Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Nov '13 16:37
    http://phys.org/news/2013-11-significant-amount-methane-east-siberian.html

    Seems to me the answer there would be to do an industrial scale fracking job on the underwater shelf to extract the methane and put it to good use to kill two birds with one stone, stop the bleeding of greenhouse gasses from the Arctic shelf and get some energy in the bargain.
  2. 25 Nov '13 17:04
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-11-significant-amount-methane-east-siberian.html

    Seems to me the answer there would be to do an industrial scale fracking job on the underwater shelf to extract the methane and put it to good use to kill two birds with one stone, stop the bleeding of greenhouse gasses from the Arctic shelf and get some energy in the bargain.
    So you are stopping the slow (ish) release of a greenhouse gas, and replacing it with
    the rapid release of a greenhouse gas, plus conducting potentially damaging and
    polluting industrial operations in an ecologically sensitive and protected area that is
    prone to very bad weather and threats to shipping (icebergs)...


    I suggest the better option is to stop using any fossil fuels and go entirely nuclear and
    renewables.

    Otherwise you are not killing two birds with one stone, you are still throwing a stone and
    missing, just at a different bird...


    I may have just overextended that metaphor.... But you get my drift... I hope.
  3. 25 Nov '13 18:26
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    So you are stopping the slow (ish) release of a greenhouse gas, and replacing it with
    the rapid release of a greenhouse gas, plus conducting potentially damaging and
    polluting industrial operations in an ecologically sensitive and protected area that is
    prone to very bad weather and threats to shipping (icebergs)...


    I suggest the better option ...[text shortened]... rent bird...


    I may have just overextended that metaphor.... But you get my drift... I hope.
    Going nuclear presents some significant problems of it's own, doesn't it? For one thing, at least in the US, there aren't very many nuclear reactors, and they take some time to build. Not to mention the problem of nuclear waste storage. Seems like natural gas would be the better bridge to renewable energy, especially since coal plants can be converted fairly easily.
  4. 25 Nov '13 18:49
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Going nuclear presents some significant problems of it's own, doesn't it? For one thing, at least in the US, there aren't very many nuclear reactors, and they take some time to build. Not to mention the problem of nuclear waste storage. Seems like natural gas would be the better bridge to renewable energy, especially since coal plants can be converted fairly easily.
    Well people have been saying, oh nuclear reactors take a long time to build my entire life...

    During which time they could have built three generations of nuclear reactors.

    France went 80% nuclear in a decade.

    It's eminently doable.

    And latest generation nuclear reactors can use present day nuclear waste as fuel,
    which means the actual amount of waste, especially the really dangerous high grade
    waste would go down. (in the long term)
  5. 25 Nov '13 18:58
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Well people have been saying, oh nuclear reactors take a long time to build my entire life...

    During which time they could have built three generations of nuclear reactors.

    France went 80% nuclear in a decade.

    It's eminently doable.

    And latest generation nuclear reactors can use present day nuclear waste as fuel,
    which means the actual amou ...[text shortened]... t of waste, especially the really dangerous high grade
    waste would go down. (in the long term)
    Would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of your family and yourself to make the stand for nuclear power? The problem with nuclear power is it all sounds good because it is somebody else's family that dies when things go wrong.
  6. 25 Nov '13 19:40
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    So you are stopping the slow (ish) release of a greenhouse gas, and replacing it with
    the rapid release of a greenhouse gas, plus conducting potentially damaging and
    polluting industrial operations in an ecologically sensitive and protected area that is
    prone to very bad weather and threats to shipping (icebergs)...


    I suggest the better option ...[text shortened]... rent bird...


