Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[Dougie93]

28 minutes ago, Goddess said:

  I'd love to see us get off the fossil fuels.

Since fossil fuels is hundreds of millions of years of energy stored, the only realistic alternative is nuclear electric, at which point your pollution will be plutonium.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, plutonium piling up everywhere is not clean energy.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Since fossil fuels is hundreds of millions of years of energy stored, the only realistic alternative is nuclear electric, at which point your pollution will be plutonium.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, plutonium piling up everywhere is not clean energy.

The New Nuke Plants, Gen IV or whatever, actually eat the pollution of older nuclear power plants as fuel, or so I hear. That's another thing that let's you know a lot of fake environmentalists don't give a sh*t about the environment at all, irrational hatred of nuclear energy despite it being the best way to lower carbon emissions.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[egghead]

may be at the end, humans are really responsible for climate change 

[OftenWrong]

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Since fossil fuels is hundreds of millions of years of energy stored, the only realistic alternative is nuclear electric, at which point your pollution will be plutonium.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, plutonium piling up everywhere is not clean energy.

But new reactor technologies exist to recycle the spent fuel rods, so that they become re-activated and can be used in conventional PWR reactors again. Then back to the breeder. A perfect nuclear fuel cycle.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

But new reactor technologies exist to recycle the spent fuel rods, so that they become re-activated and can be used in conventional PWR reactors again. Then back to the breeder. A perfect nuclear fuel cycle.

How much does that technology cost, where is it shown to be practical and in use?

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

How much does that technology cost, where is it shown to be practical and in use?

Still in development. But once it works and can be mass produced, Nuclear will be a real environmentalists wet dream, and the fake environmentalists using the cause to push more government running your life will be more exposed than ever for the extremist anti-nuclear hacks that they are.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Still in development. But once it works, Nuclear will be a real environmentalists wet dream, and the fake environmentalists using it to push more government running your life will be more exposed than ever for the hacks that they are.

There is a very wide gap between works and economical.  

  I doubt the miracle tech solution will be worth the cost anytime soon.

Assume that there will be plutonium.   If the Pentagon doesn't have future nuclear tech, no way Ontario Hydro is going to be having it on any relevant horizon.

 

[Yzermandius19]

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

There is a very wide gap between works and economical.  

  I doubt the miracle tech solution will be worth the cost anytime soon.

Assume that there will be plutonium.   If the Pentagon doesn't have future nuclear tech, no way Ontario Hydro is going to be having it on any relevant horizon.

 

If they are going to blow money on an energy boondoggle, fourth gen nuclear seems like the way to go. Lower carbon emissions than other fossil fuels, reusable waste and meltdown proof. The only reason for environmentalists who don't care about spending other people's money to be against it, is their knee-jerk anti-nuclear/fossil fuel nature.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Army Guy]

22 hours ago, marcus said:

Why are you so stuck on Al Gore?

Guess what! The Arctic ice sheet IS MELTING at a record pace. It is REALLY happening.

I am confused as to where you sit on the climate denial spectrum.

Are you on the:

1. Climate change is not happening Team, or;
2. Climate change is happening but humans have nothing to do with it Team

 

Put it this way I'm not hiding under your moms bed, like some of you are...what makes gore so wrong and the rest of them so right....

[taxme]

On 6/3/2019 at 4:14 AM, cannuck said:

Often missing from climate change discussion is cosmic contribution.  As we move in and out of parts of the Milky Way, there is a subtle but substantial energy contribution that seems to go ignored from models.  Also, instant catastrophic risks such as impacts that caused mass extinctions are there.   From what I understand, during eruptions and large forest fires, nature far surpasses anthro output but those events are not continuous (nor predictable).

I am deep in tech research for commercial reasons, so appologize I have no time to research what I think is the real key to how much carbon contribution is avoidable and how much we can not change (i.e. oceanic CO2 release), and if I can get a break I will cite what I can once again hopefully find.

While I can agree, there is not much we do that does not contribute to the problem, but I am still not sure that our best efforts will avoid what nature is going to throw at us anyhow.

 

Of course, if we were under 2 bn and holding instead of past 7 bn and heading for genuine unsustainable population levels, this would all be moot.

At one time North America was covered in hundreds of feet of ice. Viola. It all melted by the trillions of gallons. Did the flood cover all of the earth? Nope. The earth survived and probably has more life living on it then ever before. What is going on is what has been going on for millions of years on earth. Nature does what it needs and has to do to try and keep the earth balanced as much as possible. The earth and we the people will survive even if some coastlines go under water. So, there will be no need at this time for anyone to want to go out there and build an ark. But you are quite welcome to do so if you are in that much of a panic. 

