Global Warming Now Irreversible

[Novus America]

Nuke plant in the middle of the ocean sounds like a great idea.

Even I'm not sure if I made that as a sarcastic jab or a legit solution. Yikes.

I think weight would be a problem, not to mention nuclear plants need lots of fresh water for cooling purposes (salt water corrodes... well, everything).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

[Novus America]

Well the nuke plant does not need to be in your back yard. One nuke plant can power large areas hundreds of miles away.

Stop analyzing my flippant remarks.

One big problem with most renewables is land use. Covering whole deserts in solar pannels is not good for the animals living in said desert for example.

True, but we do have a lot of free roof space in cities and towns. That's not the whole solution, of course, but it's land already being used. Why not dual use it.

Oh, I agree 100%. But we still need a clean, compact source for the difference. Hence why a nuclear renewable mix.

[The Liberated Territories]

Scientists have been saying the same thing since the 60s. Wasn't there a scientific study that determined New York City would be underwater by this time? SMH

[Galloism]

I think weight would be a problem, not to mention nuclear plants need lots of fresh water for cooling purposes (salt water corrodes... well, everything).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

An interesting point. I'm not sure how the cooling system works for carrier (and submarine) reactors.

[Novus America]

Well the nuke plant does not need to be in your back yard. One nuke plant can power large areas hundreds of miles away.

Nuke plant in the middle of the ocean sounds like a great idea.

Even I'm not sure if I made that as a sarcastic jab or a legit solution. Yikes.

It works great actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

Problem is getting the power to where it is needed. You would have to run wires to it.

[The 502nd Ghost Division]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

An interesting point. I'm not sure how the cooling system works for carrier (and submarine) reactors.

I want to say that the submarines pull in salt water to cool the reactors, but I'm not sure.

[Novus America]

Scientists have been saying the same thing since the 60s. Wasn't there a scientific study that determined New York City would be underwater by this time? SMH

Certainly many predictions have been wrong. But air pollution is simply bad. Not just disrupting the balance of the atmosphere, but acid rain, asthma, lung cancer, etc.

[Nusaresa]

I bolded that just to show that I am Many People.

But I understand that nuclear and renewables must go hand in hand to replace those crusty ass, dirty mofokos called coal and natural gas. This should be common knowledge tho... so....

The difference between peaking and baseload is simple. Power demand varies.
Say during night, the lowest point of consumption, Springfield uses 200 MW of power. But on a hot summer day, the highest point of consumption it uses 300 MW of electricity.

200 MW is the baseload. 300 MW the peak. To power Sprinfield you need a power plant that can provide 200 MW all the time, and one that can go from 0 to 100 as needed.

Nuclear power output is very consistent. It produces maximum almost all the time. But it cannot be easily increased or decreased. Hence why it is great for that 200 MW baseload. But it is not good for peaking, as it cannot be easily increased if needed.

Solar on the other hand works only during the day. So 200 even 300 MW of solar panels is not going to work for that baseload. But solar might work for that 0-100 MW extra needed during the day.

Ahhh, okay that makes sense. Thanks~

Nuke plant in the middle of the ocean sounds like a great idea.

Even I'm not sure if I made that as a sarcastic jab or a legit solution. Yikes.

It works great actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

Problem is getting the power to where it is needed. You would have to run wires to it.

That's an aircraft carrier my friend.

I was thinking more offshore, reclaimed lang sort of deal. Although it does need to be build well enough it can survive storm surges, earthquakes, and whatever potential hazard.

[Galloism]

An interesting point. I'm not sure how the cooling system works for carrier (and submarine) reactors.

I want to say that the submarines pull in salt water to cool the reactors, but I'm not sure.

Salt water is terribly corrosive to metal, though.

Of course, the hull would have the same issue, and they do something about that.

[Novus America]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

An interesting point. I'm not sure how the cooling system works for carrier (and submarine) reactors.

