Climate Change - Page 52

Catfish · 02-22-15, 02:51 PM

The sun is the only reason we can exist, the earth would not be even there as an accretion of materials, without a central gravitaional force.

Simply, we could not live without the sun, but it certainly is also reponsible for all kind of climate changes through the ages.
There are certainly also asteroids posing a threat to climate changes and real destruction, but in normal times, apart from direct radiation, the electric-magnetic field is being influenced by the sun, and thus temperature and the weather.

All the hype of this rising CO2 levels are not the cause, but the result of a global warming, which has happened before numerous times. We can probe CO and temperature levels going back much longer that 1500 years, but astonishingly in our climate models, most scientists only look at those last 1500, and we even disregard short warm-times, and colder times, only existing for 50 year-intervals within those 1500 years.

Apart from political agendas and the urge for feeling bad, mankind has not had much influence on global warming.
Dangerous litter plastic emmollient/plasticizer and poisoneous waste is another thing, but it only promotes cancer and contamination, not the climate.

But they are "working", on the latter.

ikalugin · 02-22-15, 03:30 PM

Have you heard about quick neutron reactors (any other development in nuclear power that happened during your life time)?

If we are realists - nuclear power is the only way to go from overall economics/ecology perspective, as solar and wind power is expensive, unreliable, you can't build it in the areas that require power. Hydro electricity is nice, but finite and damages environment.

P.s. solar panels do not live for 60 years, especially not in the heat.

Stealhead · 02-22-15, 03:46 PM

The problem with nuclear power are the spent fuel rods which are harmful for a very long time once they become depleted. Of course it is a far superior solution to anything else at the moment. I suppose another disadvantage is cost as a nuclear facility is more expensive to construct and run. A third disadvantage is security the spent fuel is attractive to terrorists that they might make a dirty bomb or simply try and cause a meltdown or leak.

Complex problems never have easy solutions. I often wonder if there are superior being in the universe and surely there are then they must long ago have mastered the problem of energy production.

ikalugin · 02-22-15, 04:17 PM

Key part - when they become depleted. I guess people are not aware of the advances within the civilian nuclear power

, but then it is not like it was actively developed in english speaking countries.

Stealhead · 02-22-15, 04:52 PM

You'll have to provide some viable links to information about currently viable systems that greatly reduce or eliminate the need for fuel rods as I'm am not aware of any.

Not sure about that last bit seems to me that you assume that I consider the western world superior and the Russian/Slavic world inferior in which case you'd be incorrect. Though I'll admit that nuclear power is not one of my top interesinterests. I do have a pretty high interest in Russian/Soviet military history and technology more so up to 1945 than after. Anyway if that is not what you where implying then no harm no foul.

ikalugin · 02-22-15, 04:58 PM

BN800.

We have continued to desighn and build new reactor types and new reactors in general (when was the last comercial power generating reactor built in the US?), as well as developing new fuel treatment plants and techniques.
That process never stopped, in fact nuclear power is one of the things we export with some good results.

We also held a traditional advantage in generating nuclear fuel (when did US switch to centrifuges?).

Another advantage we have is that we have deep integration within the whole nuclear industry, for example look into the recent Turkish contracts, Rosatom is capable of doing something that only is possible for an international alliance.

Onkel Neal · 02-22-15, 07:36 PM

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors.

nikimcbee · 02-23-15, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors.

...Until you get the blue screen of death and have to use explorer.

Von Tonner · 02-23-15, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Never heard that befoer but I know that the sun will become a red giant at the end of it's life and swallow earth and some more planets. So yes, life here doesn't have a future (though I'm sure that humans will destroy the planet much sooner than the sun).

Well some scientists with obviously a lot of time on their hands are working on the problem of the sun becoming a red giant and eating us all up.

"Can anything be done to prevent this fate? Professor Smith points to a remarkable scheme proposed by a team at Santa Cruz University, who suggest harnessing the gravitational effects of a close passage by a large asteroid to "nudge" the Earth's orbit gradually outwards away from the encroaching Sun. A suitable passage every 6000 years or so would be enough to keep the Earth out of trouble and allow life to survive for at least 5 billion years, and possibly even to survive the Sun's red giant phase."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223130020.htm

Betonov · 02-23-15, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors.

also sound good...

...too good one might say

GoldenRivet · 02-23-15, 04:13 AM

When i go to work, im out in the sun probably 75% of the day and thats a conservative number.

