Originally shared by Frank Warwick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
I know, right! The turbine is so unsightly! Just look at how it mars the landscape!
ReplyDeleteWind turbines do mar the landscape. And are unsightly. Fortunately they can be dismantled. An open pit coal mine is more unsightly and harder to dismantle.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me sick just looking at it. Really, really sick.
ReplyDeleteCan we make it go away now ?
Conservatives object to wind turbines on the basis of their "unsightliness" and then proceed to erect giant crosses (comparable in size to the windmills) all over rural America. From a distance, a wind turbine and a giant cross look quite similar; the only difference is that at least the turbine does something useful.
ReplyDeleteA wind turbine is no less sightly than a water tower or an abandoned smoke stack... and far more sightly than an active coal plant, nuclear power plant, or gouting factory, belching pollution into the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteNate McD And yet nuclear plants are the way to go.
ReplyDelete...until their waste piles up and another one melts down, polluting a massive ecosystem.
ReplyDeleteI will go with wind and solar.
Nate McD http://www.businessinsider.com/waste-annihilating-molten-salt-reactor-2012-6
ReplyDeleteSome students at MIT have also figured out how to achieve faster than light travel... Maybe they can power that with a clean nuclear power plant.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I should add, that molten-salt nuclear reactors have been getting kicked around since the 1950's.... we are no close to achieving it now than we were then; there have been lots of papers and plans, and even a few projects and prototypes, but still, it isn't happening.
Solar and Wind are happening now.
Every Republican knows that wind turbines will stop the wind from blowing and cause global windlessness! Sheesh! Where have you been!?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see that you guys seem to have some context of your own. The OP is Australian, where our Prime Minister, just a couple of days ago, described wind turbines as a blight on the landscape.
ReplyDeleteI think that's kinda the point, Peter Billing. You guys in Australia are just facing the same unmitigated idiocy from the right that we are facing here in the US.
ReplyDeleteJohn Hummel but at least your leader understands the periodic table of elements.
ReplyDeleteSteve S nuclear? Really? Don't you know how much more that costs?
ReplyDeleteSteve S Molten salt nuclear reactors have been built and operated as early as the 1960s, and research began in the 50s.
ReplyDeleteUnaddressed problems most advocates never want to talk about is that to operate one, you need to build an entire large-scale chemical processing plant for mixing highly corrosive and often toxic salts with radioactive components, presenting a whole range of dangers ranging from down-wind exposure to airborne carcinogenic, irradiated byproduct, to a full-scale incident that could match the Bhopal disaster.
Furthermore, the salts themselves, infused or not, are highly corrosive, and will cause rapid degeneration of pipes, holding tanks, and most problematic, the actual Reactor Components that are difficult if not impossible to inspect without shutting down the entire plant and draining the system.
And speaking of the Reactor, the neutrino interactions are especially hard on the core elements, causing them to become brittle and prone to fissures, cracking, and delamination; which in turn makes them even more susceptible to corrosion caused in a caustic environment that is filled with molten salts and ambient salinity carried by chemical reactions and off-gassing.
So you can call me stupid for dismissing your Tomorrowland technology as being beyond our current, practical reach, but you cannot deny Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors are not happening now... but Solar and Wind power are very much happening Right Now
Our current one does, Michael Ringland. Our previous one would have been lucky to correctly spell "periodic". And he certainly could not have pronounced it. ("per-id-io-tic? per-tic? Whatever. Pertic.")
ReplyDeleteJohn Hummel the scary thing was hear him say "nuclear" "nucular" "whatever" and know he's got a finger on the bomb button.
ReplyDeleteScary indeed, Michael Ringland. Fortunately (?) it was never Bush who had his finger on anything (he was just a puppet); it was Cheney. Hard to know what's scarier, though: A complete, blithering idiot or a smart but utterly sociopathic homicidal maniac. Tough call, that one.
ReplyDeleteJohn Hummel allow me to suggest this. Traditional Chinese Medicine has a diagnostic criteria known as "facial diagnosis". Now
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle may object on the basis that this post has "science" in the top left, but allow me this...
I'm skilled at the art of facial reading, and I can say mr cheney is in fact a maniac.
(I only read faces for good, never evil purposes)
James Salsman It doesn't emit CO2 and it works day or night, regardless of the weather.
ReplyDeleteNate McD They're not happening in the USA, but the world doesn't wait for us anymore. http://www.itheo.org/articles/indian-molten-salt-breeder-reactor-imsbr-initiated
ReplyDeleteAs I said, they have been experimented with in a few other places, most notably the Soviet Union and China, both of which have low regard for the safety of their citizens when there is a chance to stake out some technological new-ground....
