1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

London Climate Protests

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,050

  2. 200sols

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 14, 2018

    Posts: 2,516

    Location: Hampshire

    Eh, the reason we use dirty products so much is because they are cheap...

    Most people only care about money.
     
  3. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,842

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    When you manufacture a lot you tend to use a lot of energy.

    When we see the resurgence of manufacturing post brexit we will use a lot more as well. We will probably see our pollution go up.
     
  4. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,050

    We already offset a lot of it with wind\solar power and nuclear though. Germany is still building coal plants.
     
  5. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,842

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Pre climate change being the thing most likely to wipe us out, or at least of the ones we had control over, restricting nuclear made sense.

    Personally i think we need 1 more generation of nuclear to be built, it provides a really good baseload for now.
    Towards the end of the life of this next generation they can look again, but hopefully by then we have got to grips with enough renewable, and enough storage that we dont need the nuclear baseload.

    I cant find it now, but a few years ago I saw something about a different way to make the waste into something far less hazardous but quite cheaply.
    Having a relatively small amount of highly dangerous waste still seems preferable to me, compared to destroying the environment as we have been doing.

    I mean imagine 100 years on, do you think the future generations would thank as mor for leaving them a small amount of toxic material to control and deal with (assuming we dont find a better way to deal with it), or air that is practically unbreathable, much higher ocean levels, , , etc
     
  6. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,842

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    And so do they. The German issue is the curious one of their rapid reaction to the nuclear issue in japan and how they immediately started a de nuclearisation programme
    It always felt a little odd, as if something was not declared, but anyway there seems to be far less resistance to environmental issues in Germany so I suspect once they get over this short term issue they will with typical german efficiency overtake us, but without nuclear.
     
  7. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,762

    I wonder personally about whether the sudden about-turn for the German leadership to kill it was to cover up a growing problem at their plants (lax security? poor maintenance maybe?), speculation that has absolutely zero base in reality, but it wasn't a rational decision.
     
  8. I fancy boys

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 12, 2008

    Posts: 2,705

    Thanks - I wasn't aware of the cost, makes sense now.

    I've read about Thorium reactors being a way to generate waste that is not hazardous for such long periods of time. There's fusion as well, although apparently it's always 10 years away.

    In terms of the environmental impact, I agree with what was mentioned above, a relatively minor concentration of nuclear waste compared to the much wider scale problem of rising temperatures and destruction of habitats/extinction of species seems a no brainer personally.
     
  9. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,091

    Do people calculate in their bill the damages/pollution on the environment. People don't pay immediately but ultimately they would pay the ultimate price after years. Our children will pay the people's bill.
     
  10. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,206

    I guess the issue comes down to timing and price predictions. Nuclear is horrifically expensive, and the thorium reactor design even more so. It can take 10-15 years to build such a reactor beginning with the planning work. Such plants always end up far more expensive than planned, and years late. renewable are much cheaper and getting cheaper by the month, with low risk of delays. You need to factor in additional capacity and energy storage as renewables take up a larger percent of baseload, but the economics is fairly compelling taht within the time-frame of building a nuclear reactor the costs will still be strongly in the renewables favor.


    New ucelar reactors should have been 10-15 years ago to help us through the short term. But these days it probably just isn't worth it.
     
  11. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,550

    He probably wants to date her. Di Caprio is notorious for dumping all his girlfriends as soon as they turn 25.
     
  12. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,050

    Just getting her lined up :D
     
  13. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,091

    I think she is stronger than him and it will be about what she wants, not about what he wants :D
     
  14. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,842

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Interesting article about fuel cells. Sort of links into this thread.
    Would seem a good option to be able to include in cars, tiny cell in reality, so hybrid elec / hydrogen could be perfect
    Resolves charging issues as those people could just use hydrogen as backup to when other charging was an issue

    People with charging could just use it when needed for say long runs, people doing high regular mileage would be able to top up as necessary

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50212037
     
  15. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,070

    A hydrogen economy would be a real boon to nuclear and even renewables as a way to store energy for longer periods economically than can be done with batteries. The relative inflexibility of nuclear generation can easily be overcome by using the overnight surplus to make hydrogen that supports both the domestic electric and transport sectors. Equally renewables that can store their energy from day to night or store excess to cover low generation periods makes a lot of sense. Hydrogen storage is also very scalable cheaply potentially without having to scale the output.

    There are challenges with hydrogen especially regarding energy density for non cryogenically stored hydrogen but I've always thought it's a better solution than batteries.
     
  16. redeye

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 422

    Location: Leipzig, Germany

    I assume that's sarcasm.

    Germany has a massive green movenment. Coal plants are not what anyone wants, but Nuclear is not being invested in, quite the opposite - it's seen as 'not the future', and dangerous.

    But Germany has heavily invested in wind farms - a lot of Germany is extremely hilly / mountainous with very little around except farms or completely flat like the area I live in. Both types of landscapes produce lots of wind. There are now big strides to increase solar too. I have no idea how they will meet pollution targets with the amount of coal plants still open, but the majority of German's also think this.

    The other stupid thing is, Germany often produces too much electricity from renewables, so it sells off the excess to Austria and Switzerland. But then in peak times it can't produce enough, so it buys it back from their hydro-electric plants. Completely nuts.
     
  17. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,842

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Indeed ;)
     
  18. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,050

    There will be some profit either was I assume. Does Merkel sit on one of the power company boards? :p
     
  19. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,762

    That's not stupid though is it? I'd say that is a convenient opportunity.

    What's stupid is Germany turning away from Nuclear while blasting coal.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  20. Freddie1980

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 25, 2009

    Posts: 6,885

    Location: Billericay, UK

    From what I've read Germany has had a big drive on renewable power sources namely solar and wind but the when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow they rely on coal to shore up their power grid and their still going ahead with decommissioning their nuclear power plants.

    It's shame money hasn't been invested into R&D in nuclear power like it has been in renewables, we have even had working LFTRs by now maybe even Fusion would be viable.