Nuclear Power

I believe in Metal Fatigue.

 

I think the subject of global warming has turned into yet another " Liberals VS Conservatives" debate where both sides are perfectly willing to stretch the truth and claw at any sort of report, opinion, or so-called "fact" to support their ideology. In other words, these debates become pointless and counterproductive.

Stepping back, both sides have common grounds. I would say that both sides could at least agree that there is a number of problems humans cause. No.1, we consume and produce, which can be strewn in several ways. Given the fact that the world population is now in an accelerated mode ( US population doubled in less than 40 years) that means humans consume more things and produce more things. That creates byproducts which ultimately creates problems on several levels: Economic, sociological, and political. That is a given.

Simple example: Raleigh Durahm NC and Austin TX were named the fastest growing cities in the US. Why? Because other parts of the country- namely the Northeast and West Coast have become overpopulated and overpriced, thus people are looking for new areas to "fill up". Once they do so and that area's land resources are used up, they'll move to who knows? Kansas? Repeat. Its a measurable and visible cause and effect. The solution is simple yet potentially socially unacceptable: People need to stop producing as many children. Now take this same example and apply it to things like oil, electricity, wood, and steel. No difference.

But I'm getting off topic here. I've heard the whole Volcaninc erruption theory before. Rush Limbaugh talked about this a few years back, which is where I assume a lot of conservatives latched onto it. Yes, there is some truth to that and it would be very convenient to write off human caused pollution and blame it all on mother nature. I agree- Volcanoes create loads of carbon dioxide and particulate matter. I also disagree that humans create all of the pollution themselves. BUT humans are a contributing factor in generating carbon dioxide. That is fact and totally undeniable. Want proof? Your car's tailpipe. Secondly, cities like LA, NYC, Boston, and Las Vegas have extremely elevated levels of respritory related cancers and other ailments. Way more so than less populated areas. So even if by some miracle humans didn't make a bit of difference to the global warming pheonomina, it is undeniable that we are in fact creating health problems for ourselves, which being the self-centered and selfish people we tend to be would seem to be a bigger concern for most people and you'd think they'd want to do something about it.

As far as global warming, it is a theory I don't discount, but on the other hand science has only recently ( last 100 or so years) begun to understand things like jet streams and weather patterns. One thing that has been learned is that there is such a thing as long-term changes in weather that can affect entire regions. For example out here in Cali, we have an unusual weather pattern where all winter long we get regular rain. Then by April, it stops raining until October. But every 10 years or so we get an "El Nino" pattern that dumps shitloads of rain on us for months on end. If you didn't know about this pattern, you'd think Armageddon was coming. So if global warming is a real thing, I'd also like to see more studies in long-term weather patterns.

In regards to government spending on alternative energy. First of all, I'd like it if that term were changed to: New technology" or something really generic. This is another issue that people with idealogy either grossly oversupport or refuse to support because they've put it into a box. That's totally retarded. Its just technology, and that's all it is. I have a 55' Mercury. The thing looks like a giant jet engine. Look at anything made back then: Its all futuristic and often with scientific names. Science was seen as a miracle that would solve all our problems. The 50's was the biggest generator of new and advanced technology in American history. We had more science graduates than any other country. Now we've fallen way the hell behind, and now if there's any mention of things like solar, wind, hybrid, biodiesel, or whatnot, people assign it either to kooky tree-huggers or rich ecccentric snobs. It doesn't help that hippies bash people over the head with how much better they think they are with their ugly Prius cars and so on. But bottom line: Science is real, and science is what advances a country. That people think its stupid is beyond me.

Moving on, using government dollars to support advances in science is nothing new. The two largest government supported programs to date was the Manhatten project and the space program. The Manhatten project was bigger than the combined industrial output of the entire USA at the time and it almost bankrupted the country, which is why the US went on a Bonds drive. NASA was also huge.

Out of both of those programs we got: Modern electronic computers, nuclear power, advanced weapons, and a zillion other things. It created in turn huge new industries, especially Tech ( IBM, Apple, HP, Dell, NEC, AMPEX, and so on..) The "payback" was future economic growth and advances in personal wealth.

