Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bluerules009

Green Energy causing global warming

Recommended Posts

Along with the huge environmental impacts of these technologies.

They are adding to global warming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.

But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.

Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom.

However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

Building modern nuclear plants is still by far the best answer to curb global warming.  Will governements and environmentalists wake up in time?

Good thing you know who isn’t here to chastise you about fallout babies. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.

But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.

So the entire electrical industry (not just green energy but byproducts of coal/nuclear/etc to electricity) creates 6.73 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent SF6 in the EU every year.  The EU produced 4483.1 actual megatonnes of CO2 that same year.

So all the SF6 is 1/1000th of a percent as big a warmer as CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Along with the huge environmental impacts of these technologies.

They are adding to global warming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.

But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.

Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom.

However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Does this post mean you accept that human actions are causing warming at a rate that exceeds the rate associated with natural fluctuations? I didn’t think you did. Not looking to argue. Genuinely curious. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Nuclear power is great ,

nobody can say if they want that uncomfortable  radioactive waste in their home state or neighborhood.

Nevada is fighting Yucca Mountain repository (100 miles from a city of 2+ million)

It is as if the radioactive waste issue does not exist.

Shoot it out  into space?

 

" Nuclear fuel is used to produce electricity for about five years. Then, it's removed and safely stored until a permanent disposal site becomes available. Nuclear plants also produce low-level radioactive waste which is safely contained, stored and then routinely disposed of at various sites around the country. "

" Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. ... Many industries produce hazardous and toxic waste. All toxic waste need to be dealt with safely, not just radioactive waste. The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. "

" Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. "

cerified_Subarus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lester_in_reno said:

OK, Nuclear power is great ,

nobody can say if they want that uncomfortable  radioactive waste in their home state or neighborhood.

Nevada is fighting Yucca Mountain repository (100 miles from a city of 2+ million)

It is as if the radioactive waste issue does not exist.

Shoot it out  into space?

 

" Nuclear fuel is used to produce electricity for about five years. Then, it's removed and safely stored until a permanent disposal site becomes available. Nuclear plants also produce low-level radioactive waste which is safely contained, stored and then routinely disposed of at various sites around the country. "

" Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. ... Many industries produce hazardous and toxic waste. All toxic waste need to be dealt with safely, not just radioactive waste. The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. "

" Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. "

We've tried talking to you about waste storage plenty of times but you always seem to plug your ears and yell "10,000 years! 10,000 years!" over and over again as if that means anything. You refuse to educate yourself on what radiation is or what it takes to store radioactive waste.

We've talked about dumping it into the ocean. There is a lot of uproar about Japan dumping its radioactive waste from Fukushima in the ocean, but nobody seems to understand what it actually means.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/amp/

Quote

The funny thing is that putting this water in the ocean is actually the best way to handle it. And that’s because it’s contaminated mainly with tritium, the least radioactive, and least harmful, of all radioactive elements. All of the other radioactive elements have been removed from the water by chemical treatment down to low levels and the amount of other elements in the water is relatively small and wouldn’t pose a hazard diluted to this degree....

...Tritium is the mildly radioactive isotope of hydrogen that has two neutrons and one proton, with radioactivity so low that no environmental or human problems have ever come from it, even though it is a common radioactive element in the environment. Tritium is formed naturally by atmospheric processes as well as in nuclear weapons testing and in nuclear power plants.

Let’s say that again – no harm has ever come to humans or the environment from tritium, no matter what the concentration or the dose....

....Tritium emits an incredibly weak beta particle that is easily stopped by our dead skin layer. It only goes a quarter inch in air. Even ingestion of tritium doesn’t do anything....

....It’s also difficult for the extremely low-energy beta from tritium to get through the water, cell walls and other materials in between the radionuclide and any critical molecule like DNA. The energy in the slow-moving beta from tritium mostly gets dispersed within the electron clouds of other molecules through inelastic collisions and the Bremsstrahlung effect. This turns the kinetic energy of the beta emission into electromagnetic non-ionizing energy.

In the end, it is impossible to get a significant radiation dose from tritium, unlike any other radionuclide. It exits the body and is diluted too quickly.

Even more important, there’s more tritium in the atmosphere from natural processes and that left over from old bomb testing, than ever has been, or will be, released from commercial reactors. Cosmic rays produce four million curies worth of tritium every year (150,000,000,000,000,000 Bq) in the upper atmosphere, much of which rains out into surface waters that we end up drinking....

