Support NeoGAF

[DUFFMCWALIN]

If only we didn't have those honestly terrifying incidents of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima.

Those were human errors (both the workers on site, and the politics behind the outdated plant designs that were promoted by the business of nuclear power and then never adequately updated)... and god we have paid for them. I don't blame the left for freaking the hell out, even though it's to our long term detriment.

Chernobyl was thanks to Russian engineering and Fukushima was thanks to a super old plant built on a terrible spot. 3 mile island was a big problem but the after effects were not nearly as big as originally thought. At the end of the day instead of learning from these mistakes we ran away from the best energy alternative that we currently have.

 

[commedieu]

That's not true - you're going off the assumption that the planet will absorb out excess CO2 at the same rate it has always done... and that only how much CO2 we put out on a per annum basis effects climate change.

Reality is; we're adding to a global carbon pool in our atmosphere. Reducing the rate at which we add to it will help - but that carbon won't dissipate naturally for hundreds to thousands of years.

Moreover, we're reducing the efficacy of our carbon sinks - meaning that the planet can reabsorb less of the carbon that we're putting out now.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/26/3332141/ocean-acidification-kills-scallops/

This is 2014.

Chernobyl was thanks to Russian engineering and Fukushima was thanks to a super old plant built on a terrible spot. 3 mile island was a big problem but the after effects were not nearly as big as originally thought. At the end of the day instead of learning from these mistakes we ran away from the best energy alternative that we currently have.

And america has test detonated over.. what is it? 100's of nukes in the atmosphere?

 

[Valhelm]

That's not true - you're going off the assumption that the planet will absorb out excess CO2 at the same rate it has always done... and that only how much CO2 we put out on a per annum basis effects climate change.

Reality is; we're adding to a global carbon pool in our atmosphere. Reducing the rate at which we add to it will help - but that carbon won't dissipate naturally for hundreds to thousands of years.

Moreover, we're reducing the efficacy of our carbon sinks - meaning that the planet can reabsorb less of the carbon that we're putting out now.

That's true. However, there are multiple methods of carbon mitigation either being developed or currently in use, which could make a huge impact if employed on a global scale.

 

[Zaptruder]

That's true. However, there are multiple methods of carbon mitigation either being developed or currently in use, which could make a huge impact if employed on a global scale.

We already have the technologies that could stop all these problems dead in their tracks if we employed them on a global scale.

 

[commedieu]

That's true. However, there are multiple methods of carbon mitigation either being developed or currently in use, which could make a huge impact if employed on a global scale.

I like your positivity. I must say. It just seems that all the science, all the ted-talks, everything point to a world of reaction, versus trying to change it due to the realities of the Wealthy people that run the world.


Stopping emissions is going to be some political jerk-off game for the next 40 years. It won't be an immediate stop. So we just have to prepare with how to live in a world with these climate related problems.

 

[speculawyer]

Ugh. I don't know. Perhaps us humans are due for a massive beat-down from nature for not being able to act upon a risk that we know about but operates on time scales that humans can't really sense.

I think the reason so many people still can't accept evolution is that humans are incapable of fully comprehending geological time scales. That same problem is preventing people from appreciating climate change. So although some people see the problem and are trying to do something about it, others just deny it and continue making things worse (or maybe they just don't care about their kids).

So we are probably going to have the get slapped-down by nature in the form of losing a few cites due to sea level rise, lose a few hundred thousand people due to heat wave, have massive crop failures due to drought, or something disaster before we take it seriously. :-(



“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair

 

[Captain Europe]

I feel more people need to start giving a shit about it.

 

[ampere]

If only we didn't have those honestly terrifying incidents of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima.

Those were human errors (both the workers on site, and the politics behind the outdated plant designs that were promoted by the business of nuclear power and then never adequately updated)... and god we have paid for them. I don't blame the left for freaking the hell out, even though it's to our long term detriment.

No one was hurt or got sick from 3 Mile Island. As dumb as the operators were, the containment was sufficient and people were kept safe. I think that's important to remember. The USSR obviously couldn't be trusted to do things safe, and Fukushima... well a lot went wrong there, but I don't think the Japanese regulators were strict enough.

we can't rely on nuclear power plants, leaking into the ground and poisoning our environment anymore

Is the bolded just referring to Fukushima in particular? Agree that was a terrible disaster, but nuclear power can be very clean and safe when handled properly.

 

[Valhelm]

We already have the technologies that could stop all these problems dead in their tracks if we employed them on a global scale.

Yeah, it's times like these when I really wish there was some kind of strong global government. So many problems could be solved so much more easily.

