social.sokoll.com

Whuffo diaspora
Bild/Foto
Done For Today, Bye Now

Renewable energy works. Both wind and solar are viable for providing the energy our civilization needs. The fossil fuel interests will toss up all kinds of objections and claims to preserve their cash flow - but it's nonsense. Put up some solar panels and enjoy the sun.
Whuffo diaspora
Wow. This post has been reshared numerous times and the haters are piling on. I wonder how many people big oil and the right wing pay to trawl through social media and cast doubt on renewable energy?
Right wing is self enforcing, haters gone hate.
Their pay is dopamin.

(oh shit I just realized the connection between hate, feeling bad and dopamin as the drug they found to temporarily cure their emptiness. We're all doomed)
On energy storage:

* Water dams
* Hydraulic storage
* hydrogen → H2O + energy = O2 + H2

Hydrogen is difficult to store and very explosive.
Storage at this stage is actually quite usefull not as pure hydrogen but methan and ethanol:
* 2 H2 + CO2 = CH4 + O2 → Methan + Oxygen
* 6 H2 + 4 CO2= 2 C2H6O + 3 O2 → Ethanol + Oxygen

That means we can recycle CO2 already in the air, even store it away as gas or liquid alcohol. I guess the right catalysis medium is the next needed step.
methan and alcohol can be used in todays cars for example.

Methanol
Bild/Foto

Ethanol
Bild/Foto
Wow. This post has been reshared numerous times
Are you talking about the post or the tweet?
We should take into account the intermittent nature of wind and solar, as well as the carbon footprint and hazardous materials required for building and decommissioning them after their end of life. Unfortunately these problems makes solar and wind insufficient to tackle #climate-change.

The only viable alternative to #fossil-fuel right now is #nuclear.
Digit diaspora
Chen Levy - 2 minutes ago

We should take into account the intermittent nature of wind and solar, as well as the carbon footprint and hazardous materials required for building and decommissioning them after their end of life. Unfortunately these problems makes solar and wind insufficient to tackle #climate-change.

The only viable alternative to #fossil-fuel right now is #nuclear.
yeah. nuclear's much less hazardous with much less carbon footprint to building and decommissioning nuclear than wind turbines.

wind's clearly not viable. scotland must be crazy generating all that energy from wind.

*boik*

.. hazardous materials required for building and decommissioning them after their end of life ..
..
The only viable alternative .. right now is #nuclear.
Bild/Foto
Actually nuclear is cleaner and safer than wind and solar.

The cost of handling used nuclear fuel has already paid by the nuclear industry, while no plans to deal with obsolete and decommissioned wind mills and solar panels was taken into account.

I have no data about Scotland, but in Germany where nuclear power plants where shutdown in favor of wind and solar, have seen an increase in carbon footprint and energy prices.

Please check your facts.
@hackbyte, yes I know about battery storage. But if you will follow the link you posted above you will see that it say that it is suitable for short term storage only. The current capacity of such storage is not even close to what is needed, and its environmental footprint is non trivial. Pumped storage power plants are an order of magnitude better, but it is not available everywhere.

Again, I don't know the particulars about Scotland, and perhaps local conditions there are more suitable for that solution, but it is certainly not universal.
@Chen Levy Nobody said it is a universal solution. But it should be the preferred solution.

By the way, i'm actually german, living in germany. We're exporting record numbers of electricity to our neighbours each and every year ..... and most of that is actually generated by wind turbines and photovoltaic... Not nuclear or fossil fuel....

So ... please get your facts straight. ;)
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm, if we can agree that our environment is precious and fragile and climate change is real, let me ask you to please stop throwing animated GIFs at it for 20 minutes, and watch this TED talk
@Chen Levy Hrm ..... Mkay, if you come with this ..... i can tell you, why I changed my mind on nuclear power.

For a somewhat long time, i was in on this 'bridge technology' idea. That we could use or actually might need to have nuclear power as a bridge over from the fossil fuel age to the modern renewable or even fusion energy age.....

