Genava55 Posted August 8, 2021 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said: That's why I said the one created by humans, I don't remember what name it has. The fact that the current climate change is caused by humans is also supported by Earth Sciences. I mean, CO2 is known for a long time as an important driver of Earth's climate: (this is geologist Richard Alley invited at the National Academy of Sciences (US) for a presentation) Edited August 8, 2021 by Genava55 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted August 8, 2021 Report Share Posted August 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, Genava55 said: The fact that the current climate change is caused by humans is also supported by Earth Sciences. I mean, CO2 is known for a long time as an important driver of Earth's climate: (this is geologist Richard Alley invited at the National Academy of Sciences (US) for a presentation) We should eat insects then, thank you ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted August 8, 2021 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2021 Just now, Lion.Kanzen said: We should eat insects then, thank you ... I never said that but I don't judge science or scientific theories according to political opinions and I try to put emotions aside. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted August 8, 2021 Report Share Posted August 8, 2021 1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said: We should eat insects then, thank you ... Some humans already do eat insects and have done for generations. You just have a cultural aversion to it. So do I. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted August 8, 2021 Report Share Posted August 8, 2021 1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: Some humans already do eat insects and have done for generations. You just have a cultural aversion to it. So do I. Cultural.... .And will the elite of your country continue to eat meat? Obviously yes.  The other way is proposed in a book and it is not a better idea.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_GrowthThe other way is proposed in a book and it is not a better idea. This is Neo-Malthusianism.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted August 8, 2021 Report Share Posted August 8, 2021 1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: Some humans already do eat insects and have done for generations. You just have a cultural aversion to it. So do I. Someone once offered me a snack-bar with insects and it was ok; if it became more common, maybe I'd eat more insects. Nutrition/environmental impact ratio is better than meat, they're less sentient than mammals plus more distant, so nasty stuff like brain damage isn't as likely to contract (speaking about the Creutzfeld-Jakob sheep again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted August 9, 2021 Report Share Posted August 9, 2021 6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said: .And will the elite of your country continue to eat meat? Obviously yes. The rich have better food and just better everything in general. Shocking. You hate socialism, so what's your solution to that? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted August 9, 2021 Report Share Posted August 9, 2021 22 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: The rich have better food and just better everything in general. Shocking. You hate socialism, so what's your solution to that? lol I only say that they will not stop it, secondly, socialism is financed by capitalism. Â You guys are being alarmists... Â I remember that they have been with these prophecies of the end of the world for years because of climate change. Â now with socialism ... what they practice in the US and Europe is called Fabian socialism. We already have a topic dedicated to that. Â As I understand there are several solutions ... Â One sounds like National Socialism and eugenics, which doesn't surprise me. Â This was said by a US politician: "The third world must be depopulated." Â https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 Second, China is not going to cooperate and India appears to be neither.I'm afraid that without these polluting countries ... They won't achieve anything. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/what-happens-if-we-beat-climate-change/ Everything points to this apocalypse happening in 2030. Â Â Â Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiley Posted August 9, 2021 Report Share Posted August 9, 2021 8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said: We should eat insects then, thank you ... In the coming decades, without tapping into the largest biomass on this planet, there is literally no chance of feeding everyone. Eating insects won't be a choice then, just the grain of a desertified world. Is it alarmist when someone points at a broken bridge while on the train several miles down the track? Gaze into the future. The green house effect doesn't care about feelings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 Good luck. https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/01/europe-s-energy-crisis-france-to-freeze-natural-gas-and-electricity-prices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted October 2, 2021 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 France is mostly nuclear. It has little impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 In Germany they manage to give it an anti-Russian spin: 'The Gazprom tanks aren't filled!' Gazprom only operates the tanks, so if their customers don't order the natural gas to fill the tanks it's exactly zero Gazprom's fault. There was a lot of speculating on gas prizes dropping, although that's usually not what happens toward winter/heating season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 6, 2021 Report Share Posted October 6, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted October 7, 2021 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 Nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. I definitely don't count it as 'green' or sustainable. I think the UK had to guarantee sth like four times the market price for electricity to their new nuclear plant to be built. (Supposedly Hinkley Point has a military purpose; even if I'm against it, at least that would make some kind of sense.