    I may have just overextended that metaphor.... But you get my drift... I hope.
    Methane gas is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
  7. 25 Nov '13 20:05 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of your family and yourself to make the stand for nuclear power? The problem with nuclear power is it all sounds good because it is somebody else's family that dies when things go wrong.
    The most modern nuclear reactors are much safer than the old ones and no doubt they would eventually be made safer still. Thorium-accelerator reactors, if they are fully developed, promise to be incredibly safe and I would not reject to having one next to my home. More people have died from mining accidents mining coal than from all the nuclear disasters combined and yet you are not saying “Would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of your family and yourself to make the stand for coal power? The problem with coal power is it all sounds good because it is somebody else's family that dies when things go wrong.” so I think your criticism of nuclear power here is illogical.

    Don't get me wrong; there are at least arguably a few good reasons to criticize at least nuclear fission power (for example, there may be little economical point in investing in more nuclear fission power stations because solar power would probably be overwhelmingly the main power source to pan out in just a few years time thanks to the huge rate at which the technology is improving -plus solar is sustainable ) but safety is no longer one of them. I have heard of incidents of individuals being accidentally electrocuted to death when in physical contact with faulty or slightly damaged solar panels so sometimes "things go wrong" (as you said) but also with solar panels and people can also die when that happens. -so we should not build any more solar panels?
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Nov '13 20:45
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    So you are stopping the slow (ish) release of a greenhouse gas, and replacing it with
    the rapid release of a greenhouse gas, plus conducting potentially damaging and
    polluting industrial operations in an ecologically sensitive and protected area that is
    prone to very bad weather and threats to shipping (icebergs)...


    I suggest the better option ...[text shortened]... rent bird...


    I may have just overextended that metaphor.... But you get my drift... I hope.
    There is development work going on now to sequester CO2 and such and the gist of the methane fracking idea is that methane is pound for pound 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas so it should be a win win situation if you do the technology right.

    Nuclear is all well and good except for that part where it tries to melt to China if you have a major earthquake and it is a great terrorist target also. Can you imagine the destruction of a nuclear plant near a city if terrorists managed to blow it up?

    Personally I don't think nuclear is worth the risks, for instance even if things go well, 30 or 40 years later you are left with some highly radioactive waste to dispose of and they haven't solved that problem in 30 years of research.
  9. 26 Nov '13 05:48
    Originally posted by humy
    The most modern nuclear reactors are much safer than the old ones and no doubt they would eventually be made safer still. Thorium-accelerator reactors, if they are fully developed, promise to be incredibly safe and I would not reject to having one next to my home. More people have died from mining accidents mining coal than from all the nuclear disasters combin ...[text shortened]... panels and people can also die when that happens. -so we should not build any more solar panels?
    After Fukishima and Chernobyl, you think my logic is flawed? I love the idea, science, and practicality of nuclear power. My problem is in trusting that the big money involved may persuade folks to build them in inappropriate places, cut corners on safety, and store huge amounts of fuel rods in one location.

    Then your comparison to deaths from solar cells. Really? I have no response to that as I have no idea what is going on in that noodle of yours.
  10. 26 Nov '13 07:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    After Fukishima and Chernobyl, you think my logic is flawed? I love the idea, science, and practicality of nuclear power. My problem is in trusting that the big money involved may persuade folks to build them in inappropriate places, cut corners on safety, and store huge amounts of fuel rods in one location.
    And all that happens with both coal and gas. I am sure you know that fracking has a really bad reputation worldwide?
    How many people died at Fukushima? How many people died at a typical coal mine that has produced that same total power output as Fukushima?
    The fact is that we have an irrational fear of Nuclear.

    And what about Hydroelectric power?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
    According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.[15] [4]


    However, I personally believe that renewables are now more economically sound than nuclear.
  11. 26 Nov '13 09:39 / 1 edit
    After Fukishima and Chernobyl, you think my logic is flawed?