But then .... something happened.... Fukushima Daiichi burned through...

And one thing suddenly became pretty clear:

There are a few things, you should never give to any human on this planet.

Weapons,

Power and

Nuclear Technology...

There are no humans who can handle these things without harming anyone else........ sadly..

So .... nop ... even if i truly believe that we could be able to build really secure nuclear facilities which will even work down their waste that much, that they're nearly harmless after full processing........

It will be impossible as long as humans are involved....
@hackbyte, do you know how many people died from radiation by the Fukushima Daiichi accident?

Zero.

The reactor was hit by the largest earth-quick in recorded history and a huge tsunami. It lost all power and had a core melt down.

About 20,000 people died from the earth-quick and the tsunami. Some people died from the evacuation in fear of the radiation. No one died from the radiation itself.

And after that accident everybody learned from it, and this kind of loss of power should not repeat itself.
Digit diaspora
oh, that's being discussed seriously? n_n ok ok.

which nuclear?

thorium? that something we use?

... nope, i'll stop. there's a thousand other questions waiting, lined up.

enough getting side-tracked n trolled n derailed from a positive piece about wind power to a nuclear trolling. lol
enough getting side-tracked n trolled n derailed from a positive piece about wind power to a nuclear trolling. lol
Bild/Foto
Whuffo diaspora
I'm not surprised to see the nuclear power supporters showing up with their talking points and carefully selected facts. Are you sure there were no deaths from Fukushima? And you forgot Chernobyl and other "accidents". The problems we're facing now have to do with the toxic residue from our power systems. Nuclear takes this problem to a new high, with nuclear waste that will be deadly for tens of thousands of years. They're still arguing about how to store it and it's building up at nuclear plants.
They're still arguing about how to store it and it's building up at nuclear plants.
Germany decided to decide around the year 2042 where to definitely dispose nuclear waste, as for now they have found none ..
2017 gibt es noch in keinem der 30 Staaten, die Kernenergie nutzen, ein geeignetes Endlager für hochaktiven Atommüll, obwohl entsprechende Planungen und Vorarbeiten in vielen Ländern seit etwa vier Jahrzehnten laufen. Stattdessen wird wieder aufbereitet oder direkt zwischengelagert.
Whuffo diaspora
Something that never gets mentioned is undersea power cables. Running power from island to island to continent is done now. Expanding this over bigger distances makes solar super useful; the sun is always shining somewhere.
@Digit, I would love to see advanced reactors being deployed as soon as they will pass certification, and Liquid Salt Thorium Reactors are one of those promising technologies we should investigate, and hopefully deploy.

But the certification process can take decades. We must make sure the technology is good and safe. We want to understand everything about it including fuel cycle waist storage, material behavior under stress, decommission at end of life etc.

But since the climate will not wait for us we need to deploy the current reactors today. The UK can build good reactors, and the South Koreans know how to build their reactors the most efficiently right now.

@Whuffo: There were death in Fukushima but due to the earth-quick and tsunami, not from radiation. The entire east board of Japan was hit, and lots of people died from this.

About 50 people died from radiation from the Chernobyl accident. It was the worst accident in the history of the nuclear industry (about 70 years or so). We should do our best to prevent any death or damage that can arise from such accident. It worth however balance this against all the good nuclear did for that time. Just by replacing coal plants it saved millions from death by pollution, and Watt for Watt it is safer than any other energy source we have, including wind and solar.

About used fuel, the point is that it is stored and not released into the environment, unlike any other source of energy. And that fuel still holds a vast amount of useful energy. We can reprocess it, or design a new reactors that can "burn" it.

As you can see those are not well chosen facts, they are just facts.