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted October 7, 2021 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said: Nuclear energy is neither cheap It is cheap enough and much more stable/consistant. 1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said: nor clean, nor safe Hydroelectric dams are worst than nuclear plants, they killed much more people and polluted much more as well (for example the methylation of mercure occuring in South America). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 17 minutes ago, Genava55 said: It is cheap enough Sure, sure. Quote The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genava55 Posted October 7, 2021 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 Cherry picking the particular case of Hinkley Point C ? Anyway electricity price is complicated in UK: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-30/u-k-power-is-so-high-that-edf-hinkley-reactor-looks-good-value The problem is more the UK than the nuclear plant but whatever. Quote Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries. Compared to fossil fuel-based generation, nuclear plants are expected to be more affordable than coal-fired plants. While gas-based combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are competitive in some regions, their LCOE very much depend on the prices for natural gas and carbon emissions in individual regions. Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - but for all power generation across the board. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 Â France is producing more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear. So... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 I don't know about other countries, but in Germany the true cost of nuclear energy is hidden. The state pays (paid) for R&D, it covers the risks (under market conditions no nuclear power plant would ever go online, it's simply not insurable) and it pays for handling the waste. I don't think there is a single deposit site for highly radioactive material anywhere in the world operative; handling that stuff for a million of years will also cost a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 6 hours ago, Gurken Khan said: Nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. I definitely don't count it as 'green' or sustainable. It is clean in that the waste is localized instead of spread across hundreds of thousands of square miles like coal (which is also radioactive). If you count @#$%ushima against nuclear (which was a disaster, not standard waste removal procedure, surely), then you must count the hundreds of coal ash spills which have poisoned dozens of watersheds over the years. Modern reactor designs are also very safe. @#$%ushima was not a modern reactor design. Â 2 hours ago, Gurken Khan said: I don't think there is a single deposit site for highly radioactive material anywhere in the world operative; handling that stuff for a million of years will also cost a lot of money. That is simply down to (lack of) political will and public pressure. NIMBY, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurken Khan Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: you must count the hundreds of coal ash spills lol, no. I think we should get out of coal ASAP, so that's not a valid point for me. (I actually pay a premium on my electricity to get neither coal nor nuclear (arithmetical).) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetswaveaBook Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Gurken Khan said: I don't think there is a single deposit site for highly radioactive material anywhere in the world operative; handling that stuff for a million of years will also cost a lot of money. In the Netherlands we have a nuclear plant as well. It is awful that it produces about 1 m^3 highly radioactive waste per year! Every year radioactive waste will be produced. If it would operate 1000 years, we would need to find a cube with sides of 10 meters to store it. For the global population, it was super smart to rely on fossils (and aid to irreversible climate change) rather than producing nuclear waste. 9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: @#$%ushima was not a modern reactor design. The @#$%ushima problem was also caused by cutting corners on safety. If you build a nuclear reactor in Japan, you need to be prepared for tsunamies and earthquakes. 3 hours ago, Genava55 said: Cherry picking I believe this is what will happen whenever this debate starts. People like to do cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 I wonder if miniature reactors are an improvement in safety over the big ones? Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted October 7, 2021 Report Share Posted October 7, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said: If it would operate 1000 years, we would need to find a cube with sides of 10 meters to store it That does not sound that bad to me, but I guess in the netherlands, volume comes at a premium. From what I heard, the US just stores all the waste on site, in temporary containers (really dumb). As for storage, I think people have to just start building/digging these storage facilities if they want to keep having nuclear power. Otherwise it will only be more and more problematic as time goes on. Edited October 7, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.b21ca1d0c15fb56b42c39b25a0a40815.jpg)
Recommended Posts