Boonie Hat
Sunglasses
Sun Block applied before every job

Rhodes · 02-23-15, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

When i go to work, im out in the sun probably 75% of the day and thats a conservative number.

Boonie Hat
Sunglasses
Sun Block applied before every job

See you by the pool!

ikalugin · 02-24-15, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors.

They are seeking to build experimental reactor, we are already operating/building serial production comercial ones. US is sort of in trouble, as it needs to begin power plant construction now, as the old power plants would have to go through de commission due to aging.

Betonov · 02-24-15, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin

They are seeking to build experimental reactor, we are already operating/building serial production comercial ones. US is sort of in trouble, as it needs to begin power plant construction now, as the old power plants would have to go through de commission due to aging.

Fission solid fuel ??

ikalugin · 02-24-15, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

Fission solid fuel ??

Fuel in fission reactors is usually in solid form, can you please clarify your question?

02-22-15, 03:30 PM	#767
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Have you heard about quick neutron reactors (any other development in nuclear power that happened during your life time)? If we are realists - nuclear power is the only way to go from overall economics/ecology perspective, as solar and wind power is expensive, unreliable, you can't build it in the areas that require power. Hydro electricity is nice, but finite and damages environment. P.s. solar panels do not live for 60 years, especially not in the heat. __________________ Grumpy as always. Last edited by ikalugin; 02-22-15 at 03:43 PM.

02-22-15, 04:17 PM	#769
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Key part - when they become depleted. I guess people are not aware of the advances within the civilian nuclear power , but then it is not like it was actively developed in english speaking countries. __________________ Grumpy as always.

02-22-15, 04:58 PM	#771
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	BN800. We have continued to desighn and build new reactor types and new reactors in general (when was the last comercial power generating reactor built in the US?), as well as developing new fuel treatment plants and techniques. That process never stopped, in fact nuclear power is one of the things we export with some good results. We also held a traditional advantage in generating nuclear fuel (when did US switch to centrifuges?). Another advantage we have is that we have deep integration within the whole nuclear industry, for example look into the recent Turkish contracts, Rosatom is capable of doing something that only is possible for an international alliance. __________________ Grumpy as always.

02-22-15, 07:36 PM	#772
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,284 Downloads: 534 Uploads: 224	I'm putting my faith in Bill Gates and TerraPower reactors. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

02-23-15, 04:13 AM	#776
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,712 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	When i go to work, im out in the sun probably 75% of the day and thats a conservative number. Boonie Hat Sunglasses Sun Block applied before every job __________________

02-22-15, 02:51 PM	#766
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 16,897 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	The sun is the only reason we can exist, the earth would not be even there as an accretion of materials, without a central gravitaional force. Simply, we could not live without the sun, but it certainly is also reponsible for all kind of climate changes through the ages. There are certainly also asteroids posing a threat to climate changes and real destruction, but in normal times, apart from direct radiation, the electric-magnetic field is being influenced by the sun, and thus temperature and the weather. All the hype of this rising CO2 levels are not the cause, but the result of a global warming, which has happened before numerous times. We can probe CO and temperature levels going back much longer that 1500 years, but astonishingly in our climate models, most scientists only look at those last 1500, and we even disregard short warm-times, and colder times, only existing for 50 year-intervals within those 1500 years. Apart from political agendas and the urge for feeling bad, mankind has not had much influence on global warming. Dangerous litter plastic emmollient/plasticizer and poisoneous waste is another thing, but it only promotes cancer and contamination, not the climate. But they are "working", on the latter.

02-22-15, 03:46 PM	#768
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	The problem with nuclear power are the spent fuel rods which are harmful for a very long time once they become depleted. Of course it is a far superior solution to anything else at the moment. I suppose another disadvantage is cost as a nuclear facility is more expensive to construct and run. A third disadvantage is security the spent fuel is attractive to terrorists that they might make a dirty bomb or simply try and cause a meltdown or leak. Complex problems never have easy solutions. I often wonder if there are superior being in the universe and surely there are then they must long ago have mastered the problem of energy production.

02-22-15, 04:52 PM	#770
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	You'll have to provide some viable links to information about currently viable systems that greatly reduce or eliminate the need for fuel rods as I'm am not aware of any. Not sure about that last bit seems to me that you assume that I consider the western world superior and the Russian/Slavic world inferior in which case you'd be incorrect. Though I'll admit that nuclear power is not one of my top interesinterests. I do have a pretty high interest in Russian/Soviet military history and technology more so up to 1945 than after. Anyway if that is not what you where implying then no harm no foul.