About power transition over long distances, while it is possible, there is energy loss in transition, it is expensive deploying and repairing high voltage power under the ocean, and while we need to explore every possibility for clean energy, we need a solution NOW.
Whuffo diaspora
@Chen Levy You've made some good points, but your continued push for nuclear power overlooks all of the other solutions. Glossing over the nuclear waste problem won't make it go away, and a slow death from radiation poisoning isn't much of an improvement over a quick one. Saying it's more safe than solar is disingenuous at best.

The solutions to the increasing need for power won't be singular, they'll come from multiple sources. Hopefully they'll be sources that don't leave long lasting pollution behind. Solar provides maximum power when air conditioning loads are highest; very convenient. And when the weather gets stormy, solar drops off but wind increases. Hydropower provides a steady base capacity. Many very intelligent people have looked at this problem, and they're building solar and wind farms. They're also building natural gas and coal fired plants to take up the slack. Nobody is rushing to build new fission plants. We've got one here that's complete but it's never been fueled and probably never will be. Too dangerous; the failures may be infrequent, but the danger of a failure is so incredibly high that it's not worth it.
Alternative energies means you can become the producer and their for make the money. People don't like that, they want to live of the state, they hate indepence.

Nuclear is as a finite source as fossil fuels and resources are few. But hey, we don't live forever who the f** cares?

Nuclear duscusion is as influenced by that industry like fossil fuel and cigaret/nicotine discusion has been in the past.
If you can make a buck out of it who cares?

The earth is flat!
Whuffo diaspora
I don't think you'd find many who would live off of the state if they had a choice. But you indirectly point out one of the problems with solar - entrenched utility companies who financed their plants and facilities and are paying the loans with the user rates. When people install solar and use less power - or worse, put power onto the grid - that's cutting into their profits and they don't like that. Several states have already enacted laws to restrict or prohibit residential solar installations.

Nuclear power is pretty much a dead issue. Their marketing goes on, but new plants are few and far between. Our brand new never fueled nuclear plant is 50+ years old and it'll be allowed to fall into its hole. We've got an interesting situation for supplying power here; this is an arpilego of over 7,600 islands and large central plants are impractical. Some of the smallest islands have diesel generator barges anchored offshore. What we're doing is building solar and wind farms; they're clean and efficient.
@Whuffo, thank you for responding to my comments seriously. It seems that a serious debate is in short supply these days.

First of all, I don't dismiss any low carbon alternative. There is a place for Solar and Wind as an alternative to fossil fuels. The challenge in front of all of us is huge, and every bit counts.

However when adding up the numbers we simply can't resolve this without nuclear.
Here is someone who did the math about it: https://www.withouthotair.com/
You can click each alternative to read a short summary or to dive as deep as you wish.

As for the alleged danger of nuclear:
We made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.
Patrick Moore,
former Director of Greenpeace International
An accident in a nuclear power is nothing like an explosion of a nuclear weapon. Depending on the technology and implementation it can be more or less hazardous, but it is typically less dangerous than an accident in a chemical plant.
The nuclear industry failed to communicate this fact.
@mʕ•ﻌ•ʔm jeSuisatire bitPickup / [italic]~ irony
Nuclear is ... a finite source...
In the past we thought that we can use only the fairly rare Uranium 235 for nuclear power. Even with that there are the stockpile of nuclear weapons that we can destroy and make fuel from (see the Killo-tons to Killo-watts program on the '90s), plus we can and should also reprocess used fuel as done in France. From all of that we have fuel for centuries without the need to mine any new Uranium.

Besides that there are today reactors that can use the much more plentiful Uranium 238, and we already did successfully bread Thorium into Uranium 233, and Thorium today is a by product of mining for rare earth and is treated right now as garbage.

In short we will never run out of nuclear fuel it is simply too common.
Nuclear discussion ... is influenced by that industry...
It is also influenced by environmental minded people who after careful examination of the subject matter came to the conclusion that without this there can be no solution for climate change.