And all we ever hear from these doom and gloom climate change activists fools is that the west needs to do more. Yet, they like to ignore the fact that countries like China, India, Africa and Arab countries are the ones that are polluting the earth today and maybe contributing to climate change. The media and the environmentalists like Suzuki and Gore and Decrapio never mention this while those three fear mongers keep driving around in big gas guzzling vehicles, gas guzzling private airplanes, and have several homes between the three of them.

Why the fools keep listening to those three fools among many others is beyond me. It is so plain and obvious that most people will not take the time to do their own research on this panic over this so called climate change. They will just let these climate fool leaders and the liberal media and politicians do all the talking and thinking for them.  It's no wonder that Canada is in the mess that it is in today. They cannot stop listening to their politically correct politicians and the liberal media who will never tell them the truth about anything. They are very good at spreading the manure around though. The west is not the problem. The problem is with those buffoons who keep trying to push this climate change nonsense on we the people of the west. Humans are having a very little impact on the earth as far as I am concerned. But hey, who is listening, eh? 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, egghead said:

may be at the end, humans are really responsible for climate change 

What a poor looking little brainwashed girl she has become. She has no idea as to how the climate change fear mongers are just using her for their own climate change endgame. And the way she went on with her rampage at the UN was funny and sad to see at the same time. There can be no way a girl from Sweden could get the attention that she has received from the rest of the world unless the globalist climate change promoters made her their puppet on a string spokesperson and were able to convince her to go out their and cry me a river to the rest of the world over climate change and go after those deplorable, despicable climate change deniers. Looking at Blackface trying to pretend to the poor girl that he believes in global warming is such a joke. Blackface knows it is all just a joke. The problem is with those who still do believe that climate change if not corrected will be our doom. 

When Trump entered the globalist elite UN building to give a speech Trump totally ignored climate change barbie because Trump knows that it is all just globalist bull chit. Climate Barbie girl did not look very happy when she was ignored by Trump and pushed aside to make room for Trump as he entered the globalist chamber of climate fools. I loved it.  

[Dougie93]

33 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If they are going to blow money on an energy boondoggle, fourth gen nuclear seems like the way to go. Lower carbon emissions than other fossil fuels, reusable waste and meltdown proof. The only reason for environmentalists who don't care about spending other people's money to be against it, is their knee-jerk anti-nuclear/fossil fuel nature.

Well, the biggest cost on your hydro bill is paying for the 1950's nuclear power Ontario is using now. 

That old tech is hella expensive, hence why I doubt the cost benefit of exquisite futuristic tech which would be exponentially more expensive.

On the other hand peak oil is nonsense, there's lots of oil to be found still.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

...what makes gore so wrong and the rest of them so right....

Gore is a nauseating douch-bag.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sounds like you're bound and determined to keep wringing your hands, which puts you in the vast majority, but the result will still be extreme.

No wringing.  I play the guitar.  I can't afford any mishaps there. 

What's your plan?  Other than the carbon tax, I mean.  Finish the pipeline to Kitimat quickly so we can reduce China's GHG emissions?  Good idea, I would support that.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

How much does that technology cost, where is it shown to be practical and in use?

All new nuclear is now being built by China, and Russia. None built in the west, in fact the opposite is happening. Environmental alarmists have managed to block their development entirely, and so we have fallen behind. This despite the importance of nuclear reactors being the only viable solution to provide steady high levels of power with a low carbon footprint, to combat climate change.

However the US government under Donald Trump is now taking the initiative to fund the development of advanced technology nuclear power reactors. Small Modular Reactors is another new innovative approach that comes with inherent safety advantages. Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

Edited September 28, 2019 by OftenWrong
added highly relevant content

[Dougie93]

56 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

All new nuclear is now being built by China, and Russia. None built in the west, in fact the opposite is happening. Environmental alarmists have managed to block their development entirely, and so we have fallen behind. This despite the importance of nuclear reactors being the only viable solution to provide steady high levels of power with a low carbon footprint, to combat climate change.

However the US government under Donald Trump is now taking the initiative to fund the development of advanced technology nuclear power reactors. Small Modular Reactors is another new innovative approach that comes with inherent safety advantages. Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

SMR's are very expensive, this is not near horizon technology neither, neighborhood near me soon is bullshit.  You're talking experimental tech which is decades away from replacing current reactors in terms of general use at affordable prices.

If ever, most of these sorts of exquisite solutions go nowhere, it doesn't matter what works in the lab, what matters is what works in the market.

They wont replace Pickering until there is something cheaper than Pickering, and SMR's ain't that, the price is prohibitive, it would make Windfarms look like a great deal in comparison, and it would be the same sort of centrally planned boondoggle, except on steroids.

