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

[konfab]

Nuclear power is at least twice as expensive as Geothermal, so it's not actually more efficient.

For low enthalpy systems like what you would need in South Africa?

Basic thermodynamics doesn't work in your favour. You always get more usable energy out a system the larger the thermal gradient across it. Nuclear reactors have huge thermal gradients

 

[tetrasect]

The response doesn't match the alleged threat.

Lets say that if the government told you a hurricane was coming to your city and that it would destroy everything because your city is built under sea level and you rely in levies to keep the water out. Now instead of building higher levies which isn't a perfect solution, but will work in mitigating the issue, the government says that everyone should instead collect rainwater because stormwater runoff is a major problem, and that rich people should pay for the rainwater tanks of black people because climate injustice is racial injustice.

it is hard to take the threat seriously when the response is retarded.

Hanlon's razor​

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[konfab]

Hanlon's razor​

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

We are talking about "experts" who should know better.

 

[tetrasect]

For low enthalpy systems like what you would need in South Africa?

Basic thermodynamics doesn't work in your favour. You always get more usable energy out a system the larger the thermal gradient across it. Nuclear reactors have huge thermal gradients

Yeah but it's not more cost efficient, which is the only efficiency that counts.

HPLC grade acetone is a more efficient solvent than CP Grade Acetone for use in making rosemary leaf extract.

However, purifying acetone to that degree incurs a cost that outweighs the benefits, since HPLC grade Acetone costs 20 times more than CP grade acetone.

Same goes with Geothermal. Why would you do all that extra work mining and purifying the uranium (which is not even part of the efficiency calculation) just to end up using it in a Nuclear reactor which gives you power at a higher price than Geothermal does in the first place?

 

[tetrasect]

We are talking about "experts" who should know better.

Except they are not experts, they are politicians. If we had experts making the decisions we would not have these problems.

Like I said earlier, there is absolutely zero excuse for SA's power situation. It's pure incompetence by the governing party.

 

[Ponderer]

"Halfwit climate activists".
Indeed.

 

[C4Cat]

Source: https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

Of course the World Nuclear Association is going to try and dismiss and minimise any concerns, given that their members are responsible for virtually all of world uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication; all reactor vendors; major nuclear engineering, construction, and waste management companies; and most of the world's nuclear generation. Hardly an unbiased source.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years).[56] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[57] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[58]

In the second half of the 20th century, several methods of disposal of radioactive waste were investigated by nuclear nations,[61] which are :

• "Long-term above-ground storage", not implemented.
• "Disposal in outer space" (for instance, inside the Sun), not implemented—as it would be currently too expensive.
• "Deep borehole disposal", not implemented.
• "Rock melting", not implemented.
• "Disposal at subduction zones", not implemented.
• Ocean disposal, by the USSR, the United Kingdom,[62] Switzerland, the United States, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Italy and South Korea (1954–93). This is no longer permitted by international agreements.
• "Sub-seabed disposal", not implemented, not permitted by international agreements.
• "Disposal in ice sheets", rejected in Antarctic Treaty
• "Deep well injection", by USSR and USA.
• Nuclear transmutation, using lasers to cause beta decay to convert the unstable atoms to those with shorter half-lives.

In the United States, waste management policy completely broke down with the ending of work on the incomplete Yucca Mountain Repository.[63] At present there are 70 nuclear power plant sites where spent fuel is stored.

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The cost of decommissioning the UK’s 20th-century nuclear waste could rise to £260bn as the aged and degrading sites present growing challenges, according to analysis presented to an international group of experts.

Degrading nuclear facilities are presenting increasingly hazardous and challenging problems. Ageing equipment and electrical systems at Sellafield, which is storing much of the country’s nuclear waste and is one of the most hazardous sites in the world, are increasing the risk of fire, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. They require increasing maintenance and present growing risk. Last October a faulty light fitting started a blaze at a Sellafield facility which led to its closure for several weeks.

Deterioration of one of the Magnox stations, Trawsfynydd, which shut down in 1991, is such that substantial work is needed to make it safe, according to the NDA. “Work that would then need to be undone to complete reactor dismantling,” the agency said.