And by socially minded people that see it as the best way to fulfill the huge energy budget required to lift billions of people out of poverty.
@Whuffo
Nuclear power is pretty much a dead issue...
Not at all. China is in the process of building 400 new reactors. There is a resurgence in R&D and new projects that are built all over the world. New concepts like Small Modular Reactors are going to be deployed in the next couple of years, and we can expect Molten Salt Reactors to come on line about a decade from now.
... an archipelago of over 7,600 islands ...
Perhaps a 50+ year old reactor is not suitable for a small and dispersed community, and in such a case small plants of renewable coupled with storage can be a solution, but this solution can't scale to support large population centers.
Whuffo diaspora
@Chen Levy "Small and dispersed community" is not what we have here. There's over 105 million who call this country home, and almost 40 million of them live on the same island that I do. Most of the islands are uninhabited, some have moderate populations, some have major cities. Moving people and power around the islands is a problem that we've solved in many creative ways.

If you want to talk about what science says, how about "there is no safe amount of exposure to radioactivity". I'll agree that the media has blown up the threat beyond it's true nature; you can see the people freaking out over cell phone or microwave oven "radiation". That doesn't mean that nuclear power is safe or clean, though. It's not, and the results of "accidents" will continue to pollute the land for centuries to come. Maybe if there was a valid way of disposing of radioactive waste we could consider nuclear, but there isn't.

One rule that guides this country: protect nature and the environment. That is why that nuclear plant sits abandoned.
@Chen Levy sorry, but your information is highly inaccurate from NO radiation deaths from Fukushima (you obviously did not watch direct news coverage at the time of the individuals who did die) and your extreme support of nuclear being the only option when wind and solar (in addition to other other renewable) energy is used so widely and increasingly successfully in so many parts of the world (with battery storage) makes your motivation highly suspect.
This is merely one successful ACHIEVEMENT. There are many more tangible existing successes, which is why it won’t be long haters of renewable energy be as hilarious as #flatearthers.
@Whuffo
there is no safe amount of exposure to radioactivity
This is a political statement not a scientific one. Planet Earth is radioactive. We are all exposed to natural ionizing radiation every day.

Although the [url=%5Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose]Banana Equivalent Dose[/url] is informal and actually eating a banana will not raise your radiation exposure, it is a helpful tool for explaining the levels of radiation exposure we are talking about.

In short there definitely are safe exposure levels of radiation, and in typical cases the deployment of nuclear power plant will reduce the exposure to the general population by the simple virtue of substituting coal power plants which produce higher levels of radiation than nuclear.
Whuffo diaspora
Enough of your nonsense, @Chen Levy - you're clearly not willing to accept that you're selling death. A lot of radiation will kill you now, a little takes longer. Some mutations or birth defects are the result of "safe" doses. I'm willing to have discussions about the problems that face us, but not with closed minded people who insist their ideas are the only valid ones.
Ggf. kommt auch wieder Atomenergie ins Spiel, Hans-Werner Sinn als “prominenter Kopf” der INSM u.a. argumentieren bereits in diese Richtung.
link
Digit diaspora
oh wow, u guys are still going at it. n_n

anyone done the deaths per watt? ;D
Digit diaspora
still though, it must come back to...

why are we discussing nuclear...?! XD

this was a post about how scotland produces twice as much power (from wind!) as it uses domestically.

XD

currrrayzee. XD

so it boggles the mind... how we're talking nuclear, as if that's needed, as if that's the viable power generation method, as if this wind generation doesnt totally obliterate the bs naysaying of wind's unviability.

... n we've not yet even got to solar, tidal, wave, and many more.

