Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Green New Deal was never about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Because people is peoples. Nobody wants to do anything if it inconvenciences. If you ask people "Should we change to renewable energy sources in the country" most people will say "Yes", if you ask them if they'd be willing to give "5$ per month", "50$ per month", "500$ per month", a lot of people will hesitate to even give anything.

    At any rate I've only seen you guys cite on and only one case and that's private jets used by government officials and business leaders.

    I can sympathize. Its bad optics. It really is. However, if we're going to be objective lilpixie, instead of being ruled by emotions and gut feelings, then its an objective fact that out of the total output of human CO2, those private jets represent a minority. And even if you're against it, the best way to deal with it simply cap and trade. Plenty of conservative thinkers have admitted that this is a rather weak argument against environmentalism. I remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) who runs a Trump supporting podcast, had more than one podcast detailing why this just doesn't work as an argument.
    Leon, it’s hard to take them serious when they are unwilling to take the steps to change their own lives around in ways they expect others to do. If a preacher preaches about purity and martial vows while sleeping around and not living their life in accordance to what they preach every Sunday, would you go to that church? It’s simple, you want others to change, start with yourself.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Even the RBMK reactor design was quite a bungle even back then. It had no containment structure to speak of, the roofs were just tar coverings. The only thing separating the core from air, was a 1000 ton steel lid and then a roof you couldn't put anything heavy on. It was a nightmarishly bad reactor design. And even then, it only exploded because of severe mismanagement.

      I've always been pro-nuclear. Though in Denmark its really difficult to get it built because we're such a small country that the upfront cost for developing the infrastructure really offsets any advantages. Germany on the other hand should be ashamed of themselves for pulling the plug on nuclear power. Its gonna delay their transition to renewable energy by at least two decades.

      That's completely nuts.
      It really is. It just means they're going to regress back into Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas. People in Canada have been getting increasingly opposed to Nuclear Energy, which just means that- if trends are anything to observe- we have to increase our reliance on Fossil Fuels... which just means our shiny new Carbon Tax is just going to hit us even harder. ETA: We also use a LOT of Hydro Power, but increasing dependence on that can create it's own set of problems.

      But I think you guys underestimate just how scary Chernobyl was. The background radiation in Europe increased by a factor of two thousand for days on end. Radioactive Iodine-131 containing dust landed on grass that cows fed on. Farmers had to take them indoors, children couldn't play outside. My own mom stayed indoors a lot, as she was pregnant with me at the time. Imagine how the US would view nuclear power if one of the CANDU reactors (that also have a positive void coefficient like the RBMK reactors - albiet a lot smaller) went prompt critical and exploded, sending a heavy dust cloud down across the US, meaning farmers in the South had to pretty much cull an entire years worth of cattle, and free roaming livestock might not be edible for a couple of years in some states.

      I think you guys would have a slightly different view of nuclear power, even though the fear wouldn't be entirely justified.

      I believe Europe overreacted, and its lead to a complete public distruct of nuclear power. Though Finland is building nuclear power, and France has no plans on abandoning nuclear power either.
      Sadly, at least Europe's fears have some objective grounding in the atrocity that was Chernobyl; you've had a bad thing happen, mistrust is at least somewhat understandable. When I've brought up Nuclear Power to folks here in Canuckelstan, their concerns are usually expressed with quotes from The Simpsons or paranoid rants that would put Alex, "They're Putting Chemicals in the Water to Turn the Friggin' Frogs Gay," Jones to shame.
      Last edited by Chaotic Void; 07-14-2019, 05:38 PM.
      Have You Touched Grass Today? If Not, Please Do.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        Because people is peoples. Nobody wants to do anything if it inconvenciences. If you ask people "Should we change to renewable energy sources in the country" most people will say "Yes", if you ask them if they'd be willing to give "5$ per month", "50$ per month", "500$ per month", a lot of people will hesitate to even give anything.

        At any rate I've only seen you guys cite on and only one case and that's private jets used by government officials and business leaders.

        I can sympathize. Its bad optics. It really is. However, if we're going to be objective lilpixie, instead of being ruled by emotions and gut feelings, then its an objective fact that out of the total output of human CO2, those private jets represent a minority. And even if you're against it, the best way to deal with it simply cap and trade. Plenty of conservative thinkers have admitted that this is a rather weak argument against environmentalism. I remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) who runs a Trump supporting podcast, had more than one podcast detailing why this just doesn't work as an argument.

        If only we could invent something that would turn CO2 into construction material while producing O2 as a waste product.


        invented a tree.jpg

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          Well... its not the fifties anymore. You can't just build a factory, dump whatever waste you have into the river, call it a day. Or do like Cheminova did in Denmark and just put all their chemical wastes in sand dunes. I imagine there's a bit more process involved today in getting this stuff built. I think its not unreasonable to ask for a cradle to grave plan for these plants. And even what would happen in the worst possible scenario (typically a meltdown).



          That's pretty cool.