Stopping emissions is going to be some political jerk-off game for the next 40 years. It won't be an immediate stop. So we just have to prepare with how to live in a world with these climate related problems.

Yes, of course. I think that we won't see major headway into stopping (and later, reversing) the effects of climate change until it becomes economically viable for corporations to support it. We'll see Exxon, Shell, and BP investing billions into solar and wind projects, and over the next few decades I'm guessing that the amount of fossil fuel vehicles will steadily decline. Electric trains will pop up across the United States and erode the need for trucking and mass automobile transit. I'd expect geothermal energy to take off in many private homes, too, reducing the need for coal power.

 

[speculawyer]

If only we didn't have those honestly terrifying incidents of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima.

Those were human errors (both the workers on site, and the politics behind the outdated plant designs that were promoted by the business of nuclear power and then never adequately updated)... and god we have paid for them. I don't blame the left for freaking the hell out, even though it's to our long term detriment.

Well, "the left" is not really against nuclear power. It is very split on the issue. Yes, there are those on the left that oppose nuclear power. But there are many environmentalists that are now big backers of nuclear power as a way to create low-carbon electricity. The Obama administration was the first one to approve of a new nuclear power plant in the last 40 years!

I think we do have to do some nuclear power, but it is no panacea. It isn't nuclear opponents in the USA that stop new nuclear power plants, it is Wall Street. Despite subsidies in the form of the Price-Anderson Act, Wall Street hates nuclear power. So it requires huge low-interest government backed loans.

 

[theepicoftyler]

No one was hurt or got sick from 3 Mile Island. As dumb as the operators were, the containment was sufficient and people were kept safe. I think that's important to remember. The USSR obviously couldn't be trusted to do things safe, and Fukushima... well a lot went wrong there, but I don't think the Japanese regulators were strict enough.



Is the bolded just referring to Fukushima in particular? Agree that was a terrible disaster, but nuclear power can be very clean and safe when handled properly.

These are the main concerns at hand with nuclear power as I see it.

The developing world is where we need to be focusing on cutting emissions. It's developing rapidly, and they're going to grow their economies by burning fossil fuels. We can trust first world nations with running and controlling nuclear power, but can we trust developing, sometimes war torn nations with nuclear power? These kinds of things require strict regulation and oversight, something that many of those nations do not have the capability to provide.

 

[commedieu]

Is the bolded just referring to Fukushima in particular? Agree that was a terrible disaster, but nuclear power can be very clean and safe when handled properly.

Its in general. Plants failing inspections, leaks, things like Dimona(running well after it should have been shut down, finally was), they all contribute to irradiating our environment/aquifers. Just on that level. -- a few reactors that aren't handled properly creates significant problems for sustaining life. In a world where we know people are going to slack, its better to slack with non-nuclear technology. One day, maybe we can be grown ups and have nice things. But the problem is our lack of taking care of business leads to detrimental environment pollution/radiation.

 

[Elfforkusu]

We have the blueprint for halting CO2 growth:

Phase out gasoline engines (tax the hell out of them) for diesel (run on pure biofuel!) and electric.

Ban coal and natural gas power plants, use nuclear for base load. Radiation is better than starvation. Put solar panels everywhere to lessen the need for base load.

Problem... well, not solved, but it'd be a start.

 

[Magwik]

Michigan has had nice weather as of the past year or so. Something strange is going on

 

[theepicoftyler]

We have the blueprint for halting CO2 growth:

Phase out gasoline engines (tax the hell out of them) for diesel (run on pure biofuel!) and electric.

Ban coal and natural gas power plants, use nuclear for base load. Radiation is better than starvation. Put solar panels everywhere to lessen the need for base load.

Problem... well, not solved, but it'd be a start.

I'd argue that natural gas is critical for transitioning away from dirtier fossil fuels. I'd say that there needs to be regulation that states that every building built needs to have solar panels on its roof, and offer incentives to retrofit all existing buildings with solar panels.

Natural gas and nuclear are the stop gaps necessary to transition to a green energy economy IMO.

 

[Azulsky]

I think the whole Earth will end up like Venus thing is bullshit. That timescale is so long its not worth extrapolating. We could be dead and forests may regrow in our absence to fix the problem.

The planet will be fine it's the current residents who will suffer.


Seems like the obvious first step is getting rid of coal. The real issue now is that its a international issue and we really cant make Beijing do anything except buy less goods.

They really just need to create a algae based process they can power with geotherm or solar that uses atmospheric carbon as its fuel source. Whatever the byproduct is just store it somewhere.