"for those who said it wasnt possible" it started. ... seems, it may still fall on some deaf ears, or ears stuffed with whatever conflicts of interest.
and, i'll quip this bit too...

even though scale increases efficiency of a sort, small individual wind's still viable... and can even be done with effectively zero carbon footprint, through whole life (n i mean that before subtracting whatever clean energy "negative carbon watts" algorithm nonsense).

but sure. wind's nonviable, with regards to climate change, according to Chen. XD

still seems outrageously farcically laughable. there's wind, generating profuse abundant energy, and we're barely scratching the surface of the available potential... n we're supposa think it an unviable means of generating electricity clean enough and that construction and decommissioning of turbines is more harmful to the climate, than nuclear... even just thinking about the waste heat alone, i'm thinking that's gotta be nonsense. but, i'm open to having the numbers explored. but even if nuclear comes out tops by some measures, it's still not very empowering for the little man, still a risk-rich dangerfest, still pollutes in big long lasting ways that would be difficult to construe comparable from wind. is the concrete foundation block the wind turbine sits upon rly gonna be that much environmentally worse than finding places to store nuclear waste for millenia, and ensuring they stay secured that long, and protecting nuclear power stations from catastrophes (like earthquakes, asteroids, tidal waves, war, human error, etc)... if a wind turbine goes wrong... not so big a deal. if a wind turbine gets neglected or we fall into idiocracy, no biggie. not so, for nuclear.
@Digitthank you for bringing up the most expensive and irresponsible aspect of using nuclear - storage of nuclear waste which remains toxic for millenia. Note: nuke supporters never include this cost as well as the mitigation costs and hazard of when nuclear waste storage sites fail. I don't have children but IMO it is completely unacceptable/criminal to foist the problem, cost and hardship on future generations. This issue seems to be a global crisis already with many existing sites being compromised unexpectredly as well as where are new sites for all the output of current let alone new nuke plants going to go? since no one wants a nuke waste being stored anywhere close to where they live, this is a very significant problem. IMO and it's truly my opinion alone, any person/entity who promotes the use of nuclear energy without fully resolving nuclear waste storage probems (current and future) and does not build in contingency funds for dealing with the life of the waste being toxic has no integrity.
Digit diaspora
nuke supporters never include this cost
i recently heard it was already included.

ah yes, i was thinking of this:
The cost of handling used nuclear fuel has already paid by the nuclear industry, while no plans to deal with obsolete and decommissioned wind mills and solar panels was taken into account.
though, how well we can trust that accounting of the costs, idk, especially passing through many differing cost-cutting political/ecconomic philosophies/strife/boombust etc. and that's just disruptions to cause concern in our lifetimes... outrageous to presume ongoing stabilities to maintain appropriate handling for all the duration needed. but then, it's still in that political/economic/business philosophy of "externalities"... someone else will deal with it. n with no way to deal with it... that "externality" is foisted upon the future. o_O good luck with that.

it's not a gamble i'd like to take, given the stakes.

the odds seem so steeply stacked against too...
This issue seems to be a global crisis already with many existing sites being compromised unexpectredly as well as where are new sites for all the output of current let alone new nuke plants going to go? since no one wants a nuke waste being stored anywhere close to where they live, this is a very significant problem.
we could store the waste in space. :3 but... to really deploy that meaningfully and safely, would mean unleashing many suppressed technologies that would make any need for nuclear power redundant. #spaceshipsforeverybody

... but then you will get people tell the bold ridiculous lie that there are no suppressed technologies, and that what we see is the pinnacle of human innovation. lol. doesnt take much perusing of patents sat on by monopolist corporations to realise the highest tech isnt always the most financially profitable, and that the political-economic philosophy of monetary profit maximisation doesnt always bring the best tech "to market"/"into availability". even before realising some patents get secreted under the premise of their being dangerous. and no conflicts of interest there ever. lol.
Digit diaspora
but yeah, i'm gonna disable notifications here. :3 too easily trolled. n_n coulda been such a nice thread, full of "oh, isnt that nice" comments. but no. "nuclear's the only" had to come. derp. XD
Whuffo diaspora
@Digit No need to rush away. Our nuclear salesman has stepped on his tongue and has nothing more to say here. We can get back to talking about good, clean energy sources. Solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal all work and don't emit toxins as a byproduct.
Digit diaspora
oh. @mentions cut through the disable notifications. n_n good to know. lol.