It works like most boat cooling systems. Fresh water cools the reactor, in a closed loop, running through a heat exchanger. Salt water then is run through the exchanger to cool the fresh water.

So that whay the salt water cools the system but only corrodes the exchanger. Which has to be periodically replaced.

[Othelos]

Scientists have been saying the same thing since the 60s. Wasn't there a scientific study that determined New York City would be underwater by this time? SMH

Global warming has been happening, though.

[Novus America]

The difference between peaking and baseload is simple. Power demand varies.
Say during night, the lowest point of consumption, Springfield uses 200 MW of power. But on a hot summer day, the highest point of consumption it uses 300 MW of electricity.

200 MW is the baseload. 300 MW the peak. To power Sprinfield you need a power plant that can provide 200 MW all the time, and one that can go from 0 to 100 as needed.

Nuclear power output is very consistent. It produces maximum almost all the time. But it cannot be easily increased or decreased. Hence why it is great for that 200 MW baseload. But it is not good for peaking, as it cannot be easily increased if needed.

Solar on the other hand works only during the day. So 200 even 300 MW of solar panels is not going to work for that baseload. But solar might work for that 0-100 MW extra needed during the day.

Ahhh, okay that makes sense. Thanks~

It works great actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz- ... ft_carrier

Problem is getting the power to where it is needed. You would have to run wires to it.

That's an aircraft carrier my friend.

I was thinking more offshore, reclaimed lang sort of deal. Although it does need to be build well enough it can survive storm surges, earthquakes, and whatever potential hazard.

You could build it offshore, but as you point out it has to be protected against the elements and you still have to run power lines back to the shore as well.

So onshore will be cheaper.

[Novus America]

I want to say that the submarines pull in salt water to cool the reactors, but I'm not sure.

Salt water is terribly corrosive to metal, though.

Of course, the hull would have the same issue, and they do something about that.

See my explanation. And here is a picture.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedIm ... marine.gif

[Galloism]

An interesting point. I'm not sure how the cooling system works for carrier (and submarine) reactors.

It works like most boat cooling systems. Fresh water cools the reactor, in a closed loop, running through a heat exchanger. Salt water then is run through the exchanger to cool the fresh water.

So that whay the salt water cools the system but only corrodes the exchanger. Which has to be periodically replaced.

Doesn't it also rely on the boat essentially continually moving forward while at high generation?

[Giovenith]

I think at this point it's pretty clear that our problem is not a lack of evidence for climate change, it's a lack of people who understand how evidence works. Every time this conversation comes up, there's always several guys out there who parrot what they heard on their favorite blogs, "Nuh uh, the earth is naturally supposed to go through periods of change!" "The scientists said the world was going to be over before and it didn't happen!" "Scientists just want to make money, unlike corporations!"

Obviously these people are not going to be persuaded by the mere presence of evidence, we should be focused on strapping them down and forcing them to comprehend it.

[Novus America]

It works like most boat cooling systems. Fresh water cools the reactor, in a closed loop, running through a heat exchanger. Salt water then is run through the exchanger to cool the fresh water.

So that whay the salt water cools the system but only corrodes the exchanger. Which has to be periodically replaced.

Doesn't it also rely on the boat essentially continually moving forward while at high generation?

No, because the ocean is so big that it serves as a basically infinite heat sink. The amount it increases the temperature around it is so tiny as to be negligible. If you put it in a very small closed basin you might have a problem, but the ocean is big enough it can sit still with no problem.

Because air does not absorb heat well the constantly moving thing is a problem for nuclear aircraft. But not boats, as water can absorb it very well.

[The 502nd Ghost Division]

I want to say that the submarines pull in salt water to cool the reactors, but I'm not sure.

Salt water is terribly corrosive to metal, though.

Of course, the hull would have the same issue, and they do something about that.

They preform maintenance on US subs every three months when they return from patrols, so it wouldn't have too much time to corrode.

[Galloism]

Doesn't it also rely on the boat essentially continually moving forward while at high generation?