    Yes, because the fact remains more people have died in coal mines than in those and other nuclear accidents combined.
    Then your comparison to deaths from solar cells

    Actually, I didn't. I was just showing the obvious flaw in your logic by applying the same flawed logic you used for nuclear to solar panels -that doesn't imply a comparative number of people have die from solar panels and I would not claim such a thing. You can also apply (irrationally ) the same flawed logic against the use of virtually anything that has cause human deaths including fire and the car and even life-saving drags (because they sometimes have caused deaths when misused ) saying they also are all terribly wrong because they have all caused deaths.

    Having said that, I think twhitehead is probably right when he suspects that renewables are now more economically sound than nuclear or at the very least I think they will definitely be so in every way in just a few years time due to he fantastic rate at which the solar technology is improving thus I would reject nuclear purely on economic grounds but not safety in particular.
  12. 26 Nov '13 10:39
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Methane gas is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
    Over the short term. Long term it gets converted into CO2, by lightning, and UV radiation, ect.
  13. 26 Nov '13 12:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-11-significant-amount-methane-east-siberian.html

    Seems to me the answer there would be to do an industrial scale fracking job on the underwater shelf to extract the methane and put it to good use to kill two birds with one stone, stop the bleeding of greenhouse gasses from the Arctic shelf and get some energy in the bargain.
    I read a long time ago that even around the bermuda triangle there are great methane releases. With the pressures and low temps it builds up down there. every once in awhile something happens and a bunch of it gassifies and bubbles up. If it is going to be released anyway we might as well get some use of it. Problem is that so much is wasted now from oil wells as it is not economical to collect it at the present time.
  14. 26 Nov '13 13:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And all that happens with both coal and gas. I am sure you know that fracking has a really bad reputation worldwide?
    How many people died at Fukushima? How many people died at a typical coal mine that has produced that same total power output as Fukushima?
    The fact is that we have an irrational fear of Nuclear.

    And what about Hydroelectric power?
    ht ...[text shortened]... ]

    However, I personally believe that renewables are now more economically sound than nuclear.
    Ya gotta admit though, the flood waters will not linger as long as the radiation and cause defects in the future populations. Solar and battery technology is so appealing to me. I do not like the idea of converting food to alcohol while we have starvation in the world.
  15. 26 Nov '13 18:36
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Ya gotta admit though, the flood waters will not linger as long as the radiation and cause defects in the future populations. Solar and battery technology is so appealing to me. I do not like the idea of converting food to alcohol while we have starvation in the world.
    More radioactive materiel has been emitted into the atmosphere (along with
    other carcinogens) by all the nuclear disasters (of not nuclear bombs) combined.


    Nuclear energy kills fewer people (by far) per Twhr generated than almost any
    other energy generation method.

    The forecast number of excess cancers caused by fukashima is currently so small
    that it will be impossible to detect out of background numbers.

    And that's the second worst Nuclear accident of all time.

    And it's possible to build reactors where such disasters are near impossible
    to occur.


    Nuclear energy has big upfront costs, but over the long term it's cheaper than
    many other alternatives, and is certainly competitive.

    I mention France again, it's 80% of state nuclear power has given it decades of
    cheep stable electricity prices.


    And even if renewables do undercut it in terms of price, Nuclear has other benefits
    in terms of power generation that renewables tend not to have.
    It's good at providing solid reliable base electrical load, which few renewables can do.
    The best for that is hydroelectric, but that is also expensive in terms of build cost and
    land flooded, and is not completely green either.

    As the water goes up and down plants form on the banks and then get drowned, which
    along with other plant detritus that falls in rots in the bottom of the lake, emitting
    significant quantities of methane.



    Germany has just spent decades and vast sums of money on renewables, mainly solar,
    and yet they still only produce a tiny fraction of their energy from solar and other renewables.

    Meanwhile France has emitted much less CO2 with its solid nuclear industry.



    I advocate for a mix of power sources, to suite the environment and situation at hand.

    But for the majority of countries, I really cannot see a practical or workable zero carbon
    future that doesn't include a significant slice of nuclear power. At least not one that
    ends up being achieved faster or cheaper than one that includes nuclear.