 

[Tesseract]

the worldwide million metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted from energy has almost doubled over 30 years. the change rates worldwide really ain't too bad, and will level off as we reach solar's tipping point. then there's fusion. global temperature is what it is; better to assume the worst with the trends and act now with green goober renewables, which we're doing.

 

[Elfforkusu]

If you look at global emissions, though, there isn't a huge amount that needs to be done. If the US or China manages to significantly cut back on coal burning, we're essentially in the clear. As soon as alternative energy becomes more profitable than coal, we'll see a major decrease in emissions.

Oil and natural gas certainly aren't renewable, but are much cleaner than coal. The spread of natural gas due to fracking in the upper midwest has led to a small but significant drop in American ignitions, as far as I know.

:lol

We are already past the tipping point, dude. Even if we cut carbon emissions to zero tomorrow, the climate will be increasingly fucked as the decades go by. Droughts, frosts -- it'll hit the food supply first, and floodwaters will wreck coastal cities next. Lots of strife and death and war over dwindling resources.

...if we do nothing about it. Humans can cause global warming, we can cause global cooling too if we have some backbone for once.

I'd argue that natural gas is critical for transitioning away from dirtier fossil fuels. I'd say that there needs to be regulation that states that every building built needs to have solar panels on its roof, and offer incentives to retrofit all existing buildings with solar panels.

Natural gas and nuclear are the stop gaps necessary to transition to a green energy economy IMO.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It burns cleaner, but the byproduct is CO2. It is a wretched fuel source, unless your goal is having your grandkids live in a desert.

 

[Irobot82]

And america has test detonated over.. what is it? 100's of nukes in the atmosphere?

Try over 1000.

Check this timeline map.

 

[Mengy]

How do I feel about global warming?

Honestly it scares the hell out of me.

If you look at the Earth's historical climate data, you notice that our planet is not naturally stable climate wise. And we are accelerating that instability drastically with our industry and pollution.

And what's worse is that most of us know it full well.

It's going to get bad down the road. Very bad.

 

[mantidor]

Frustrated.

People in power are too old and dumb, that is I think the biggest issue. Only the newer generations have started to see the planet as a whole, mostly thanks to the internet, but I don't know if our civilization will last long enough for them to replace current governments.

 

[commedieu]

...if we do nothing about it. Humans can cause global warming, we can cause global cooling too if we have some backbone for once.

Destroy the sun?

#DoWeReallyNeedIt

Try over 1000.

Check this timeline map.

FUCK ME. REALLY? I thought 100s was exaggeration in my mind. For fuck sake.. testing 1000 nukes... are you fucking kidding me.

I was talking about plants, but yes we have detonated way too many bombs for testing.

me too me too, then I got into the nuke weapons. I feel like radiation effects on environment = radiation effects on environment when it comes down to it. Accidentally leaked, or detonated into our atmosphere on purpose.

 

[Mr.Awesome]

I wish it made my winters a lot warmer.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

And america has test detonated over.. what is it? 100's of nukes in the atmosphere?

I was talking about plants, but yes we have detonated way too many bombs for testing.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Destroy the sun?

#DoWeReallyNeedIt



FUCK ME. REALLY? I thought 100s was exaggeration in my mind. For fuck sake.. testing 1000 nukes... are you fucking kidding me.

Was more thinking pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere...

 

[gutter_trash]

Atlanta is getting the brunt of climate change effects and continue to do so, fitting that it is happening in a Republican state

 

[Irobot82]

Destroy the sun?

#DoWeReallyNeedIt



FUCK ME. REALLY? I thought 100s was exaggeration in my mind. For fuck sake.. testing 1000 nukes... are you fucking kidding me.

Yeah and over 2000 in total around thew world. How do people live in Nevada/Arizona/California. No wonder Fallout took place over there.

Atlanta is getting the brunt of climate change effects and continue to do so, fitting that it is happening in a Republican state

We are?

 

[commedieu]

Yeah and over 2000 in total around thew world. How do people live in Nevada/Arizona/California. No wonder Fallout took place over there.



We are?

With autism and mental illness.

 

[theepicoftyler]

Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It burns cleaner, but the byproduct is CO2. It is a wretched fuel source, unless your goal is having your grandkids live in a desert.

I am fully aware of that. However, you've said it yourself, cutting off all emissions right now doesn't stop anything, so if we're transitioning to a zero carbon emissions world, a transition period of LESS carbon emissions is useful and important.

 

[Tesseract]

it's also possible that industrial civilization and all its consequences is planetary evolution keikaku.

olduvai-like zen. we are earth, yo. #YOLO.

