Global Warming?

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

I love solar, but without massive global adoption and/or orbital solar, it is only useful <50% of the time.

Or a good way to store it. Nevada could easily generate in one day all the power the US needs, with much of the state to spare, but there's no efficient way to store it. You would also have to get permission from the NIMBYs to build so much infrastructure.

I think nuclear is really the way to go (at least until something truly spectacular comes along). Nuclear has had an unjustly bad rap that only got worse thanks to a perfect storm in Japan. Might not be the best option on a seismically hyperactive island, but in other places (and with vigilant maintenance) it is a slam dunk.

Nuclear has just too many negative images, and it's not just Fukashima. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are right up there. And then there's the near misses, like the continual problems Davis Besse has.

[Phaethon]

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to Ollie for calling him out. It was not in the best interest of the forum, and it was (as I just found out) against the general forum rules.

While I don't claim this to be a defense, other forums I visit don't have this rule, and I didn't realize this one did. Still, ignorance is not a defense.

My apologies.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Phaethon

Nuclear has just too many negative images, and it's not just Fukashima. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are right up there. And then there's the near misses, like the continual problems Davis Besse has.

Yes, it has negative images, but a modern reactor in a suitable location would be a winner. Three Mile Island could be mitigated if not completely avoided with better maintenance and better safeguards built into the design. Chernobyl IIRC is all on bad maintenance. And I'm sure reactor design has improved (perhaps dramatically) since those guys were built.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

Yes, it has negative images, but a modern reactor in a suitable location would be a winner. Three Mile Island could be mitigated if not completely avoided with better maintenance and better safeguards built into the design. Chernobyl IIRC is all on bad maintenance. And I'm sure reactor design has improved (perhaps dramatically) since those guys were built.

While mostly true, the politics has become untenable in at least the near term. Germany has even gone so far as to say CO2 is less dangerous than nuclear and divest. Maybe in 30 years (barring another accident) things will be more palatable.

And then you have to figure out what to do with the waste materials. Yucca mountain will never be completed, so what do you do with it? The major benefit of thorium, if I remember correctly, is that there's very little waste and the half-life is very short.

[Ranior]

I agree that nuclear power plants offer up a solution for the short term that we would be wise to take up. We've had about 100 nuclear reactors operating in the United States for about 40 years without any significant problems. (Three Mile Island I suppose, although that hardly caused any death or environmental issues). Coal mining costs thousands of lives per year (and uranium mining costs a few, but significantly less especially since you need much less uranium).

And while nuclear waste is a big issue, I don't see why we couldn't complete Yucca Mountain if we just put our minds to it. Ship all the waste their and seal it up.

Then in the meantime over the next few decades we can continue to improve solar effeicency until hopefully it becomes cost competitve with coal at which point there will be no good reason to not switch over. I'm all for continuing to figure out biomass generators as well, as long as we're not using food. (As we've already gone through, using food for fuel is stupid, we're going to have a global food crisis soon enough as is.)

Finally, we all need to learn to be more efficient with how we use energy anyhow. I also think the US and the other economic world leaders need to set forth serious proposals about population growth. The numbers are pretty frightening, and it won't really matter what we do with energy if we have to continue to provide adequate energy for the needs of billions more people.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Ranior

And while nuclear waste is a big issue, I don't see why we couldn't complete Yucca Mountain if we just put our minds to it. Ship all the waste their and seal it up.

I think that is more about "Not in my backyard" than about technology.

[Phaethon]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

I think that is more about "Not in my backyard" than about technology.

The entire nuclear industry suffers from NIMBYism. I wonder if thorium would be an exception, but it would be imperative for that to be addressed early - very early.

Then again, NIMBYism doesn't constrain itself to nuclear. It's also seen around wind turbines and power lines (those are the first that come to mind, but I'm sure there are more).

[chas]

Amazingly enough, reports from scientists are now coming in that the ozone layer is actually repairing itself! Efforts for the environment have actually made a difference! Glory be!!!

Now if we could just clean up the oceans...

[dok]

Yeah, the Ozone layer is one of the great (only?) success story of international environmentalism. The whole world got together and agreed to use different propellant and refrigeration fluids, and the problem has basically gone away.