In regards to devoting money to alt energy, I'll use cars as an example. GM is working on the Volt. Ford has a electric car in the works, as does Chrysler, and virtually every other carmaker. The largest hurdle is the battery. They are heavy, really expensive, complicated, and questionable as far as reliability goes. But with some government backing, this would free companies up a bit and also help get more scientists working on these battery problems.

I look at it another way: If something as simple as microchips could spurn a huge tech industry to take root, then there is the same potential for something as simple as a electric car battery. I can see hundreds of companies getting in on developing batteries alone.

As far as spending, the budget right now is too large if you ask me. There needs to be some serious cutting. But I am not against government involvment in developing technology because they've done so all along and much of the computers, phones, and freeways you drive on are all a result of government programs.

 

I am actually middle ground on this.. I think we should explore new alternatives but don't bankrupt us to do it.

 

In my ecology class our professor was lecturing about global warming. He was not arguing whether humans were the cause of it or not, but merely presenting data for both sides of the argument. He showed us a chart that showed the "trends" prior to our data collection. One girl asked "But there were spikes in temperature before humans even existed, and then all throughout time." He responded with, "Yes, what are the implications of that, I would stake my entire savings, reputation and career on the fact that in my lifetime, we will witness a cold trend".


The thing that pissed me off is that Gore and all those other people going into panic mode about global warming is this: When we realize that it is a natural cycle and the earth starts to cool down, All those people are going to take credit for their efforts to stop it.

Actually a pretty smart move on their part, it is a Win/win. If it keeps warming they get to say "I told you so". And if it cools down naturally, they will say "WE STOPPED GLOBAL WARMING"

 

A couple questions, what do nuclear plants do with the water they use for cooling? I've heard something about "heavy water" what do you do with that stuff? What about the disposal of the spent rods as asked above? I read that there is no long term storage solutions yet, and mostly they store the spent rods in giant cooling pools? Where they can't be placed to close or else they could go critical. Anything to stop coal power plants is a plus, nuclear power from what I understand is a clean, relatively safe power, but I believe there are other options, take BC I would never want to see nuclear power here in BC. Not because of the whole NIMBY thing, but because we have so many other ways to generate power here, if only our politicians and damn BC hydro would allow it. I think nuclear should be used in conjunction with other alternatives like wind, solar, and wave technologies.

First question. the water gets recycled. in some cases cooled and then back into the source water it came from. usually cleaner than it came in

Second question. heavy water h30 is not used in light water electric power reactors. In the US there was only one electric power heavy water reactor up on the Hanford reservation years ago and has been decommissioned. Heavy water is too expensive to make to use in power reactors. If you need high power nuetron flux for breeding making materials for weapons its the reactor of choice. Other natural h3O is just to hard to find or produce to make it economical to use for generating electricity.

Question 3, there are long term solutions for fuel rod storage, there are just to many gutless politicians who dont know or will not acknowledge the truth. More to follow.

 

And on the issue of green house gases: http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/31266-mt-redoubt-erruption.html#post483974

 

I agree 100%. Developing wind, solar, wave, ect is only a good thing. It creates jobs, creates a more diverse power grid, and advances technology. The US is way behind in science, and should be the leading edge. I think global warming is a terrible word for what's happening, climate change would be a better term. There are other ways of measuring CO2 other then ice cores, they all point to the same conclusion. CO2 levels have never been higher then they are now. And it makes sense if you have half a brain and think about it. It has taken the earth millions possibly billions of years to create the worlds oil reserves. Now we are burning those reserves at an astonishing pace. Say it takes 1000 years to burn all fossil fuels on the planet, thats a fraction of the time that it took to capture that same CO2. The world is a closed biome, nothing comes, nothing goes. CO2 can be stored in 2 places the atmosphere and the ground. We are digging it up and burning it, releasing it into the atmosphere. Will mother nature "repair" the damage, I believe eventually yes it will. However like the fleas we are, she will have shaken us off long before that happens.