Not to mention that SMR's use fast spectrum neutrons with molten metal coolant, that is not safe, nobody would accept that in their neighborhood, never mind soon, they never will, those are like the reactors on Soviet Alfa class submarines, that shit is volatile, that's never going to be for residential use.

Low radiation is relative, if one of those things caught on fire, it would explode like a dirty bomb, you're talking military grade technology not civilian.

Neutron radioactive molten metal ticking time bombs,  in everybody's neighborhood?   I mean, ca'mon, get real. 

If you're talking small safe nuclear reactors, that technology already exists and has for decades,  and it was invented in Canada by AECL, it's called a SLOWPOKE reactor. They use them in hospital to make isotopes,  they could be used to charge batteries, but it's not base load which could replace Darlington.

There's still radioactive material in them tho, so it's not safe for residential,  and SLOWPOKE still needs to be high security, because terrorists could use them to make dirty bombs.   That threat alone means reactors of any kind will never be in wide use by the general public.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[OftenWrong]

32 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

SMR's are very expensive, this is not near horizon technology neither, neighborhood near me soon is bullshit.  You're talking experimental tech which is decades away from replacing current reactors in terms of general use at affordable prices.

If ever, most of these sorts of exquisite solutions go nowhere, it doesn't matter what works in the lab, what matters is what works in the market.

They wont replace Pickering until there is something cheaper than Pickering, and SMR's ain't that, the price is prohibitive, it would make Windfarms look like a great deal in comparison, and it would be the same sort of centrally planned boondoggle, except on steroids.

Not to mention that SMR's use fast spectrum neutrons with molten metal coolant, that is not safe, nobody would accept that in their neighborhood, never mind soon, they never will, those are like the reactors on Soviet Alfa class submarines, that shit is volatile, that's never going to be for residential use.

Low radiation is relative, if one of those things caught on fire, it would explode like a dirty bomb, you're talking military grade technology not civilian.

Neutron radioactive molten metal ticking time bombs,  in everybody's neighborhood?   I mean, ca'mon, get real. 

SMR is already a commercial product, made by GE I think but don't quote me on that. There is a Chinese and probably Russian design out there. How many years before they are common, hard to say but at least 10 years, maybe more. The regulatory framework is not developed yet, but there are already several bids or notice of intent announced. 

FYI, the SMR is intended to supplement power requirements for electric motor vehicles. If all cars are switched to electric, there is not enough power available in the grid to charge them. SMR's are seen as a potential solution. This is not new experimental tech. They are simply small-scale heavy water reactors, complete with containment building in a standardized design that can be dropped in almost anywhere.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

SMR is already a commercial product, made by GE I think but don't quote me on that. There is a Chinese and probably Russian design out there. How many years before they are common, hard to say but at least 10 years, maybe more. The regulatory framework is not developed yet, but there are already several bids or notice of intent announced. 

FYI, the SMR is intended to supplement power requirements for electric motor vehicles. If all cars are switched to electric, there is not enough power available in the grid to charge them. SMR's are seen as a potential solution. This is not new experimental tech. They are simply small-scale heavy water reactors, complete with containment building in a standardized design that can be dropped in almost anywhere.

Bullshit.   There are no SMR's in use for electric cars.  And it is experimental, there are none in commercial use that I can see.

And again, national security says that they wont be, doesn't matter how small, that nuclear material is not going to be allowed to be unsecure for wide public use

You can make dirty bombs from an X-ray machine, but they are going to allow SMR's for your car?  Again, get real.

You're not even allowed to buy Roundup pesticide in Canada, but you're going to be allowed to have a heavy water reactor?  Yeah okay sure.

People won't even accept GMO food, but they are going to accept a nuclear reactor station in their neighborhood?  No.

People are refusing to get their kids vaccinated, oh but they are going to be fine with radioactive material all over the place?  No.

Again, doesn't matter what works in the lab, that doesn't mean it's viable in the real world commercial market.

It's not just a heavy water reactor, SMR's use molten metal coolant, not heavy water.  Heavy water is what they are using now, and that water is radioactive.

Heavy water is tritium, nuclear weapons grade,  zero chance heavy water is going to be in your neighborhood soon, never mind radioactive molten metal.

The claims that SMR's are safe for commercial use by the public, is bullshit.

I know what the manufacturers are  claiming, but realistically, it will never fly, soon as people hear "neutrons" and "molten metal" that will be end of this fantasy.

Even a small nuclear reactor can be a nuclear weapon, all somebody would have to do is drive a truck bomb into the site like Tim McVeigh, presto; dirty bomb.

Just on counterterrorism alone, no reactors will be permitted outside of high security centralized locations.

At some point there will be next generation nuclear power plants, but in your neighborhood reactors; not gonna happen.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What's your plan?

On my bad days I'd burn the economy to the ground enjoy a little thousand year interregnum to let things cool off a little...mostly us. Then start from scratch.