No, because the ocean is so big that it serves as a basically infinite heat sink. The amount it increases the temperature around it is so tiny as to be negligible. If you put it in a very small closed basin you might have a problem, but the ocean is big enough it can sit still with no problem.

Ok, so I guess I was wrong.

It happens once in a while.

[Novus America]

Salt water is terribly corrosive to metal, though.

Of course, the hull would have the same issue, and they do something about that.

They preform maintenance on US subs every three months when they return from patrols, so it wouldn't have too much time to corrode.

And see my diagram, the salt water does not go into sensitive systems, just a heat exchanger. Which does need to be periodically replaced.

[Hansdeltania]

Frankly, I think nuclear power is our best bet for inland power. If fusion does work, then that will be much better. I think we could do some offshore wind farms like what the UK did, but it might be too expensive.

[Novus America]

No, because the ocean is so big that it serves as a basically infinite heat sink. The amount it increases the temperature around it is so tiny as to be negligible. If you put it in a very small closed basin you might have a problem, but the ocean is big enough it can sit still with no problem.

Ok, so I guess I was wrong.

It happens once in a while.

Well you would be right about nuclear aircraft.
because air does not absorb heat well the constantly moving thing is a problem for nuclear aircraft. But not boats, as water can absorb it very well.

If the ocean water is 50 degrees, the reactor water 100 degrees, assuming equal quantities the water going out of the exchanger should be 75 degrees. But this goes right back into the ocean, and the heat quickly disapates. In theory it probably raises the heat of the surrounding ocean some .00000000000000000001 degrees, but not enough to be an issue.

You would only have a problem if the quantity of water in the ocean was similar to the quantity of water running through the cooling system.

[Seangoli]

Natural gas and coal? Boy you gonna get fucked shit air. Higher hazard and really unsustainable.

I would like to point out at this time that if you have ever been to the North Dakota oil fields, you will notice a *huge* amount of wasted Natural Gas from flaring is going on. Largely because the state refuses to actually levy any fines and has given practically indefinite extensions to continue burning the damn stuff rather than forcing the oil companies to pipe off the natural gas. There are pads out here that have been burning their flares since I started working in region quite some time ago. They are supposed to pipe it off within six months or something like that, but I have never seen it happen in that time scale.

Not particularly relevant to what you are saying, but just a fun fact from one of the most "forward" thinking states.

Tis a very, very silly place.

That all said, several windfarms are going up in the state, or are planned for construction at some point in the near future (And there are some *huge* ones being built, particularly outside of Valley CIty). Also some being built in South Dakota from my undertanding. I don't know who is doing it, but someone somewhere is making the push for wind energy in the region.

[Revanchism]

I think at this point it's pretty clear that our problem is not a lack of evidence for climate change, it's a lack of people who understand how evidence works. Every time this conversation comes up, there's always several guys out there who parrot what they heard on their favorite blogs, "Nuh uh, the earth is naturally supposed to go through periods of change!" "The scientists said the world was going to be over before and it didn't happen!" "Scientists just want to make money, unlike corporations!"

Obviously these people are not going to be persuaded by the mere presence of evidence, we should be focused on strapping them down and forcing them to comprehend it.

I, too, am all in favor of bondage in the name of science.

[Immoren]

Replace every coal and oil powered plant with nuclear plants.
Cover every suitable rooftop with solar power.
Build in pyrolysis plants to create gas and oil out of carbonic/organic waste.
Build in waste-to-energy power plants to deal with waste that's not been able to be recycled and can be burned.
Invest in schemes to install air -pumps in every possible building.

[Revanchism]

Replace every coal and oil powered plant with nuclear plants.
Cover every suitable rooftop with solar power.
Build in pyrolysis plants to create gas and oil out of carbonic/organic waste.
Build in waste-to-energy power plants to deal with waste that's not been able to be recycled and can be burned.
Invest in schemes to install air-pumps in every possible building.

Immy is right as usual.