1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. koss

    koss Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,855
    Location:
    Vic
    The nuclear worshipers love to troll climate science threads don't they.

    Nuclear is the most toxic energy source known to mankind, that's why it needs special containment, even then the waste has to be sequestered for thousands of years. Totally impractical on a large scale, can do more harm to the planet than any other energy source, that's why government after government are ditching it and going for renewables. Also there is a growing trend away from centralized power utilities, hence the rapid uptake of rooftop solar.

    Baseload is a myth, an economic construct from the coal industry because the can't rapidly respond to grid demand peaks like a gas turbine, pumped hydro, or battery bank can.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
    JSmithDTV likes this.
  2. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,183
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    The article to which you linked says that renewables can supply baseload power if they are built in sufficient quantities, managed optimally, and supported by supplementary power supplies, including hydrogen or even " importing and exporting energy between the northern European nations to meet the varying demand". In other words, rewnewables by themselves cannot supply the power. You need to manage demand fluctuations, which means either energy storage using battery stations or by load-sharing with alternative energy resources such as hydrogen (or nuclear). Even the major UK study presented in that article, doesn't argue for 100% renewables. It argues for 82% wind, with other sources including biogas and even nuclear power.

    I really don't think so.

    This isn't a good start. This is neither a case of nuclear worshippers, or trolling. This is a case of facing facts which should have been faced decades ago. Nuclear has massive advantages over every other energy source. If the Western world had made the decision to go all in with nuclear back in the 80s, we would not be in the mess we're in now.

    No it isn't the most toxic, and with the best management practices you don't need the waste to be sequestered for thousands of years. Contrast this with the actually most dangerous, which are literally killing tens of thousands of people every year because they are released unhindered directly into the air we breathe. Nuclear is the safest.

    And not a single source was cited that day.
     
    cellular and wwwww like this.
  3. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,361
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    Fusion power will have more advantages, but still 10 years off being economical.

    Nuclear fission is not cheap either and is certainly not "clean".

    An interesting read...

    https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/baseload-energy-generation-expose-myth/


    JSmith
     
  4. koss

    koss Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    7,855
    Location:
    Vic
    This is a climate science thread in the science forums, not one of the existing nuclear energy threads on these forums. eg. https://forums.overclockers.com.au/...licy-discussion-thread-for-australia.1268187/

    I don't appreciate nuclear fanboys trying to derail the science discussion so I have added you to my ignore list. Don't bother to reply.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  5. shredder

    shredder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    13,492
    Location:
    New Zealand
    koss's Ignore List unite! Let's have an exclusive convo boys.

    'Sup Fortigurn. Good work on the relevant nuclear info, comparisons are essential when assessing the relative merits of various power options.
     
    Fortigurn likes this.
  6. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    15,138
    Location:
    Brisbane
    'science discussion' - says the guy that posts video's from climate change skeptics... please post papers instead. Ta.
     
    Nethiuz likes this.
  7. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    New evidence coming out that human activities are responsible for far more methane in the atmosphere than previously thought: Humanity’s Methane Problem Could Be Way Bigger Than Scientists Thought

    Fossil-fuel production may be responsible for much more atmospheric methane than scientists previously thought, according to new research published today in the journal Nature. The results, if they hold, suggest that methane needs to be managed even more tightly than was accounted for in multilateral initiatives such as the 2015 Paris Agreement
     
    JSmithDTV likes this.
  8. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    151,843
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Why's that? And nuclear is a forgone conclusion in Australia is it?
     
    JSmithDTV likes this.
  9. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,290
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    What an astonishingly ironic statement.
     
    Nethiuz likes this.
  10. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    7,361
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    Neither do I... and wow it seems someone is astonished!


    JSmith
     
  11. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,183
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    Because if we don't replace our fossil fuels extremely rapidly this planet is literally toast, and nuclear is the only power source which can replace fast enough to make a significant difference. No other power source can provide the same amount of power, with the lowest amount of carbon emissions, at the highest level of safety, in the shortest amount of time. We should have gone nuclear back in the 1980s. We could have avoided the situation we're in now.

    No it is not a foregone conclusion. On the contrary, it is likely that Australians will continue to argue that they would rather have their country destroyed by climate change, than use nuclear power.
     
    Nethiuz likes this.
  12. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    151,843
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    That's ok in hindsight, no one really knows what would have been the outcomes if we had all gone nuclear....I mean just in terms of safety.
     
  13. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,183
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    It's not hindsight. We're still using today, reactors based on nuclear technology designed in the 1970s; those reactors have an incredibly good safety record. Even Chernobyl's disaster happened with an RBMK Gen II reactor designed in the 1960s. In terms of safety, global warming is horrifically more dangerous than even several nuclear meltdowns per year. So even if we had several nuclear meltdowns a year, we'd still be safer than using fossil fuels at our current rate and facing the consequences of global warming.

    We've had around 70 years of nuclear power use. During that time we've experienced only two level seven incidents. That's the highest level. Even then the death toll for each of them was several orders of magnitude lower than the annual death toll of using coal.
     
    Hive and Nethiuz like this.
  14. Queenie

    Queenie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,099
    Location:
    Adelaide
    it's been years since I checked this, so what sort of maintenance requirements are there for nuclear vs. renewables?