 

You mentioned Nevada being opposed to Yucca Mountain. And yet nobody seems to have a good reason as to why it is not a good option. But pretty much all the evidence out there shows that it is as good of an option that there could be.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w1/docs/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf

Quote

The scientists and regulators at the Academy and the implementing agencies sought to 
achieve extraordinarily high assurances that the health and safety of both present and future 
generations would be protected. They responded to the unprecedented challenges of the 
repository by requiring levels of protection and measures that exceed any known precedent. 
For example, EPA set the limit for radiation exposures to individuals in future populations 
over the next 10,000 years to 15 millirems per year. EPA’s August 2005 proposal adds a 
separate requirement that radiation exposures be shown to be less than 350 millirems per 
year over the next 1 million years. Although scientists conservatively assume that even small 
amounts of radiation carry some risk of health effects, both limits are quite small in 
comparison to levels at which health effects are know to occur. Such effects have not been 
observed below 1000 millirems and exposures do not become fatal until levels approach 200,000 millirems (for acute, or all-at-once, exposures as opposed to exposures spread out 
over a year). 
While regulators typically set such limits far below levels known to cause health effects, in 
the case of the Yucca Mountain standard, EPA has gone farther than most other countries. 
In the United States, public radiation limits for low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities 
and uranium fuel cycle facilities are set at 25 millirems per year. Internationally, Germany 
sets a repository limit at 30 millirems per year and France at 25 millirems per year while 
Spain, Switzerland, and the Nordic countries set the lowest limits at 10 millirems per year.
In reality though, the EPA standard is even tougher than the low end of the international 
spectrum because of a groundwater standard that the EPA included in addition to the 15 
millirem per year individual protection standard. This will require DOE to show radiation 
exposures to future individuals are far below the 15 millirem per year limit. NRC will then 
incorporate these limits in its rigorous licensing regulations for Yucca Mountain. 
The specific radiation limits set are only one element of the regulations that exemplify their 
stringency. The Academy’s recommendations have defined requirements for a “Reasonably 
Maximally Exposed Individual” to test compliance with the radiation protection limits. 
In DOE’s Yucca Mountain TSPA, the Department must assume that this individual: 
• lives at a point near Yucca Mountain directly above the highest concentration of 
radionuclides flowing from beneath Yucca Mountain; 
• lives a lifestyle consistent with that currently observed in this region (which is highly 
dependent on groundwater for drinking, crop irrigation, bathing, etc.), and drinks 
two liters of the contaminated groundwater every day; 
• has no knowledge of the nearby repository or ability to treat his water supply to 
remove radioactive contaminants; and 
• has no access to any advance in technology or knowledge that could render him less 
susceptible or even impervious to the risks of Yucca Mountain. 
In carrying out its role, as prescribed by EPA, NRC adds additional layers of protection by 
specifying detailed requirements for every aspect of DOE’s TSPA and by requiring that 
DOE demonstrate that it meets the radiation protection limits with multiple barriers.

To give some perspective, you would receive a higher dose just from cosmic radiation by living in Colorado for a year than you would by living next to Yucca Mountain for a year. I received a higher dose of radiation on my flight to Boston a few weeks ago than I received since the beginning of the year working in a nuclear plant everyday. Just because there is long lasting radiation doesn't mean it is dangerous. It is like wanting to ban candles because they utilize a flame and fire kills people.

We have solutions available to handle the radioactive waste but people like you stop any progress from happening because you insist on maintaining your ignorance. 

"BYU is like a 4-year-long church dance with 20,000 chaperones all waiting for you to forget to shave one morning so they can throw you out." -GeoAg

l.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Does this post mean you accept that human actions are causing warming at a rate that exceeds the rate associated with natural fluctuations? I didn’t think you did. Not looking to argue. Genuinely curious. 

It hasn't been proven to any extent at all.   I have stated many times, i think it is probable that humans have some effect.    

There is definitely global warming but that is something that has happened many many times over history.   Not to mention we are in a period where the earth normally warms before we have another ice age which is do anytime.

 

Whether it is "man caused", or not is really an idiot issue.   

The issues that we should discuss are.....

1) What are the future effects?  Not all of them are bad by the way.

2) Is it cost effective to mitigate them with some policies?

3)  Can we gain enough knowledge soon enough to actually know the answers to questions 1 and 2?   Because we don't have that knowledge now, not even close.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lester_in_reno said:

OK, Nuclear power is great ,

nobody can say if they want that uncomfortable  radioactive waste in their home state or neighborhood.

Nevada is fighting Yucca Mountain repository (100 miles from a city of 2+ million)

It is as if the radioactive waste issue does not exist.

Shoot it out  into space?

 

" Nuclear fuel is used to produce electricity for about five years. Then, it's removed and safely stored until a permanent disposal site becomes available. Nuclear plants also produce low-level radioactive waste which is safely contained, stored and then routinely disposed of at various sites around the country. "

" Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. ... Many industries produce hazardous and toxic waste. All toxic waste need to be dealt with safely, not just radioactive waste. The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. "

" Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. "

 

Nevada is stupid for fighting the repository.

It is stupid to have repository's to begin with it all should be stored on site.  Then you have no transportation issues.

Waste isn't that dangerous.  Shielding and distance make it totally safe.

