Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:16 am
I've heard good things about molten salt cooled reactors that use liquid U233 fuel.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Freed Lymonia wrote:Sovaal wrote:Which part/thing/whatever?
It being a problem we need to solve before we all die. We saw claims in the 60s and 70s we'd all be frozen now. Then they claim the ice caps would all be melted by now, you get it. I'm also unsure it's even an issue. With slightly higher global temperatures, we would have more square earth to farm, etc.
Then they claim the ice caps would all be melted by now, you get it. I'm also unsure it's even an issue. With slightly higher global temperatures, we would have more square earth to farm, etc.
Telconi wrote:Sovaal wrote:This. "Green" renewables, while nice and do have their places, cannot realistically compete with fossil fuels like nuclear can.
Can solar and wind support a grid? Probably not. But if each house and business had solar panels, and farms had a handful of turbines, we could drastically reduce the fossil consumption of that grid. Something we absolutely should be doing. I don't see fission as a replacement to fossil fuels, it's at best a sideways step.
Neanderthaland wrote:Freed Lymonia wrote:It being a problem we need to solve before we all die. We saw claims in the 60s and 70s we'd all be frozen now.
Let it go.Then they claim the ice caps would all be melted by now, you get it. I'm also unsure it's even an issue. With slightly higher global temperatures, we would have more square earth to farm, etc.
Who is "they?"
Because, yeah, if you listen to History Channel "scientists," then I'm sure you'd have heard all kinds of stories. But real scientists have been pretty consistent on this, and on why it's a problem. All of which they've explained over and over again, which means that you really don't have any excuse for this kind of statement at this point.
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Telconi wrote:
Can solar and wind support a grid? Probably not. But if each house and business had solar panels, and farms had a handful of turbines, we could drastically reduce the fossil consumption of that grid. Something we absolutely should be doing. I don't see fission as a replacement to fossil fuels, it's at best a sideways step.
It works wonderfully. Nuclear is actually better for the environment than fossil fuels, considering we could just make a big island to dump the waste onto, or shoot it all into the moon.
Neanderthaland wrote:Freed Lymonia wrote:It being a problem we need to solve before we all die. We saw claims in the 60s and 70s we'd all be frozen now.
Let it go.Then they claim the ice caps would all be melted by now, you get it. I'm also unsure it's even an issue. With slightly higher global temperatures, we would have more square earth to farm, etc.
Who is "they?"
Because, yeah, if you listen to History Channel "scientists," then I'm sure you'd have heard all kinds of stories. But real scientists have been pretty consistent on this, and on why it's a problem. All of which they've explained over and over again, which means that you really don't have any excuse for this kind of statement at this point.
Freed Lymonia wrote:Neanderthaland wrote:Let it go.
Who is "they?"
Because, yeah, if you listen to History Channel "scientists," then I'm sure you'd have heard all kinds of stories. But real scientists have been pretty consistent on this, and on why it's a problem. All of which they've explained over and over again, which means that you really don't have any excuse for this kind of statement at this point.
Nope. These were your average joe scientists, and look around you. Are we frozen? No? Then I suggest we don't listen to em with their crappy computer models, because with them, bad goes in bad goes out. Besides. It's arguable it's even an issue let alone us causing it. What caused the earth to defreeze back with cavemen and crap? I wonder what SUVs they were driving.
Krasny-Volny wrote:And yet again the emphasis is on industrial carbon emissions, completely ignoring the fact that wasteful agricultural practices in the Third World are doing far more damage to our dwindling forests than emissions from First World countries, and that desertification as a result of these idiotic practices is also contributing in no small part to the global rise in temperatures.
Destructive slash and burn in Indonesia, Brazil, Sudan, and the states of central Africa and the Sahel goes completely unchecked while those countries get pats on the back for signing the Paris Accords and agreeing to reduce their (relatively negligible) emissions.
The longer I work with people and organizations in the environmental field the more I'm convinced that carbon emissions as per the Western sense of the concept get so much publicity because a disproportionate number of environmental scientists live in those countries where this is the most serious threat to the local and global environment. That's a serious issue, yeah, but also ignores the fact that the developing nations of the world and the global south in particular are by no means innocent in contributing to the degradation of the earth and their problems are likelier to have more immediate impacts on the lives of millions of people.
Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:-snip-
Telconi wrote:Sovaal wrote:This. "Green" renewables, while nice and do have their places, cannot realistically compete with fossil fuels like nuclear can.
Can solar and wind support a grid? Probably not. But if each house and business had solar panels, and farms had a handful of turbines, we could drastically reduce the fossil consumption of that grid. Something we absolutely should be doing. I don't see fission as a replacement to fossil fuels, it's at best a sideways step.
Krasny-Volny wrote:And yet again the emphasis is on industrial carbon emissions, completely ignoring the fact that wasteful agricultural practices in the Third World are doing far more damage to our dwindling forests than emissions from First World countries, and that desertification as a result of these idiotic practices is also contributing in no small part to the global rise in temperatures.
Destructive slash and burn in Indonesia, Brazil, Sudan, and the states of central Africa and the Sahel goes completely unchecked while those countries get pats on the back for signing the Paris Accords and agreeing to reduce their (relatively negligible) emissions.
The longer I work with people and organizations in the environmental field the more I'm convinced that carbon emissions as per the Western sense of the concept get so much publicity because a disproportionate number of environmental scientists live in those countries where this is the most serious threat to the local and global environment. That's a serious issue, yeah, but also ignores the fact that the developing nations of the world and the global south in particular are by no means innocent in contributing to the degradation of the earth and their problems are likelier to have more immediate impacts on the lives of millions of people.
Burkani wrote:Heh. Sure, climate change might be a thing, but it's hard to believe it's anything close to what the media makes of it.
"Facts and evidence"
Probably paid extra to dramatize and dilute the facts, or simply observed it once and didn't recheck their info.
Krasny-Volny wrote:And yet again the emphasis is on industrial carbon emissions, completely ignoring the fact that wasteful agricultural practices in the Third World are doing far more damage to our dwindling forests than emissions from First World countries, and that desertification as a result of these idiotic practices is also contributing in no small part to the global rise in temperatures.
Destructive slash and burn in Indonesia, Brazil, Sudan, and the states of central Africa and the Sahel goes completely unchecked while those countries get pats on the back for signing the Paris Accords and agreeing to reduce their (relatively negligible) emissions.
The longer I work with people and organizations in the environmental field the more I'm convinced that carbon emissions as per the Western sense of the concept get so much publicity because a disproportionate number of environmental scientists live in those countries where this is the most serious threat to the local and global environment. That's a serious issue, yeah, but also ignores the fact that the developing nations of the world and the global south in particular are by no means innocent in contributing to the degradation of the earth and their problems are likelier to have more immediate impacts on the lives of millions of people.
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Eisen Wolf Reich wrote:Personally I think that a lot of solar and renewable energy in its current state isn't enough to suffice with our growing power needs. We should go nuclear, a properly built and maintained reactor is almost full-proof.
I'd go one step past that, more investment in fusion should be our goal.
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Valrifell wrote:
Regular fusion is what the sun does. The sun is hot. And big.
It's also what the relatively smaller Wendelstein 7-X does.