 

[IceCold]

This is gonna mess up the economy of many countries. Wine production will be fucked in Southern Europe for example.

 

[Blader]

Global warming can be helped but it ultimately won't be.

The ultimate consequences of climate change are too far out -- literally centuries away -- for enough people to even conceive, much less do something about. By the time these changes starting making themselves impossible to ignore and prompt a more unified proactive response from the government (not just the US but all global governments), we'll be too far past the point of no return. Nothing will be done about it until it's too late.

The only silver living is that Florida will be buried under the ocean.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I am fully aware of that. However, you've said it yourself, cutting off all emissions right now doesn't stop anything, so if we're transitioning to a zero carbon emissions world, a transition period of LESS carbon emissions is useful and important.

Would rather see money go to building a nuke plant rather than throw up a methane one.

The time for half-assed measures has come and gone. This is desperation time now, people just don't realize it yet.

 

[AkuMifune]

Ambivalent. It's a problem the Earth will fix itself. Another Ice Age was an inevitability, we're just accelerating the process. We're too dumb/greedy/stubborn to actually change anything until it's too late anyway.

I've already started building a Snowpiercer in my backyard, so see you fools on the ice train.

 

[ampere]

These are the main concerns at hand with nuclear power as I see it.

The developing world is where we need to be focusing on cutting emissions. It's developing rapidly, and they're going to grow their economies by burning fossil fuels. We can trust first world nations with running and controlling nuclear power, but can we trust developing, sometimes war torn nations with nuclear power? These kinds of things require strict regulation and oversight, something that many of those nations do not have the capability to provide.

I'm mostly advocating for the use of more nuclear power generation in the US. I agree that it's not something you can just throw together in a flash and not worry about. For developing nations something like solar is likely a much more safe and realistic option. Long term I think solar would be a great backbone for power generation, but it'll take some time to get there.

Its in general. Plants failing inspections, leaks, things like Dimona(running well after it should have been shut down, finally was), they all contribute to irradiating our environment/aquifers. Just on that level. -- a few reactors that aren't handled properly creates significant problems for sustaining life. In a world where we know people are going to slack, its better to slack with non-nuclear technology. One day, maybe we can be grown ups and have nice things. But the problem is our lack of taking care of business leads to detrimental environment pollution/radiation.

For reactors in the US, I disagree. I think the US and the regulatory group (NRC) have proven that it can be safe when handled well. Outside of the US... I agree with you. The pragmatic approach makes sense too, why use something that can be so dangerous when mishandled when humans are at the helm?

Solar probably is a safer way to go for long term.

I think the whole Earth will end up like Venus thing is bullshit. That timescale is so long its not worth extrapolating. We could be dead and forests may regrow in our absence to fix the problem.

The planet will be fine it's the current residents who will suffer.

Yeah I mean that's the bottom line, the current people alive and the next few generations are facing real climate problems. True that it doesn't really matter if the Earth is like Venus in 1 million years, humans will be long gone before then anyway, even in super ideal scenarios.

 

[Tesseract]

what's with all this negativity, there's no end to the kinds of solutions available. we got printable robots that can pew pew ice lasers into the atmosphere. millions of them buzzing and pewing the pews, self-replicating, repairing, focus attack dash canceling carb0n emulsions...

you underestimate humagunities

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Solar probably is a safer way to go for long term.

Do you or anyone know how many solar panels you would have to install to have equal energy output with a nuclear reactor? Serious question here.

 

[commedieu]

Do you or anyone know how many solar panels you would have to install to have equal energy output with a nuclear reactor? Serious question here.

I saw this cool plant on the way to las vegas;

solar thermal power

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is a solar thermal power project in the California Mojave Desert, 40 miles (64 km) southwest of Las Vegas, with a planned gross capacity of 392 megawatts (MW).[5] It deploys 173,500 heliostats, each with two mirrors, focusing solar energy on boilers located on centralized solar power towers.[5] Unit 1 of the project was connected to the grid in September 2013 in an initial sync testing.[6] The facility formally opened on February 13, 2014,[1] and the three units should be fully operational before the end of 2014.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Nukes seem to range from 200-1000+MWE, but this thing is awesome. And safe.

 

[Kajigger]

Don't care. Overrated.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Do you or anyone know how many solar panels you would have to install to have equal energy output with a nuclear reactor? Serious question here.

Problem isn't this so much as: what do you do when night falls? Battery technology can not be expected to improve by the factor of 100 we would need it to in order to eliminate base load power generation.

