved without nuclear? Cost of generation of that electricity is secondary.
AT the moment the generation of wind/solar requires huge land/open space resources and the right conditions. Nuclear presumably limits that significantly and is more scalable than those aforementioned options.

I figure right now, at least in Australia we have huge land resources we could use for this that are pretty much worthless for anything else. Mark canon-brooks is already putting his money where his mouth is to be able to generate that power locally via massive solar farms and transport that sort of energy intercontinentally. I think that initself is a pretty exciting idea. BUT what does that look like 50-100 years down the track as our energy consumption grows, do we have the resources to keep adding panels or turbines to solar/wind farms? Or is the expectation that the technology efficiency continues to improve enough to sustain minimal scale creep?

 

[Haakon]

Im not sure that answers the question posed.

given the goal to reduce greenhouse emissions is key, how will that be achieved without nuclear? Cost of generation of that electricity is secondary.
AT the moment the generation of wind/solar requires huge land/open space resources and the right conditions. Nuclear presumably limits that significantly and is more scalable than those aforementioned options.

I figure right now, at least in Australia we have huge land resources we could use for this that are pretty much worthless for anything else. Mark canon-brooks is already putting his money where his mouth is to be able to generate that power locally via massive solar farms and transport that sort of energy intercontinentally. I think that initself is a pretty exciting idea. BUT what does that look like 50-100 years down the track as our energy consumption grows, do we have the resources to keep adding panels or turbines to solar/wind farms? Or is the expectation that the technology efficiency continues to improve enough to sustain minimal scale creep?

Offshore wind.

 

[Haakon]

Also, nukes arguably slow decarbonisation as they soak up billions for fuck all power that could have been spent on rolling out a shit tonne more genuinely clean energy.

 

[Flow-Rider]

Im not sure that answers the question posed.

given the goal to reduce greenhouse emissions is key, how will that be achieved without nuclear? Cost of generation of that electricity is secondary.
AT the moment the generation of wind/solar requires huge land/open space resources and the right conditions. Nuclear presumably limits that significantly and is more scalable than those aforementioned options.

I figure right now, at least in Australia we have huge land resources we could use for this that are pretty much worthless for anything else. Mark canon-brooks is already putting his money where his mouth is to be able to generate that power locally via massive solar farms and transport that sort of energy intercontinentally. I think that initself is a pretty exciting idea. BUT what does that look like 50-100 years down the track as our energy consumption grows, do we have the resources to keep adding panels or turbines to solar/wind farms? Or is the expectation that the technology efficiency continues to improve enough to sustain minimal scale creep?

Heaps of ways to cut down energy usage. I think they have a long way to go to make electrical efficient goods, even in dwelling heating and cooling. I don't know why they aren't engineering cooling devices on a large scale to make solar panels work more efficient.

 

[Oddjob]

Offshore wind.

Oh dear.



Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

[Haakon]

Oh dear.



Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

Issues?

 

[The Dude]

Oh dear.



Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

Soon to be Onshore Tidal

 

[Oddjob]

Issues?

The biggest issues with renewables are transmission, environmental impact and storage.

If we were willing to dam a bunch of river valleys in PNG and then transmit the power with DC transmission lines then all our power problems would be solved but there would be a lot of unhappy displaced animals and people to deal with.

The same problems apply to offshore wind, (and onshore wind and solar for that matter).

At some point we will use up all of the environmentally acceptable and economically viable spots for renewables. And we will still have a power shortfall, let alone have enough surplus to suck up CO2. So how do we fill the gap?

I'm optimistic the Terrapower smale scale reactor will succeed and be the answer. But I would settle for rolling out 3rd gen French reactors if that's what it took to avoid 2°c+ warming

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

[Haakon]

The biggest issues with renewables are transmission, environmental impact and storage.

If we were willing to dam a bunch of river valleys in PNG and then transmit the power with DC transmission lines then all our power problems would be solved but there would be a lot of unhappy displaced animals and people to deal with.

The same problems apply to offshore wind, (and onshore wind and solar for that matter).

At some point we will use up all of the environmentally acceptable and economically viable spots for renewables. And we will still have a power shortfall, let alone have enough surplus to suck up CO2. So how do we fill the gap?

I'm optimistic the Terrapower smale scale reactor will succeed and be the answer. But I would settle for rolling out 3rd gen French reactors if that's what it took to avoid 2°c+ warming

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

Nukes are low environmental impact then I guess? Uh huh….

If nukes were required, I would be first in line to ignore the waste problems and the eye watering cost and say bring it on.

But they’re not needed, they are high impact and very very very high cost. As I said, the cost delays actual decarbonisation…

 

[The Duckmeister]

A few billion fewer people would go a long way to reducing envionmental impact....