Climate Change

[chris2be8]

The short term warming effect of a power station from the heat it produces is insignificant. It's the cumulative warming effect over hundreds of years from CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that is the main concern. So nuclear power does help because it doesn't produce significant amounts of CO2 as it runs.

Mining and processing fuel will produce some CO2, but less than would be produced mining and transporting coal to a coal fired plant.

If they don't understand that (or deliberately don't mention it) then you can't trust anything else they say unless you can confirm it from a trustworthy source.

Chris

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by chris2be8

The short term warming effect of a power station from the heat it produces is insignificant. It's the cumulative warming effect over hundreds of years from CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that is the main concern. So nuclear power does help because it doesn't produce significant amounts of CO2 as it runs.

That's my thought. I'd be happy to consider evidence to the contrary, though, if anyone has it.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chris2be8

The short term warming effect of a power station from the heat it produces is insignificant.

However, the impact on local ecological systems is highly significant

It's the cumulative warming effect over hundreds of years from CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that is the main concern. So nuclear power does help because it doesn't produce significant amounts of CO2 as it runs.

True. But a very incomplete analysis.

Mining and processing fuel will produce some CO2, but less than would be produced mining and transporting coal to a coal fired plant.

Do you really know the full impact of uranium mining and refining? Just the mine tailings left behind are an incredibly long-lived source of metallic and radioactive poisons. This leaves aside the high level wastes produced by reactors, much of which is stored in precarious "temporary" pools. Granted, this does not add to greenhouse gases. However, the results of a spent fuel meltdown/fire could sure mess up a lot of people and real estate. This has happened both on the mining side, and on the power station front.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraniu..._Navajo_people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_...sland_accident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukush...clear_disaster

Assessing the true costs of energy production of any kind has to deal with disposal or sequestering of the results all along the chain of production, as well as the potential for catastrophic failures. Coal has catastrophic failures regarding ash ponds, as nuclear plants have meltdowns and all sorts of radioactive releases. Radioactive water is pouring into the Pacific in huge amounts at Fukushima. Would you like a side of cancer with your tuna?
Are either of these power sources justifiable in the long term?

If they don't understand that (or deliberately don't mention it) then you can't trust anything else they say unless you can confirm it from a trustworthy source.
Chris

I really don't understand your conclusion, nor do I accept your arguments and assertions. Who are "they"? The author? Having a different set of standards from yours for evaluating the different sources of energy does not necessarily invalidate a different conclusion from yours.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by kladner

Do you really know the full impact of uranium mining and refining?

The same could be said about coal, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro..._coal_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...l_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_..._Mine_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_River_Mine_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_mine_disaster
etc. And it's my understanding that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, as the former is quite rich in uranium and thorium.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

The same could be said about coal, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingst...h_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro..._coal_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...l_slurry_spill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_..._Mine_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_River_Mine_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_mine_disaster
etc. And it's my understanding that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, as the former is quite rich in uranium and thorium.

Absolutely. My response was getting too long and involved. An obvious example of the problems with coal extraction is the ultra-destructive mountain top removal method. As I asked previously,
"Are either of these power sources justifiable in the long term?" (This does beg the question of just what qualifies as long term.)

[xilman]

Originally Posted by kladner

AAs I asked previously,
"Are either of these power sources justifiable in the long term?" (This does beg the question of just what qualifies as long term.)

In the long term, everyone is dead.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by kladner

An obvious example of the problems with coal extraction is the ultra-destructive mountain top removal method.

I quite agree. As someone who has hiked across areas so devastated (though for gold mining, not coal) I know just what you mean.

Originally Posted by kladner

As I asked previously,
"Are either of these power sources justifiable in the long term?"

Or more broadly: which power sources will be able to provide power in the long-term, and will do so with acceptable costs (ecological, economic, etc.)?

[kladner]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I quite agree. As someone who has hiked across areas so devastated (though for gold mining, not coal) I know just what you mean.



Or more broadly: which power sources will be able to provide power in the long-term, and will do so with acceptable costs (ecological, economic, etc.)?

Well Said!

[Nick]

I would like to see ships with non-perishable cargo go back to using sails.
Using less energy in general has to be part of the solution.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by Nick

I would like to see ships with non-perishable cargo go back to using sails.
Using less energy in general has to be part of the solution.

Wouldn't that be orders of magnitude more expensive? Or has someone tackled computerized sailing yet?

[kladner]

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/...d-control.html
Computer controlled sailing is in the works.

Automated sail handling

The 1902 Preussen (pictured here yesterday) was the first ship to automate sail handling. It had no auxiliary engines for propulsion, but it made use of steam power for the operation of the winches, hoists and pumps. This limited the crew to 48 men. By comparison: the Kruzenshtern (picture above) a very large sailing vessel without mechanised control, has a crew of 257 men.
The Preussen had 5 masts (with a maximum height of 68 meters) and 47 sails (with a total surface area of 5,560 square meters or 60,000 square feet). It had a length of 147 meters (438 ft.) and a load-carrying capacity of 8,000 tons.
Today, sailing boats can be operated with even smaller crews. The Royal Clipper, a steel-hulled five masted cruise ship built in 2000 and inspired by the Pruessen (it is only slightly smaller), can be handled with a crew as small as 20, using powered controls. The Royal Clipper (picture below) is the largest sailing ship in service today (although it does have auxiliary engines).