Thomas told the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group similar problems are expected at other Magnox sites. The timetable for decommissioning the old nuclear power stations has been abandoned, with no new timescale yet published.

The cleanup of past nuclear waste will take more than 100 years, the NDA has said. Highlighting the challenges of the degrading and hazardous facilities, the authority said in its annual report that robots and drones were increasingly being used to carry out site inspections.

UK’s nuclear waste cleanup operation could cost £260bn

Cost of safely clearing waste from ageing power stations is soaring, say experts

www.theguardian.com

More than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in storage near nuclear power plants and weapons production facilities worldwide, with over 90,000 metric tons in the US alone. Emitting radiation that can pose serious risks to human health and the environment, the waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent disposal in geological repositories, but none are operational. With nowhere to go for now, the hazardous materials and their containers continue to age.

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

It's all lovely and rosy in theory, on paper, but the real world is messy...
Unfortunately, decommissioning nuclear facilities and dealing with nuclear waste is not profitable...

 

[tetrasect]

"Halfwit climate activists".
Indeed.

Ian Collins is a British radio and television presenter.

He knows sweet Fckall about Climatology.

 

[Ponderer]

Check out just how deranged the "reasoning" of a climate cultists is.

 

[rietrot]

Well you aren't wrong in a very broad sense. CO2 isn't killing the planet, earth will carry on whatever the level of CO2 is... But it is killing the planet for us.

Factually incorrect.

Even with the worst doomsday predictions coming true and sea levels rising to somewhere where it was during the midevil warm period the planet and people can survive. The planet will be greener because of the CO2.

Some people's beach front property might be under water, but that has happened before.

 

[ForceFate]

Check out just how deranged the "reasoning" of a climate cultists is.

Is the guy a scientist? How does his extreme action affect science presented by scientists? Worst kind of representatives.

 

[rietrot]

Is the guy a scientist? How does his extreme action affect science presented by scientists?

Are you a scientist? How will you even understand the answer to your own question if someone tries to explain it to you?

 

[ForceFate]

Factually incorrect.

Even with the worst doomsday predictions coming true and sea levels rising to somewhere where it was during the midevil warm period the planet and people can survive. The planet will be greener because of the CO2.

Some people's beach front property might be under water, but that has happened before.

That's not all there is about climate change.

 

[rietrot]

That's not all there is about climate change.

Are you a scientist now? How would you know?

 

[tetrasect]

Factually incorrect.

Even with the worst doomsday predictions coming true and sea levels rising to somewhere where it was during the midevil warm period the planet and people can survive. The planet will be greener because of the CO2.

Some people's beach front property might be under water, but that has happened before.

 

[ForceFate]

Are you a scientist now? How would you know?

I take it you're a scientist with those assertions or you reckon you're the only person who can read?

Of course rising sea levels isn't the only thing about climate change.

 

[tetrasect]

Check out just how deranged the "reasoning" of a climate cultists is.

You're deranged.

Posting stupid Youtube videos isn't gonna change that.

 

[Ponderer]

Is the guy a scientist? How does his extreme action affect science presented by scientists?

You previously stated that you prefer things explained to you as a layman.

The "science" presented by "scientists" that CO2 emissions are responsible for "global warming" and/or "climate change" is BS.
It's propaganda.
Some (many) people believe this BS Science to be true.
These individuals are soft in head, and are easily brainwashed to believe it.
These brainwashed individuals are easily used/manipulated.
CO2 emissions are taxed.
Someone is making a lot of money by leveraging soft in head individuals.

 

[ForceFate]

You previously stated that you prefer things explained to you as a layman.

The "science" presented by "scientists" that CO2 emissions are responsible for "global warming" and/or "climate change" is BS.
It's propaganda.

There's no science in the clip you posted. Try something else.

Some (many) people believe this BS Science to be true.
These individuals are soft in head, and are easily brainwashed to believe it.
These brainwashed individuals are easily used/manipulated.
CO2 emissions are taxed.
Someone is making a lot of money by leveraging soft in head individuals.

 

[rietrot]

I said nothing about tempreture. I spoke about the sea level.

Whoever made that graph needs to explain when the melt point of water changed or how exactly we have more ice today still and lower sea levels.

Portus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org