I think this debate like all others on this site are pointless, its more of a political thing then anything else, and for the most part no-one is going to change their opinion. Everyone thinks their right and no one believes anything anyone else says. I mean people believed the world was flat for a long time, maybe some people still do?

 

Air quality in Los Angeles is actually better now that it was and the trend inidcates that it's getting better. The number of days where ozone levels exceeded the health standard levels in 1999 was half of what it was in 1976.
http://www.laalmanac.com/environment/ev02.htm


Here's an interesting article that was just posted on New Scientist that indicates that cities actually produce less climate harm than rural areas:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...mate-less.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

 

Probably because in 1976, the majority of the cars did not have catalytic converters ( required on new cars past 1974) thus naturally the air quality would be a lot worse.

 

They did have them in 1988.

 

Your article quotes the comparison date as starting in 1976 and ending 1999. Not sure what 1988 has to do with it.

Secondly, I moved from a rural part of TN to Norcal. Not sure where anyone gets that air quality is worse in rural areas, but compared to back home, the air quality where I now live SUCKS and I am constantly hacking away. I also have friends in LA. Every time I go, there is a HUGE ugly cloud of smog hanging over the whole area. It is not what I would call remotely clean nor would I want to live there long-term.

I read a story awhile back that mentioned that living in NYC was like the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigs every day just from the pollution.

 

The point is even though we may not have had a lot of catalytic converters in 1976 (which was something you made a point out of), we did by 1988. There's still been a dramatic improvement in air quality even since a time when catalytic converters became commonplace.

The second article wasn't making the claim that the air quality is better in a city vs rural areas. It was stating that per capita, people who live in the city create less impact on the environment than those who live in rural areas. City dwellers emit less greenhouse gases per person than rural residents. Your point about air quality is a different problem as it is the concentration of emissions in one small area as opposed to a rural area that is more spread out. For example, in Los Angeles, the city is surrounded by mountains which doesn't allow the emissions to easily escape, especially when it's hot out (keeps the pollutants trapped in the basin area).

 

Catalytic converters and general car emissions have changed and improved a lot since 1988. There were still cars and trucks being made with Carburetors. Emission requirements get changed often for car makers. For example, my truck is the first year of OBD1-II standards, and the converter is completely different than the 1995 version. So yes, catalytic converters have been around for a long time, but a converter made in 1976 versus 1988 is a whole different ball of wax. My point being that just because there was catalytic converters in 1988, they along with emission equipment of that period doesn't match that of today's cars.

Secondly, people tend to keep cars for 10-12 years. Assuming that the last of the pre-1974 cars made it to 1986 before pooping out, you still had them right up to 1986. A ton of the 1975-early 80's vehicles would still be on the road, and trust me- as someone who has worked on cars from that era, the emission equipment back then was barely what I'd call emission equipment. Mostly shitloads of vaccum hoses re-routing un-burnt carburetor gasses back into the carb and subsequently the converter, which burnt up some, but not all of it.

We are in agreement here: Pollution has come down. But that's because automotive and industrial pollution prevention technology has improved drastically.

 

and I can also agree that rural folks create more pollutants per capita than city folks: I was one of them, and for example, my parent's yard is 14 acres. It requires a tractor to mow and they will go through 50-60 gallons of diesel a summer to keep it mowed. They also have a burn pile. But where I live now in the house I rent, it has a tiny yard and I can get by with a gallon of gas for a whole year in the little push mower I use.No burn pile: they're illegal. So I can see how that would be possible.

 

believe me I am not trying to start another fight with you. the lawn mowing thing doesn't work out. Assuming a lot is 1/4 acre at best at 1 gallon per summer that comes out to 56 gallons of gas per somer for houses siting on 14 acres of land. Diesel emissions is a heavy emission than gas. Diesel emissions tends to fall back to the earth more than gas emissions do. I do have a 1/4 acre lot and I use more like 2-3 gallons of gas during the summer. I use a whole mower tank of gas everytime I cut and I am practically jogging.