Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, kept funding deniers
DrCaleb @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:48 am
andyt andyt:
Leaves nuclear. Doubt if any plants could be built in BC. The Japanese experience didn't exactly generate (sorry) confidence in nuclear. Seems to me the disposal problem in Canada isn't much of a problem - we have lots of geologically stable areas far from population.
It's too bad, because the experience Japan has had left me more confident in Nuclear. Especially in a relatively tectonically stable place like BC. (just not Vancouver!)
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:23 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
andyt andyt:
Sorry, missed that bit. Doubt anybody wants to build nuclear or hydro plants just for co2 reduction, and the plants already built already likely have their output allocated.
Not necessarily. For example, Ontario has a consistent problem with over-generation and believe me, it ain't just the 3000MW+ of wind power that's doing it.
On top of that, Ontario needs new industry to replace the ones that have bailed out for "greener pastures".
Here's the thing, The McGuinty govt actually increased the generating capacity of Niagara Falls but, it's never been used. Darlington has at least one reactor that could be refurbished and brought back on-line. In fact it was supposed to be until McGuinty decided that windmills and smart meters in Ontario were going to save the planet.
There is non-fossil fuel generating capacity all over the world that can generate the kind of base load generation that something like a CO2 "recycling" facility would need to be effective.
The problem with nuclear power (aside from enormous capital costs and the fact that its waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years and all we can do is bury it) is that it can't be switched on and off when needed. Nuclear plants are actually responsible for most of the surplus energy that Ontario gives away to other jurisdictions or even pays them to take.
Exactly, so instead of pissing the excess away, use it to create industry and jobs for fuck sakes.
And the thing is, our Candu reactors give us more flexibility in how we deal with "spent" fuel than with a standard nuclear reactor.
andyt @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:28 am
The other problem with the scheme is that to be effective it would have to be done on a huge scale. Is it really worth paying for that rather than just producing less carbon in the first place. Reducing co2 would have the effect of adding a huge carbon tax on ghg emitters, except the emitters would not pay, but all of society. Not a smart idea. Ghg emitters would have no incentive to reduce, while the burden is placed on society in general. But that's been the capitalist scheme as far as the environment goes from day one.
Zipperfish @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:26 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Ya know, I just had a thought. The technology to break down CO2 into it's baser elements is readily available. We can already "capture" carbon, so instead of sequestering it, why not build facilities somewhere near non-fossil fuel power sources and use the "clean" energy to break down the CO2 that's been captured?
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
There's already machines that do that. They're called plants.
andyt @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:31 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Ya know, I just had a thought. The technology to break down CO2 into it's baser elements is readily available. We can already "capture" carbon, so instead of sequestering it, why not build facilities somewhere near non-fossil fuel power sources and use the "clean" energy to break down the CO2 that's been captured?
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
There's already machines that do that. They're called plants.
When I pointed that out, I got this response:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
andyt andyt:
And where will the energy to drive that process come from, since it would essentially be the reverse of burning a carbon fuel in the first place? But then that's what we have plants for. As long as they don't, you know, die and decay.
However, since you laid out the argument, you must be firmly against recycling.
I don't know what it means.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:33 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Ya know, I just had a thought. The technology to break down CO2 into it's baser elements is readily available. We can already "capture" carbon, so instead of sequestering it, why not build facilities somewhere near non-fossil fuel power sources and use the "clean" energy to break down the CO2 that's been captured?
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
There's already machines that do that. They're called plants.
Trees are good at this, too. Too bad trees were not allowed for sequestering carbon dioxide in the Kyoto II treaty or the thing may have passed.
But, of course, it wasn't about sequestering carbon, it was about creating a cap and trade system that would have enriched the bankers and the financial markets who would finance carbon offsets and trade in them. No one really gave a shit about carbon dioxide.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:35 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Ya know, I just had a thought. The technology to break down CO2 into it's baser elements is readily available. We can already "capture" carbon, so instead of sequestering it, why not build facilities somewhere near non-fossil fuel power sources and use the "clean" energy to break down the CO2 that's been captured?