Seriously though I'd probably go with nuclear but I'd take all the fun out of it by insisting on having camera's up everyone's ass, especially middle and upper management.

Failing that, burn it.

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

On my bad days I'd burn the economy to the ground enjoy a little thousand year interregnum to let things cool off a little...mostly us. Then start from scratch.

Seriously though I'd probably go with nuclear but I'd take all the fun out of it by insisting on having camera's up everyone's ass, especially middle and upper management.

Failing that, burn it.

Burn it eh? That's the extremists for you. The real environmentalists will throw people like this under the bus if they know what's good for them, but they don't, so they'll embrace the derp instead and let them hijack the movement and drag their name in the mud with them.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Bullshit.   There are no SMR's in use for electric cars.  And it is experimental, there are none in commercial use that I can see.

And again, national security says that they wont be, doesn't matter how small, that nuclear material is not going to be allowed to be unsecure for wide public use

You can make dirty bombs from an X-ray machine, but they are going to allow SMR's for your car?  Again, get real.

You're not even allowed to buy Roundup pesticide in Canada, but you're going to be allowed to have a heavy water reactor?  Yeah okay sure.

People won't even accept GMO food, but they are going to accept a nuclear reactor station in their neighborhood?  No.

People are refusing to get their kids vaccinated, oh but they are going to be fine with radioactive material all over the place?  No.

Again, doesn't matter what works in the lab, that doesn't mean it's viable in the real world commercial market.

It's not just a heavy water reactor, SMR's use molten metal coolant, not heavy water.  Heavy water is what they are using now, and that water is radioactive.

Heavy water is tritium, nuclear weapons grade,  zero chance heavy water is going to be in your neighborhood soon, never mind radioactive molten metal.

I meant light water, but it doesn't matter. This is getting off topic anyway. The design that has been approved is in fact a LWR, not molten salt. The molten salt, fast neutron, gas cooled or whatever are all experimental designs, some being prototyped. But LWR is an established, inherently safe design. Small modular reactors also make more sense in terms of safety. If there's going to be a meltdown, it's better if the reactor is small, and only a limited amount of radiation is released.

No need to fear it. It's the intelligent way to reduce carbon and help address climate change. Not to worry about security either, those things can be easily handled. 

[OftenWrong]

58 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You can make dirty bombs from an X-ray machine, but they are going to allow SMR's for your car?  Again, get real.

Didn't say that. Learn to read, doh. But let me re-iterate.

As more people switch to electric cars, the energy load switches to the power grid, and at some point it can't handle it. SMR's are being proposed as a solution.

Here you go fella, I don't make shit up. Opinion article but meh-
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/small-nuclear-reactors-can-power-clean-electric-vehicles/ 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I meant light water, but it doesn't matter. This is getting off topic anyway. The design that has been approved is in fact a LWR, not molten salt. The molten salt, fast neutron, gas cooled or whatever are all experimental designs, some being prototyped. But LWR is an established, inherently safe design. Small modular reactors also make more sense in terms of safety. If there's going to be a meltdown, it's better if the reactor is small, and only a limited amount of radiation is released.

No need to fear it. It's the intelligent way to reduce carbon and help address climate change. Not to worry about security either, those things can be easily handled. 

Okay, but LWR still produces plutonium, to my original point, an 200 MWe LWR reactor will produce 2 tons of plutonium for 20 years of use, which is still a lot of plutonium.

Also LWR still contain radioactive material, so they ain't gonna be in your neighborhood, although they could be in smaller nuclear power plants than what you have now.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind, with any fission of uranium, the waste product will be plutonium, and even a tiny amount of plutonium is a lot.

If you make nuclear weapons with that plutonium, that's one way of using it, but otherwise plutonium is a big problem.

This is why fusion is the holy grail.   The miracle reactor that you are thinking of, is a fusion reactor, but that's still a long ways off.

This is why Canada is actually a nuclear power by default, there's enough plutonium at Pickering right now for Canada to make lots of nuclear bombs.

If Pickering ever melted down and went critical mass, Eastern Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes would be annihilated as if it was by nuclear war.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Didn't say that. Learn to read, doh. But let me re-iterate.

As more people switch to electric cars, the energy load switches to the power grid, and at some point it can't handle it. SMR's are being proposed as a solution.

Here you go fella, I don't make shit up. Opinion article but meh-
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/small-nuclear-reactors-can-power-clean-electric-vehicles/ 

Whoop de doo, the morning consult has an opinion, in my opinion, they are delusional, again, for national security reasons, that's never gonna happen.

You think the government is going to allow nuclear material to be in the wind?  Can't happen.  Dirty bombs.

A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor, they're are never going to be used to replace gas stations.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Dougie93