ReplyDeleteThat they have never become mainstream in countries willing to dedicate themselves to those technologies regardless of the human cost, suggest the hurdles are greater than those of simple regulation but viability, as I have indicated with the issues of material science.
Nate McD No, the reason the US stopped developing molten salt reactors is that we wanted breeder reactors for bombs.
ReplyDeleteI heard it was because of Chem-Trails.
ReplyDeleteAWESOME pic
ReplyDeleteSteve S renewables with storage are still less expensive than nuclear, especially in the US. Even France is abandoning nuclear because of the economics, and they have the least expensive nuclear.
ReplyDeleteThe late Isaac Asimov was a huge proponent of nuclear power. I don't think he took into account the profit motive though. Nuclear could be safe....but it's not.
ReplyDeletePhil Rounds every form of energy can be characterized by the number of people killed directly and indirectly per watt and watt hour and the price amortized across lifecycle. Wind and solar have been far superior to all the other alternatives by such measures since 1995.
ReplyDeleteSteve S you get pro-nuclear peer pressure from East Coast Googlers, don't you?
"every form of energy can be characterized by the number of people killed directly and indirectly per watt"
ReplyDeleteWell, if that's the case, hydroelectric and any method using combustion hold the record by far!
Yes, it's true that wind and solar are superior in that regard. But, we also have to look at the reality surrounding nuclear energy. That being it has been poorly and sometimes irresponsibly implemented. Profit is the reason for that. As better technology has developed and facilities aged, old plants should have been closed down or upgraded. Instead they are kept on line until they fail for some reason. The same is true for plants that use fossil fuels.
I'd like to see renewable/green energy succeed in the long run...but realistically, it will take at least decades to make it happen.
ReplyDeletePhil Rounds sorry, that is not in accord with trends en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-trends.png
ReplyDeleteTrends or not. Until we replace all of the internal combustion engines (automotive and otherwise), power plants, heating systems (industrial and private) and industries using fossil fuels with green energy alternatives, we will be dependent upon burning things or fission for energy. This simply isn't going to happen very quickly...it's far more complex than it seems. We're not going to go to sleep one night burning gas and oil and wake up the next morning with a fully wind/solar energy supply. At best it will be a slow transition taking decades to complete.
ReplyDeleteThere are economic, logistic and political hindrances to this occurring. In a perfect world we would just do it instantly. But we don't have a perfect world to work with.
You are mixing apples in with your oranges there...
ReplyDeleteThe conversation to this point has been about grid power generation. Transportation, heating, and cooking are slightly different animals, not entirely unrelated, but sufficiently so that mixing them serves only to distract.
Obviously, there isn't going to a be magical evening in the future where our reliance on fossil fuels will turn green. But the trends and track records are clear, Renewables are picking up steam (heh) and poised to overtake fossil and nuclear as the grid-power source of preference of the future.
Phil Rounds So what's your point...that we shouldn't even bother trying?
ReplyDeleteActually, your argument makes an excellent case for dramatically increasing taxes on fossil fuels and using those revenues to accelerate the wholesale transition to renewable energy sources. Because if we don't do it now, it will cost even more to do it later.
I'm surprised that you'd ask me that Craig....Because i'm actually advocating (and always have) for the move to sustainable, green energy.
ReplyDeleteWhat i'm saying is that, realistically, it's not going to happen quickly no matter how much we wish it would.
Logistically, (if only that) it will take a while for the old technology to be completely replaced by the new. People aren't going to scrap their fossil fuel vehicles, their oil burning furnaces or their lawn mowers and go out and buy new electric replacements just because we want them to. The tech is still somewhat at a premium. Even Tesla won't have a halfway affordable electric car 'til almost 2020. Tried to buy a reasonably priced, fully functional electric car lately? Solar energy (roof panels) are still only available to those who qualify or can afford it.
Economically, we are extremely heavily invested in fossil fuel technology. This will take some time to overcome. We're not going to be able to just shut off the oil tap and go right to green energy. It will take time to transition. In the meantime it's either burn something or turn off the lights. We are headed in the right direction....but it is a gradual transition, not a jump.
Politically, we have to overcome an electorate, many of whom cannot fathom the reason for change. You can see this right here on G+ i think. There is a very large minority who believe that climate change is rubbish. Have you tried to convert any of these people lately? We couldn't even get a progressive Congress elected last time! The political resistance, not from the corporations, but from an ignorant electorate is yet another cause of delay.
No one would like to see green energy replace fossil fuels, or even nuclear (nucular?) more than me. But realistically, i think we're looking at decades rather than years. I'd like to be wrong on this, but i don't think i am.
"....dramatically increasing taxes on fossil fuels and using those revenues to accelerate the wholesale transition to renewable energy sources."
ReplyDeleteIf any Democrat did this, he or she would absolutely guarantee the election of a Republican President and Congress.