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
There's already machines that do that. They're called plants.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:37 am
andyt andyt:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Ya know, I just had a thought. The technology to break down CO2 into it's baser elements is readily available. We can already "capture" carbon, so instead of sequestering it, why not build facilities somewhere near non-fossil fuel power sources and use the "clean" energy to break down the CO2 that's been captured?
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
I put clean in quotations because while not generating CO2, nuclear and hydroelectric do come with their own environmental issues.
There's already machines that do that. They're called plants.
When I pointed that out, I got this response:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
andyt andyt:
And where will the energy to drive that process come from, since it would essentially be the reverse of burning a carbon fuel in the first place? But then that's what we have plants for. As long as they don't, you know, die and decay.
However, since you laid out the argument, you must be firmly against recycling.
I don't know what it means.
BeaverFever @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:40 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Exactly, so instead of pissing the excess away, use it to create industry and jobs for fuck sakes.
What does that mean exactly?
$1:
And the thing is, our Candu reactors give us more flexibility in how we deal with "spent" fuel than with a standard nuclear reactor.
Perhaps, but nuclear waste is more than just spent fuel, its also everyday items used in the facility like rubber boots and hoses and the like that become radioactive. Also Candu seems to be a bit of money pit for other reasons.
andyt andyt:
Seems to me the disposal problem in Canada isn't much of a problem - we have lots of geologically stable areas far from population.
After the Japan incident, I read an article where a geologist said, when you need to store radioactive waste for 400,000 years, there's no place on earth that can be called "geologically stable" over that timeline.
Globe did a good feature story on the topic here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e23178848/
Lemmy @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:59 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
After the Japan incident, I read an article where a geologist said, when you need to store radioactive waste for 400,000 years, there's no place on earth that can be called "geologically stable" over that timeline.
Why don't we just send the shit to the moon (or Mars)? That'd be far enough away for safety while close enough that we could go and get it if we ever needed to (like, if we learned how to re-charge it, etc.)?
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:04 am
Because........
DrCaleb @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:07 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
That'd be far enough away for safety while close enough that we could go and get it if we ever needed to (like, if we learned how to re-charge it, etc.)?
It costs $12,000 per ounce to send things to orbit, double that to the moon.
And the term you are looking for is 'Fast Breeder' Reactor, which can reprocess nuclear 'waste' back in to usable isotopes. France and Japan both used to do this, which is why they don't have problems storing the waste.
Lemmy @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:46 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
It costs $12,000 per ounce to send things to orbit, double that to the moon.
And the term you are looking for is 'Fast Breeder' Reactor, which can reprocess nuclear 'waste' back in to usable isotopes. France and Japan both used to do this, which is why they don't have problems storing the waste.
Hey now! I'm the one who crushes the starry-eyed dreaming with the realities of economics.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:06 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
And the term you are looking for is 'Fast Breeder' Reactor, which can reprocess nuclear 'waste' back in to usable isotopes. France and Japan both used to do this, which is why they don't have problems storing the waste.
Fukushima.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:11 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Lemmy Lemmy:
That'd be far enough away for safety while close enough that we could go and get it if we ever needed to (like, if we learned how to re-charge it, etc.)?
It costs $12,000 per ounce to send things to orbit, double that to the moon.
And the term you are looking for is 'Fast Breeder' Reactor, which can reprocess nuclear 'waste' back in to usable isotopes. France and Japan both used to do this, which is why they don't have problems storing the waste.
drilling a really deep hole and disposing of the waste in the Moho makes a hell of a lot more sense than packing highly radioactive waste on top of highly explosive fuel and praying to whomever it doesn't blow up before leaving the atmosphere. Rockets don't go boom all of the time, but all it takes is once.