    I'm talking precious metals, the works etc, considering supply chains will inevitably degrade in the near future. Which method of energy production has the easier supply chain to not stuff up?

    ie, do we need gold for new solar panels vs. thorium or w/e is the fuel, or XYZ material for the makeup of the reactor- and of course, to what degree those parts are replaced over time.

    Just a question that is pertinent- and how easy it is for us to recycle other random pieces around and turn those into usable material for production
     
  15. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,773
    Location:
    Dark City
    Nuclear is expensive but it does not release carbon. The cold war encouraged nuclear development and nuclear power is better for the environment than coal.

    • Nuclear is expensive to build, expensive to operate and expensive to decommission.
    • Hydro Expensive to build, cheap to operate, you never decommission them, those hydro-sites will last hundreds of years.
    • Solar is relatively cheap to build. Cheap to operate. But it is a short life technology, and the recycling isn't proven. We haven't really decommissioned any commercial/industrial size solar farms.
    • Wind is cheap, to build medium to operate and again, a short life technology, we are only now decommissioning the first wind farms.
    • Coal is medium to build, medium to operate and medium to decommission.
    Nuclear is going to be ideal for climates that don't have year round renewables. January is an impossible month for countries like Germany. Too cold, too cloudy, no wind, short winter days.
    For Australia the answer of nuclear just doesn't make as much clear sense.

    When Turnbull committed to Hydro 2.0 that pretty much killed nuclear. Because Hydro can be expanded to probably about 8GW. Nuclear will struggle to compete with something that will buy its power basically for nothing and then sell at a peak times. Its still possible but it would be very hard. Nuclear would take realistically 15+ years.

    The best time to build nuclear was arguably in Howards time. We could have commissioned a 2GW+ plant around now if we made the decision around 2000ish.
     
    adamsleath likes this.
  16. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    18,395
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    building hydro where there is dependable rainfall. like in the tropics?
    how can that fail? a no brainer imo.
     
  17. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,773
    Location:
    Dark City
    Tropics in Australia often don't have huge mountains, and flooding thousands of acres of tropical rain forest is probably pretty uncool. As is clear cutting the forest to put in hi voltage lines.

    Hydro 2.0 was an easy environmental win because the dams already existed, and most of the power distribution already existed. Its also smack bang in the middle of the Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne nexus that has been a central point of our grid for more than half a century. Sure minor additional flooding in the edges of the dams is possible, but its ~<1m. Most of its construction is underground in solid rock. A few extra lines need to be put in, and they will pay for existing lines to be upgraded. It also doesn't rely on rainfall as the dams are already full, and pumping between them results in no loss of water. The dams are deep too so little loss from evaporation (particularly at that altitude as well).

    QLD has some interesting pumped hydro projects, old mines and pumping between two flooded mines.

    Hydro sites need to also be where the population and demand is. So hydro is only really possible where conditions are perfect. Pretty much all the sites good for hydro area already dammed.

    This is an advantage of nuclear. As long as there is some kind of water source, and geologically safe for your plant, your good to go. Nuclear plants can be less reliant on water than coal, they have a closed loop on the turbine side so the water can just be heated (ie salt water or a large lake) Australia could very easily decommission a coal plant and build a nuclear plant in its place. People worry about the site being contaminated for hundreds of years, but that already happens with coal.

    Rehabilitating coal mines and coal power stations is very expensive business. In some cases, the coal ash contains heavy metals that are left behind and then become very hazardous and leach into ground water. Coal mines also take out so much material (coal) that the landscape can never properly be rehabilitated and at best becomes a very deep lake again, heavy metals can persist in the water as well.

    But again, renewables like solar and Wind have issues decommissioning as well.

    People complain about how expensive Snowy 2 is. but realistically it will be in use forever, for hundreds of years. I also think snowy4 and 6 aren't far behind.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
    Nethiuz likes this.
  18. kally

    kally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,028
    Location:
    Fremantle
    National Press Club Address by Australia's chief scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, 12/02/2020.

    The orderly transition to the electric planet
    https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/n...ub-address-orderly-transition-electric-planet

    Available on iView until 13/03/20: https://iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address/series/0/video/NC2011C003S00

    He outlines a plan where our energy needs are supplied by increasing levels of solar, wind, storage, natural gas in the short term, and hydrogen from coal, gas & renewables. His plan is objective and pragmatic with task before us.
     
    RnR likes this.
  19. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    Some research has been conducted showing that tropical forests are being negatively affected by rising CO2 levels.

    Tropical Forests Are Reaching Their Carbon Dioxide Limit
    A study of hundreds of thousands of trees in Africa and the Amazon concludes that they aren’t drawing down greenhouse gases like they used to.

    Worryingly;
    The Amazon, which is world’s largest tropical forest, may turn into a source of emissions by 2035 if it continues to lose the ability to store new carbon at its current rate.
    I have pondered the effectiveness of regrowing forests as a solution in other threads. This is just more proof that indicates that it would only be a 1 time reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels. Just because we plant more trees, doesn't mean we can continue to pump out high levels of emissions. It will buy as a little time, that is all.
     
  20. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,290
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    He makes a strident case for hydrogen.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: