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

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,213
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.
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.

gases-by-source-2022.png


Now this is just USA, I know China and others are waaaaay worse but this data is at least reliable.

CO2 seems pretty high?
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.

Perhaps they're looking Chernobyl, Fukushima and other minor incidents as reference.
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.

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.
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.


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.

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?
It has? Really it has? :unsure: Take another look especially at the parts just before man came on the scene.

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.
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?

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

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.
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.

Venus has trace amounts of water vapour yet it has a runaway greenhouse effect. Huge percentage of its atmosphere is CO2.
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.

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.
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.

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".
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.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,118
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.
Absolutely not. Remember, those reserves are based on current demand. View them like you do groceries in your pantry. You don't buy 10 years of groceries if you don't need them.

For example, in the sea there is estimated to be 4 billion metric tonnes of uranium.
https://cen.acs.org/materials/Fishing-uranium-ocean-spider-silk/97/web/2019/07

You need much less material per GHW of nuclear energy than you do for any other energy source.
 

Ponderer

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
9,741
Absolutely not. Remember, those reserves are based on current demand. View them like you do groceries in your pantry. You don't buy 10 years of groceries if you don't need them.

For example, in the sea there is estimated to be 4 billion metric tonnes of uranium.
https://cen.acs.org/materials/Fishing-uranium-ocean-spider-silk/97/web/2019/07

You need much less material per GHW of nuclear energy than you do for any other energy source.
To build a Nuclear Power Plant is expensive.
The fuel is also expensive.
The waste is horrifically toxic.
But otherwise, it's fine.

Nuclear Power has many advantages.
It also has many disadvantages.
I'm on the fence.
I'm not convinced it is either a good or bad option.

But know this.
Somewhere, somehow, something will go wrong.
And when it goes wrong with a Nuclear Power Plant, it is bound to go horribly wrong.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,213
You are using infrared radiation and heat interchangeably. This is incorrect.

You need to think about energy, specifically electromagnetic energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. Energy will be at different frequency bands of the waves, some of it will be UV, some of it will be visible, and some of it will be infrared. How this is distributed is what we will discussing next.

To start at the source of the problem. Lets talk about the sun:

View attachment 1399441

The sun pretty much is a perfect blackbody emitter of electromagnetic radiation. That is, it emits radiation across the spectrum almost perfectly as matched by the theoretical distribution of wavelength given by Planck's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law
This is given by the black line in the graph. Sunlight at the top of the atmosphere is given by the yellow graph.

Next part you need to understand how molecules absorb and emit electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetic energy consists of waves (for this purpose at least, I am not going into quantum mechanics here). To explain it briefly, molecules act as resonators for electromagnetic waves. Not to differently than a string of a musical instrument is to a sound wave. If you pluck a string of a musical instrument, it is effectively converting the energy of you plucking it, to an acoustic wave at the resonance frequency (or note) of that string. In a similar way, if you play back a note's resonance frequency it will absorb it and turn it into mechanical energy which you can visualise for as a vibration.
Molecules act in the same way for electromagnetic waves. If you agitate molecules with energy (like electricity), they will resonate at a bunch of different frequencies and produce an electromagnetic wave. If you agitate molecules with an electromagnetic wave that it will resonate at, you get energy out (which is usually heat).

Last thing you need to know before we put everything together is that the earth is also a blackbody emitter of radiation. Except it is at a much cooler temperature. Cooler temperatures means more energy is at longer wavelengths(more red). It is at these longer wavelengths where CO2 has its resonance frequencies.

So putting all of this together, you can see what is going on in the following figure.

View attachment 1399713

Solar radiation comes in and as you can see, the CO2 bands don't absorb it much of it. When that energy is absorbed by the earth and then re-emitted, it falls into CO2's frequency spectrum and thus the energy is blocked by CO2 molecules instead of radiating back out into space.


To use an analogy, if we look at the visible spectrum, certain materials absorb difference frequencies of light at different rates. Materials that appear "white" to us do not absorb any energy from the visible spectrum, whilst materials that appear "black" absorb all the energy in the visible spectrum. This is why if you only shine visible light on a black or a white surface, the white surface will be cool whilst the black surface will be hot. This is because the black surface has absorbed the energy that was given to it. CO2 would be a greyish colour in the infrared spectrum, which means it absorbs infrared radiation.

This is about as pure physics as you get. And is why it is fundamentally incorrect to state that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature. The physics says it must have something to do with it. The degree to which CO2 is responsible is a different story, and there are a million other variables at play.
Ok but we were taught that all gasses absorb and emit radiation. They are not invisible despite the common nomenclature and it's only the spectra and extent that differs. Seems the entire naming is thus arbitrary as all gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Yes I agree with your point that we are being duped and this is all political and people are seeing right through it. The emperor has no clothes. If it was really so alarming they wouldn't be beating around the bush but so far every prediction has either not materialised or fallen short.

Careful guys. If one moron reviews another moron's work, that's a form of peer review (the morons are peers).
Yes thank you for proving the point:
99.9% of experts agree climate change is real and a threat
Only those who agree climate change is real and a threat are experts

Well done mate.

er75Skm.png

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

Of course the only place you would find such a paper is from a Chinese open-access junk journal that:

A.) Has a rating of 0 (non-academic) on the Norwegian Scientific Index.
B.) Is on Beall's list of predatory publishers.
C.) Is listed on Cabell's Predatory Reports as a "well-known predatory publisher"
D.) Has no peer review process.
E.) Was caught accepting a paper that is literally gibberish spat out by a computer program.

Excerpt from that paper:

oyg65YT.png



Did you miss the "peer reviewed" part of the sentence where @ForceFate asked you to post any study? Cause I can write a paper about how I flew to the moon and collected dinosaur eggs and "Scientific Research" would publish it.
Another cultist proving the point. You even have classic lists of what is reputable and what isn't. You also clearly miss the point of peer review.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,213
Absolutely not. Remember, those reserves are based on current demand. View them like you do groceries in your pantry. You don't buy 10 years of groceries if you don't need them.

For example, in the sea there is estimated to be 4 billion metric tonnes of uranium.
https://cen.acs.org/materials/Fishing-uranium-ocean-spider-silk/97/web/2019/07

You need much less material per GHW of nuclear energy than you do for any other energy source.
Absolutely not what? I'm not talking about that which is already mined but the reserves that can be mined. The sea isn't exactly a usable source and the point is that the calculations drastically change when the whole world uses it rather than just a few countries.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
Another cultist proving the point. You even have classic lists of what is reputable and what isn't. You also clearly miss the point of peer review.

There is no peer review.

I literally said that in the post you replied to.

Learn to comprehend basic English before responding to my posts in the future, thanks.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
Ok but we were taught that all gasses absorb and emit radiation. They are not invisible despite the common nomenclature and it's only the spectra and extent that differs. Seems the entire naming is thus arbitrary as all gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Looks like we have another 3rd grader in our midst.

Care to explain what's going on in this picture and why you think it's wrong?

greenhouse.gif
 
Last edited:

Howdy

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
4,830
To build a Nuclear Power Plant is expensive.
The fuel is also expensive.
The waste is horrifically toxic.
But otherwise, it's fine.

Nuclear Power has many advantages.
It also has many disadvantages.
I'm on the fence.
I'm not convinced it is either a good or bad option.

But know this.
Somewhere, somehow, something will go wrong.
And when it goes wrong with a Nuclear Power Plant, it is bound to go horribly wrong.
So we find a 100% safe form of energy.
Then monkey pox strikes.
The next year a 150km wide asteroid strikes the earth.
The end.

I say let's do the best we can without going overboard while having some fun.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
Sure Heidie. And how many citations have you got? One. Your own.
That's one more citation than the paper you posted has.



Let me show you another paper that was published by the same journal:


Notice anything weird about it?

Yeah... it's complete and utter nonsense, spawned from the mentally deranged cranium of a guy who claims (and I'm not joking here) that his "Harmonic Flux Resonator" crystals cure cancer (as well as every other disease or ailment you can imagine).

Take that paper to a physicist at your local University and watch them laugh like I'm laughing right now, at your feeble attempt to legitimize a paper published in a non-peer-reviewed predatory journal using a link to an index page on researchgate.

The simple fact is that your precious journal is about as good as toilet paper.

And if that is what you base your worldview on then it's no wonder your worldview is horseshit.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
41,137
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.


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.


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.
3 Mile is not often mentioned because there were no deaths or major injuries.
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.


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.


It has? Really it has? :unsure: Take another look especially at the parts just before man came on the scene.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097

Maybe you should actually read what you post.

That article makes precisely my point. It's easy to get garbage posted in garbage journals who's peer review consists of telling you "We love your paper, now give us your money".

Not one of those garbage papers was published in a respected journal.
 

Howdy

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
4,830
Maybe you should actually read what you post.

That article makes precisely my point. It's easy to get garbage posted in garbage journals who's peer review consists of telling you "We love your paper, now give us your money".

Not one of those garbage papers was published in a respected journal.
Who says I didn't? Maybe you think you know what I'm thinking and think it's important enough to be snarky. And down the rabbit hole we go fall ...

Since you claim I did not read it, despite having:

Why do you think I posted it?
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
Who says I didn't? Maybe you think you know what I'm thinking and think it's important enough to be snarky. And down the rabbit hole we go fall ...

Since you claim I did not read it, despite having:

Why do you think I posted it?

You posted it in an attempt to show that, in addition to my point that garbage journals that do not have a proper peer review process and publish anything as long as they get paid should not be trusted, peer reviewed literature in general should not be trusted (aka science should not be trusted).

Unfortunately you failed to read the article which actually shows that none of the garbage articles were published by respected journals with proper peer review processes. They were published by garbage journals just like the one Paulsie linked to.

So you inadvertently strengthened my argument, which we all know is the exact opposite of what you intended.
 

Paulsie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
5,460
That's one more citation than the paper you posted has.



Let me show you another paper that was published by the same journal:


Notice anything weird about it?

Yeah... it's complete and utter nonsense, spawned from the mentally deranged cranium of a guy who claims (and I'm not joking here) that his "Harmonic Flux Resonator" crystals cure cancer (as well as every other disease or ailment you can imagine).

Take that paper to a physicist at your local University and watch them laugh like I'm laughing right now, at your feeble attempt to legitimize a paper published in a non-peer-reviewed predatory journal using a link to an index page on researchgate.

The simple fact is that your precious journal is about as good as toilet paper.

And if that is what you base your worldview on then it's no wonder your worldview is horseshit.
Strawman much Heidi? Present another article and attack that? You could go and fight the Russians with such determination.

Also, lier much? Any of these citations of the article I posted enough for you? Would you like to go ahead and discredit every single one of them too Heidi?

 

Howdy

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
4,830
You posted it in an attempt to show that, in addition to my point that garbage journals that do not have a proper peer review process and publish anything as long as they get paid should not be trusted, peer reviewed literature in general should not be trusted (aka science should not be trusted).

Unfortunately you failed to read the article which actually shows that none of the garbage articles were published by respected journals with proper peer review processes. They were published by garbage journals just like the one Paulsie linked to.

So you inadvertently strengthened my argument, which we all know is the exact opposite of what you intended.
Actually, no. You don't play chess with a checkers player. Woooosh!

However I'm sure somebody refer to to a good psychologist exorcist you could consult.
 
Top