Solar everywhere, nuclear to pick up the slack in down time.

Don't care. Overrated.

Your star trek future will never happen if this attitude prevails. Will cease to be sci fi and become simple fantasy.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm optimistic. My hope is that we'll deal with it before it kills us off, and we have some time for that yet. I'm very optimistic about technology and the future, so that probably colours my opinion... but I mean, what's the alternative?

 

[Elfforkusu]

I'm optimistic. My hope is that we'll deal with it before it kills us off, and we have some time for that yet. I'm very optimistic about technology and the future, so that probably colours my opinion... but I mean, what's the alternative?

We have the technology, but politics is holding it back on nearly all fronts.

The alternative is be pissed off about this entirely avoidable trainwreck we're about to ram at full speed.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm optimistic. My hope is that we'll deal with it before it kills us off, and we have some time for that yet. I'm very optimistic about technology and the future, so that probably colours my opinion... but I mean, what's the alternative?

Be precisely as optimistic as you need to be to allow you to carry forward with hope. And be as precisely pessimistic as you need to be, to spur you into the greatest urgency possible. Anything else would reduce the chance of successfully overcoming this obstacle.

 

[KrellRell]

Problem isn't this so much as: what do you do when night falls? Battery technology can not be expected to improve by the factor of 100 we would need it to in order to eliminate base load power generation.

Solar everywhere, nuclear to pick up the slack in down time.

It would have to be reversed. Nuclear runs as a base load with solar picking up slack, but since batteries aren't feasible, that doesn't work well either.

The energy solution isn't as easy as a lot of people make it out to be. Solar panels are highly inefficient and produce very little energy considering their footprint. I like them, and they are a step in the right direction. We need a mix of a lot of different sources, I feel like we are on the right path.

Currently, nothing comes close to even touching nuclear. A fuel cell the size of your pinky finger could easily supply and entire household with energy for more than a lifetime.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

I saw this cool plant on the way to las vegas;

solar thermal power



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Nukes seem to range from 200-1000+MWE, but this thing is awesome. And safe.

Problem isn't this so much as: what do you do when night falls? Battery technology can not be expected to improve by the factor of 100 we would need it to in order to eliminate base load power generation.

Solar everywhere, nuclear to pick up the slack in down time.

It would have to be reversed. Nuclear runs as a base load with solar picking up slack, but since batteries aren't feasible, that doesn't work well either.

The energy solution isn't as easy as a lot of people make it out to be. Solar panels are highly inefficient and produce very little energy considering their footprint. I like them, and they are a step in the right direction. We need a mix of a lot of different sources, I feel like we are on the right path.

Currently, nothing comes close to even touching nuclear. A fuel cell the size of your pinky finger could easily supply and entire household with energy for more than a lifetime.

Thank you for the posts. Quite interesting.

 

[HK-47]

I feel like we are fucked and steadily fucking up more and more. All the generations of the 20th and 21st century are gonna look so bad in the history books because of this.

 

[Neo C.]

The younger me would try to reduce the C02 emission. The current me rather puts the hope on advancing the tech: more efficiency, more automated recycling and more C02 absorption (and making products out of it).

In short, more progress and less environmental conservatism, which is as bad as social conservatism.

 

[KorrZ]

I'm sure this is probably sarcasm, but this is the point a lot of people actually seriously make.

It was sarcasm...just in case anybody thought I was serious!

Better to make jokes about it since nothing meaningful is going to be done about it until it's too late.

 

[Elfforkusu]

It would have to be reversed. Nuclear runs as a base load with solar picking up slack, but since batteries aren't feasible, that doesn't work well either.

The energy solution isn't as easy as a lot of people make it out to be. Solar panels are highly inefficient and produce very little energy considering their footprint. I like them, and they are a step in the right direction. We need a mix of a lot of different sources, I feel like we are on the right path.

Currently, nothing comes close to even touching nuclear. A fuel cell the size of your pinky finger could easily supply and entire household with energy for more than a lifetime.

Yeah, this is right "today". That said, solar panels are way way better than they were 10 years ago. They are about to become (or have already become) viable on a heretofore unprecedented scale. Every rooftop that's not covered in solar panels is going to be financially wasteful.

With that much coverage, I'm not actually sure whst the percentages look like between nuclear base load and solar augmentation. But based on the growth, it seems entirety viable that solar could outpace traditional power during the daytime. And notably during the summer, when power to drive air conditioning is such a big draw (conveniently, more daylight hours...).

The upshot is less capacity would be needed from power plants.

 

[zoukka]

It will bring humanity to its knees.

If we are lucky.