Swa
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 4, 2012
- Messages
- 31,213
We aren't at the point where we have zero waste. That's the problem because it doesn't matter if you have one kg or thousands of tons if it leaks it contaminates the environment all the same. Until we have fusion that's 100% safe and can get rid of all the waste it's not something we should be using.And the more we use nuclear we are getting better at reusign it's waste, in 70 years it's not using that much storage as you'd expect. Also the waste from solar is toxic for-ever there is no half-life on it's toxicity.
Those are emissions, not atmospheric concentrations. And if you look at the real figures and not percentages you'd expect it to keep going up exponentially if it wasn't being used but it doesn't really, CO2 continues to make up just a fraction of atmospheric gasses.![]()
![]()
Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA
Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.www.epa.gov
Now this is just USA, I know China and others are waaaaay worse but this data is at least reliable.
CO2 seems pretty high?
Don't forget Three Mile island. Whenever nuclear safety is mentioned that one is always skipped. It should have been the death of nuclear at the time but the incident and its fallout was covered up as is a lot of nuclear fallout at the time it happens.Perhaps they're looking Chernobyl, Fukushima and other minor incidents as reference.
It hasn't been solved. It was left for future generations to solve on the assumption we'd have a means to actually dispose of it and the left over radiation by now but we are nowhere nearer today. Btw if we go the route of all nuclear our reserves would be depleted in a few decades in any case so it's not a viable long term solution.There is no other energy source that produces as little waste as nuclear energy.
Right let me do the calculations:
US produces 94.7 GW of energy via nuclear power. According to you that is 2000 tons of waste every year.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx#:~:text=In 2021, nuclear generated 5.3,of these have been cancelled.
1GW of energy requires about 3.125 million (320W) solar panels (and we are not even talking about storage). So to replace the US nuclear fleet with solar panels would need 296 million solar panels. Each panel weights about 22kg. So that is a cool 5918 million kg of solar panels that need to be replaced every 25 years. So assuming that they are gradually installed and replaced as needed, you can roughly divide that number by 25. Which leaves you with 236.75 million kg or 236 750 metric tonnes of waste you have to deal with every year. So nuclear power is about 2 orders of magnitude more efficient.
And none of this is concerning storage, which will only make the situation worse for solar.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-much-power-1-gigawatt#:~:text=3.125 Million Photovoltaic (PV) Panels
The waste side of things is a solved engineering problem for nuclear.
You know, it really depends on your definition. ALL gasses absorb and release heat. It's what gives them volume. As they absorb heat they expand and this heat is transferred when they bump into one another or other gasses. So ALL gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect.The Greenhouse Effect | Center for Science Education
Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s temperature would be below freezing. It is, in part, a natural process. However, Earth’s greenhouse effect is getting stronger as we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. That is warming the climate of our planet.scied.ucar.edu
Some Greenhouse Gases Are Stronger than Others | Center for Science Education
In the right amounts, greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, are helpful, rather than harmful, because they can help regulate the temperature of the planet. The problem is that human activity has led to a dramatic increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.scied.ucar.edu
It has? Really it has?I'll ask again (I'll use different words this time) seeing you didn't answer the question and went on a complete tangent:
Why do you blame the sun for the warming in the last 50 years when the world temperature has been stable for 22000 years?
Talk about morsels of truth, you know the moon does not have an atmosphere right? And while the sun does have a cycle it's not accurately repeated and there are times when it's hotter or colder. Why is it so inconceivable that we have this big fiery ball in the sky supplying ALL our energy that's driving our climate?Problem is as with most conspiracy nonsense there is a morsel of truth, which makes them latch on to it.
As the sun burns through its fuel, it is indeed getting hotter and will have an effect on the temperature of the planet, but we are talking about a process of 100's of millions / billions of years, not 100.
Secondly, if the sun was the cause of planetary warming, we should be seeing the same rate of warming on ALL the planets and objects in the solar system. This is not the case. Even the moon is not warming at the same rate as the earth is.
Who are also currently unable to return to the moon and have asked a South African billionaire to help them with their future space missions. Meh, sorry if I don't put much trust in them.
Ponderer thinks he knows more about science than the guys who landed on the moon over 50 years ago, have research probes 25 billion km away flying through interstellar space and sent helicopters to mars.
You're the definition of plonker, dude.
Seek help.
It's fallacious to compare the effect of huge quantities to miniscule ones. That's like saying if you die when I hit you at 100km/h with my car you'll still die if I hit you at 1km/h only slower.Venus has trace amounts of water vapour yet it has a runaway greenhouse effect. Huge percentage of its atmosphere is CO2.
Nope. You can only have models on things you actually understand. You can't understand things based on models. Adjusting models to fit your expected scenario is not science but BS. The only way to conduct real science on this would be to have a duplicate earth and see the effect between different conditions. Something the scale of the earth is simply too big to try and understand and put into models.Scientists have shown in tests and models how CO2 is the major driver, results of which correlates with data collected. They've published countless papers in different countries. My question to you is can you post something which supports your assertion that CO2 is not a major driver of accelerated global warming? It doesn't have to be your work btw.
Has it occurred to you yet that the onus does not fall on anybody to prove it wrong (and there have been plenty) but on you to provide the burden of proof for your view? So you are aware but still make the statement and ask for counter proof. That is actually intellectual dishonesty.I am aware of the temperature record...
But so far all we have from our resident "Its BS, and science is a cult" person is the stomping feet of a 2 year old going "NO!" and refusing to provide even the slightest shred of evidence to back up his claim.
I am pretty damned sure that many people here would be open to changing their point of view if presented with compelling evidence to show that the CO2 aspect of global warming is "bullshyte and a cult".