 

Compared to the environmental disaster that is Wind power and Solar power, there is no question that nuclear power is the answer.    

 

Nuclear power when used as designed has almost zero environmental effect.

Solar and wind power are putting animals on the brink of extinction, mining dangerous substances that pollute waterways and land forever.   Not 10,000 years or 100,000 years but forever.   They change weather patterns, including rainfall.    So when used as designed they are an environmental disaster.

It is a pretty easy decision if you aren't an emotionaly crippled thinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Naggsty Butler said:

We've tried talking to you about waste storage plenty of times but you always seem to plug your ears and yell "10,000 years! 10,000 years!" over and over again as if that means anything. You refuse to educate yourself on what radiation is or what it takes to store radioactive waste.

We've talked about dumping it into the ocean. There is a lot of uproar about Japan dumping its radioactive waste from Fukushima in the ocean, but nobody seems to understand what it actually means.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/amp/

 

You mentioned Nevada being opposed to Yucca Mountain. And yet nobody seems to have a good reason as to why it is not a good option. But pretty much all the evidence out there shows that it is as good of an option that there could be.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w1/docs/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf

To give some perspective, you would receive a higher dose just from cosmic radiation by living in Colorado for a year than you would by living next to Yucca Mountain for a year. I received a higher dose of radiation on my flight to Boston a few weeks ago than I received since the beginning of the year working in a nuclear plant everyday. Just because there is long lasting radiation doesn't mean it is dangerous. It is like wanting to ban candles because they utilize a flame and fire kills people.

We have solutions available to handle the radioactive waste but people like you stop any progress from happening because you insist on maintaining your ignorance. 

1 hour ago, Naggsty Butler said:

We've tried talking to you about waste storage plenty of times but you always seem to plug your ears and yell "10,000 years! 10,000 years!" over and over again as if that means anything. You refuse to educate yourself on what radiation is or what it takes to store radioactive waste.

We've talked about dumping it into the ocean. There is a lot of uproar about Japan dumping its radioactive waste from Fukushima in the ocean, but nobody seems to understand what it actually means.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/amp/

 

You mentioned Nevada being opposed to Yucca Mountain. And yet nobody seems to have a good reason as to why it is not a good option. But pretty much all the evidence out there shows that it is as good of an option that there could be.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/avery-w1/docs/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf

To give some perspective, you would receive a higher dose just from cosmic radiation by living in Colorado for a year than you would by living next to Yucca Mountain for a year. I received a higher dose of radiation on my flight to Boston a few weeks ago than I received since the beginning of the year working in a nuclear plant everyday. Just because there is long lasting radiation doesn't mean it is dangerous. It is like wanting to ban candles because they utilize a flame and fire kills people.

We have solutions available to handle the radioactive waste but people like you stop any progress from happening because you insist on maintaining your ignorance. 

Boom.  Fantastic post.  This is written in a way even @Lester_in_reno can understand 

Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

Or tell you about the hundreds of thousands of deaths Chernobyl caused despite estimates putting it closer to 4,000.

Or the fact the Soviets didn't give a Rat's ass about good maintenance practices, safety, plant workers, or people living in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Boom.  Fantastic post.  This is written in a way even Hannibal @Lester_in_reno can understand 

Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate

Fify 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviet Union was the poster child for incompetency. Everything they did was half ass. They couldn't be bothered with the details. It's a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Uncle Juan said:

The Soviet Union was the poster child for incompetency. Everything they did was half ass. They couldn't be bothered with the details. It's a miracle they lasted as long as they did.

1. Chernobyl was completely preventable. The human error during the test is a case study for incompetence. 

2. Not having a containment dome around the reactor simply confirms point number 1. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Along with the huge environmental impacts of these technologies.

They are adding to global warming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.

But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.

Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom.

However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).

YOU could be correct.

However, this we know as FACT. Green Energy light bulbs make the president look orange. :USFlag:

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lester_in_reno said:

OK, Nuclear power is great ,

nobody can say if they want that uncomfortable  radioactive waste in their home state or neighborhood.

Nevada is fighting Yucca Mountain repository (100 miles from a city of 2+ million)

It is as if the radioactive waste issue does not exist.

Shoot it out  into space?

 

" Nuclear fuel is used to produce electricity for about five years. Then, it's removed and safely stored until a permanent disposal site becomes available. Nuclear plants also produce low-level radioactive waste which is safely contained, stored and then routinely disposed of at various sites around the country. "

" Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. ... Many industries produce hazardous and toxic waste. All toxic waste need to be dealt with safely, not just radioactive waste. The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. "

" Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. "

Ok, but what about breeder reactions?

I mean, yes, nuclear waste is scary, but is it really less scary than the what, 100 million people who die of respiratory illness due to fossil fuel power generation? Nuclear power isn't a magic box, but it has less downsides than every other power source, including "greener" energy.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...