          Denmark had a small nuclear reactor as well. It went up to 500W. Was used to test all sorts of reactor fuels, and to build nuclear reactor operations expertise. Its closed now. The radioactive waste is stored in a warehouse, even the highly-active waste. Which I personally think is fine, I never understood the reason for carving out mountains, or putting it deep underground. Just put it in concrete cylinders and stick it on the surface. Its the cheapest, and we know where its at. And besides it doesn't take long for the radiation levels to drop down dramatically.

          Here it is. Kinda reminds me of the American SL-1, which is an American reactor that also had prompt criticality like Chernobyl (though it only killed three operators).

          SL-1 was also not a great design, though at least it didn't melt down; one control rod just won't cut it.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            SL-1 was also not a great design, though at least it didn't melt down; one control rod just won't cut it.
            I think we can safely say that any nuclear reactor that can go prompt critical is rather dangerous to work with. Apparently it only took around 4 milliseconds from the point where the control rod had been raised to the point of causing prompt criticality, to all the water in reactor had been flash heated to steam.

            Some speculate it was a suicide given that the operator was only supposed to raise the rod two inches by hand, but pulled it out several feet. There was a motive, his friend had just been given a promotion he had sought, and was apparently cheating with his wife.

            We'll never know though, all three men died in the resulting steam explosion. God rest their souls.

            As for the SL-1 and the RBMK. They're renowned for the nuclear disasters they caused (the SL-1 much less so since it was such a small nuclear reactor). However I'll always pine just a little bit for the goal of both reactors. The RBMK's primary goal was to be a very cheap nuclear reactor, that could be built out of modular components, run with unenriched fuel, refuelable while running (a feat modern reactors fail at), and breed plutonium. It fulfilled all those goals, but they had cut too many corners. Personally I think a modernized RMBK could prove entirely safe, even without a containment structure. It would be significantly cheaper than coal, and it was basically what the retrofitted RBMK's following Chernobyl were. Though after retrofitting they had to run with slighly enriched fuel.

            The SL-1 is sad. Its arguably one of the simplest reactors ever built. A window to a world of small modular nuclear power plants. Built out of off-the-shelf components. But like the RBMK it pushed the envelope too aggressively.

            Sigh.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              I think we can safely say that any nuclear reactor that can go prompt critical is rather dangerous to work with. Apparently it only took around 4 milliseconds from the point where the control rod had been raised to the point of causing prompt criticality, to all the water in reactor had been flash heated to steam.

              Some speculate it was a suicide given that the operator was only supposed to raise the rod two inches by hand, but pulled it out several feet. There was a motive, his friend had just been given a promotion he had sought, and was apparently cheating with his wife.

              We'll never know though, all three men died in the resulting steam explosion. God rest their souls.

              As for the SL-1 and the RBMK. They're renowned for the nuclear disasters they caused (the SL-1 much less so since it was such a small nuclear reactor). However I'll always pine just a little bit for the goal of both reactors. The RBMK's primary goal was to be a very cheap nuclear reactor, that could be built out of modular components, run with unenriched fuel, refuelable while running (a feat modern reactors fail at), and breed plutonium. It fulfilled all those goals, but they had cut too many corners. Personally I think a modernized RMBK could prove entirely safe, even without a containment structure. It would be significantly cheaper than coal, and it was basically what the retrofitted RBMK's following Chernobyl were. Though after retrofitting they had to run with slighly enriched fuel.

              The SL-1 is sad. Its arguably one of the simplest reactors ever built. A window to a world of small modular nuclear power plants. Built out of off-the-shelf components. But like the RBMK it pushed the envelope too aggressively.

              Sigh.
              So, what's the practicality of having numerous smaller more controllable reactors -- like a reactor farm. Is the inherent cost per each far greater than any benefit in safety?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                So, what's the practicality of having numerous smaller more controllable reactors -- like a reactor farm. Is the inherent cost per each far greater than any benefit in safety?
                Decentralization? The energy infrastructure rather than having to transport electricity all over the place over high tension cables, could just produce the power where its needed. An area with heavy industries would have their own small nuclear power plants. A neighborhood district would have one for the production of hot water and electricity. It would also reduce the danger of a nuclear disaster since the reactor would be a lot smaller. Easier to repair and maintain. From a military standpoint its a bonus since your country doesn't have a small set of weak points to strike.

                The downside is more man power overall is needed. Scale can often make things cheaper.

                Also part of it is me being a diehard romantic for the idea of cities and towns owning their own means of doing and making things, including power.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  I think we can safely say that any nuclear reactor that can go prompt critical is rather dangerous to work with. Apparently it only took around 4 milliseconds from the point where the control rod had been raised to the point of causing prompt criticality, to all the water in reactor had been flash heated to steam.

                  Some speculate it was a suicide given that the operator was only supposed to raise the rod two inches by hand, but pulled it out several feet. There was a motive, his friend had just been given a promotion he had sought, and was apparently cheating with his wife.

                  We'll never know though, all three men died in the resulting steam explosion. God rest their souls.

