Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[wingnut771]

I nearly had an aneurysm when they said that no heat is generated when they compress air because they do it "slowly".

Just in general, mechanical storage is garbage for energy storage. Dams only work because they are so big that inefficiency doesn't matter. You don't get that with a bunch of tanks underground
Losses are very high . Do you see the mountains in the background of the video? It would be much cheaper just to pump the water up into a dam.

The only grid level storage I have seen that would actually be viable are iron flow batteries.

Clearly you didn't watch the video.

 

[1337]

Whenever I see a windmill in a video green washing some new energy tech... ya no

 

[1337]

We can just send all the nuclear waste to the East Rand

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

?

You can store the waste in a place where nobody will ever (probably) go, no?
The waste is minimal (in terms of volume) compared to coal

Watch that documentary I posted...look at the timelines.

We as humans cannot even comprehend 250 000 years, but have to store something safely for that duration?

Coal "waste" has an immediate visible impact, measurable in small time spans of a few years. You put 1000's of tons of nuclear waste somewhere...and hope that the storage site and containers and administrative records are maintained for thousands of years so that someone does not just dig it up by accident one day?

I know it sounds silly, but it is something to contemplate is it not?

 

[porchrat]

Do you consider Oxygen and Nitrogen to be "greenhouse gasses"?
Think carefully before you answer.

Do you consider Sodium and Chlorine to be salts?
Think carefully before you answer.

 

[konfab]

We all know that and agree...not sure why you keep harping on it?

You might, but we have people here who think nuclear waste is a significant reason as to why it shouldn't be adopted, like C4Cat.

It is? Not quite....

It absolutely is a solved engineering problem. We know what parts of nuclear waste are very dangerous (spent reactor fuel), and we know stuff that isn't so dangerous (PPE). We know how to handle the very dangerous stuff to make it as safe as you need it to be. We know how the waste is going to behave chemically as it decays into something less dangerous. We know exactly how far away you need to be from the waste to be safe from it. We know how to process the waste to make sure it cannot contaminate the designated area.

 

[Lupus]

You are correct, but that is not quite the point. We were not discussing the efficiency of nuclear energy.

The USA alone produces 2 000 metric tons of the stuff per year and is currently sitting on 85 000 metric tons of it stockpiled.

And this stuff must be safely stored for thousands of years and that is extremely difficult, due to the human factor.

But I still believe it is the only really viable clean way forward for maintain the required levels of energy required.

Well firstly 70 years of nuclear power and it's only 85 000 tons, also it does need to be looked after and it is, difference is it does actually decay.

End of wind power waste? Vestas unveils blade recycling technology

Wind turbine maker Vestas (VWS.CO) unveiled new technology on Monday which it says enables wind turbine blades to be fully recycled, avoiding the dumping of old blades.

www.reuters.com

Wind turbines are sitting at 43 million tons of waste by 2050 so that would be it's 70 years, all the nuclear waste is at 393 000 tons now and that only fills a football pitch.
Go take a look at the nasties that solar panels create, or lithium mining, or or. In fact lithium mining produces uranium waste, but once again the difference is it decays, arsenic, cadmium, lead, all damage the environment and can keep doing it for millenia as it doesn't decay

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

It absolutely is a solved engineering problem. We know what parts of nuclear waste are very dangerous (spent reactor fuel), and we know stuff that isn't so dangerous (PPE). We know how to handle the very dangerous stuff to make it as safe as you need it to be. We know how the waste is going to behave chemically as it decays into something less dangerous. We know exactly how far away you need to be from the waste to be safe from it. We know how to process the waste to make sure it cannot contaminate the designated area.

So you're confident of all of this over a 250 000 year timespan?

 

[Lupus]

So you're confident of all of this over a 250 000 year timespan?

All our power sources let off toxic waste, some of it will be toxic in a million years time as they don't decay.

 

[1337]

Watch that documentary I posted...look at the timelines.

Pls repost I can't view your profile and I can't find the doc

I know it sounds silly, but it is something to contemplate is it not?

It absolutely is, and people have, successfully. Thankfully people waaaaay smarter than I.

Though I fully see your point, and would like to read further...

 

[Temujin]

We can just send all the nuclear waste to the East Rand

I vote to convert the nkandla fire pool

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

All our power sources let off toxic waste, some of it will be toxic in a million years time as they don't decay.

Such as?

 

[porchrat]

Look don't get me wrong. The tax-based "answers" currently being employed to address climate change are largely ineffectual cash-grabs by governments across the planet.

Even the ANC government implements green taxes while burning coal with seemingly no intention of ever stopping. It's laughable.

Also the predictions that many climate scientist make, or probably more accurately that scientific journalists attribute to scientists to sell a headline, are not helping either. If even a fraction of the doom predictions circulating in media about climate change in the 90s were true the Earth would be a smouldering ruin by now.

That doesn't mean climate change isn't very real and that humanity isn't very responsible for it. I think the 2 separate issues of shortcomings in reporting/handling/politicising of the issue, and the issue itself, are often conflated.

 

[konfab]

Clearly you didn't watch the video.

My brother in Christ....You are absolutely wrong.

This is the ideal gas equation:

It is PV=nRT.

There is no mention of the rate of change anywhere in the equation (or even in its non-ideal cousin, the Van Der Waals equation).

Would the statement in the video be correct, the temperature of a gas would be proportional to the rate of change of the volume (because they state they are filling it slowly, hence the volume decreases slowly).
It would look something like this:
P(dV/dt) =nRT.

But doesn't look like that. If you half the volume you will double the temperature. Doesn't matter how long it takes to do it.

 

[wingnut771]

Well firstly 70 years of nuclear power and it's only 85 000 tons, also it does need to be looked after and it is, difference is it does actually decay.

End of wind power waste? Vestas unveils blade recycling technology

Wind turbine maker Vestas (VWS.CO) unveiled new technology on Monday which it says enables wind turbine blades to be fully recycled, avoiding the dumping of old blades.

www.reuters.com

Wind turbines are sitting at 43 million tons of waste by 2050 so that would be it's 70 years, all the nuclear waste is at 393 000 tons now and that only fills a football pitch.
Go take a look at the nasties that solar panels create, or lithium mining, or or. In fact lithium mining produces uranium waste, but once again the difference is it decays, arsenic, cadmium, lead, all damage the environment and can keep doing it for millenia as it doesn't decay

Are the Americans looking after their waste?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Pls repost I can't view your profile and I can't find the doc

It absolutely is, and people have, successfully. Thankfully people waaaaay smarter than I.

Though I fully see your point, and would like to read further...

Not quite as simple:

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

 

[konfab]

So you're confident of all of this over a 250 000 year timespan?

Yes.

Chemistry and geology are pretty well understood at this point.

 

[1337]

Not quite as simple:

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

Thanks!

 

[1337]

Yes.

Chemistry and geology are pretty well understood at this point.

wym. we've only been on this rock for 2000 and some years?!?!

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Pls repost I can't view your profile and I can't find the doc

It absolutely is, and people have, successfully. Thankfully people waaaaay smarter than I.

Though I fully see your point, and would like to read further...

Into Eternity: A Film for the Future (2010) - IMDb

Into Eternity: A Film for the Future: Directed by Michael Madsen. With Carl Reinhold Bråkenhjelm, Mikael Jensen, Berit Lundqvist, Michael Madsen. A documentary on the safety of nuclear storage.

www.imdb.com

The ONLY thing this doc stresses and myself as well, is the incredible timespan that has to be kept in mind.

But that doc is "old" and your video contains new info.

TIL...tx!