                  As for the SL-1 and the RBMK. They're renowned for the nuclear disasters they caused (the SL-1 much less so since it was such a small nuclear reactor). However I'll always pine just a little bit for the goal of both reactors. The RBMK's primary goal was to be a very cheap nuclear reactor, that could be built out of modular components, run with unenriched fuel, refuelable while running (a feat modern reactors fail at), and breed plutonium. It fulfilled all those goals, but they had cut too many corners. Personally I think a modernized RMBK could prove entirely safe, even without a containment structure. It would be significantly cheaper than coal, and it was basically what the retrofitted RBMK's following Chernobyl were. Though after retrofitting they had to run with slighly enriched fuel.

                  The SL-1 is sad. Its arguably one of the simplest reactors ever built. A window to a world of small modular nuclear power plants. Built out of off-the-shelf components. But like the RBMK it pushed the envelope too aggressively.

                  Sigh.
                  I dunno, the RBMK is unsafe for a multitude of reasons. But yeah, prompt criticality will kill you quick.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    I dunno, the RBMK is unsafe for a multitude of reasons. But yeah, prompt criticality will kill you quick.
                    I didn't say it was safe. Its main problem was the positive void co-efficiency, but more than that the operators reported that its instrumentation was prone to fluctuations, it had a problem of a hot spot zone in the bottom of the reactor. It had a lot of issues, I still think its goals were rather good. It was the fact that it was managed as poorly as it was, constructed as quickly as they did and not listening to internal criticism which is ultimately the cause of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

                    Even the Chernobyl nuclear accident is overblown. Only 31 people died of acute radiation sickness, and the highest estimate of the European Union was an addition of 5000 deaths due to cancer. This is still nothing compared to the number of people who die due to pollution from nuclear power plants. The exclusion zone of Chernobyl could also be reduced a lot today. At least the 30 kilometer radius exclusion zone. Pribyat itself still has significant hotspots, and near the nuclear power station you can still find fuel fragments in the soil.

                    Chernobyl was a circus like trail of design flaws, and mismanagement. And the surprising part of it is how little destruction it actually caused.

                    But the fact of the matter though is that it scared Europe half to death, and ever since then has really wanted to live near a nuclear power plant here.

                    Oh, and for you I found out that there's a Ukranian Orthodox church in Chernobyl. Mass is still celebrated there to this day.

                    Last edited by Leonhard; 07-15-2019, 03:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Decentralization? The energy infrastructure rather than having to transport electricity all over the place over high tension cables, could just produce the power where its needed.
                      Assuming access to ample supplies of cooling water, no?

                      An area with heavy industries would have their own small nuclear power plants. A neighborhood district would have one for the production of hot water and electricity. It would also reduce the danger of a nuclear disaster since the reactor would be a lot smaller. Easier to repair and maintain. From a military standpoint its a bonus since your country doesn't have a small set of weak points to strike.

                      The downside is more man power overall is needed. Scale can often make things cheaper.

                      Also part of it is me being a diehard romantic for the idea of cities and towns owning their own means of doing and making things, including power.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Assuming access to ample supplies of cooling water, no?
                        Chernobyl interesting ran four nuclear reactors without a cooling tower. Didn't need them, it just used the local lake for open air cooling. But yeah you'd need access to some water depending on how its made. But I don't think it would be that much of a problem. Back in the early years of power plants everyone and their grandfather were building small steam power plants. The local hospital had its own steam power plant. Here's the old steam powered generator from the Horsens Hospital, now sitting in Horsens Museum of Industry. If put you in dollar it'll run for a while on pressurized air.



                        That Chernobyl cooling pond is now home to some giant cat fish. Apparently if you take away all natural predators of cat fish, leave them in a pond where there's plenty of shad for them to eat they grow enormous.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          Chernobyl interesting ran four nuclear reactors without a cooling tower. Didn't need them, it just used the local lake for open air cooling. But yeah you'd need access to some water depending on how its made. But I don't think it would be that much of a problem. Back in the early years of power plants everyone and their grandfather were building small steam power plants. The local hospital had its own steam power plant. Here's the old steam powered generator from the Horsens Hospital, now sitting in Horsens Museum of Industry. If put you in dollar it'll run for a while on pressurized air.





                          That Chernobyl cooling pond is now home to some giant cat fish. Apparently if you take away all natural predators of cat fish, leave them in a pond where there's plenty of shad for them to eat they grow enormous.

                          Wow, I can't imagine the fight those things would put up if hooked. I would love to try it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                            Wow, I can't imagine the fight those things would put up if hooked. I would love to try it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I just had some nuclear imaging done on my heart yesterday so I was giving off gamma rays. I was a human nookyoolar reactor! So far no super powers have emerged though.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                I just had some nuclear imaging done on my heart yesterday so I was giving off gamma rays. I was a human nookyoolar reactor! So far no super powers have emerged though.
                                That sounds pretty neat. Was it technetium-99m? That stuff has a half-life measured in hours.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X