Author Topic: Nuclear issues  (Read 48344 times)

transplant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2007, 09:22:04 PM »
Quote from: Croghan27
R-E-D-U-C-E works for me.


And that would probably work just fine here in Ontario, Croghan—we have what, one coal fired plant still on line, Nantcoke, or is Atikokin still fired up?

But it is not going to work in the second largest source of CO2 on the planet, namely our neighbor to the south (having been displaced from no.1 by China), where coal generates over 54% of their electrical power (~600 plants generating ~360,000 megawatts). R-E-D-U-C-E may eliminate the need to build any new plants, but it is not going to make a very large dent in those 600 existing plants. To do that capacity must be replaced. New wind and solar are currently only whittling away at current demand increases, they aren't yet closing any existing coal plants. The US will have to use all of the tools at their disposal to make a substantial difference, not just ones we like the best.
Hope has met reality

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2007, 09:42:10 PM »
Quote from: transplant
Quote from: Croghan27
R-E-D-U-C-E works for me.

And that would probably work just fine here in Ontario, Croghan—we have what, one coal fired plant still on line, Nantcoke, or is Atikokin still fired up?

But it is not going to work in the second largest source of CO2 on the planet, namely our neighbor to the south (having been displaced from no.1 by China), where coal generates over 54% of their electrical power (~600 plants generating ~360,000 megawatts). R-E-D-U-C-E may eliminate the need to build any new plants, but it is not going to make a very large dent in those 600 existing plants. To do that capacity must be replaced. New wind and solar are currently only whittling away at current demand increases, they aren't yet closing any existing coal plants. The US will have to use all of the tools at their disposal to make a substantial difference, not just ones we like the best.


I spend 20 years operating the single largest CO2 source in the world at the Hydrogen producing area of Syncrude Canada. I know from CO2 production.

It is not necessary - are SUVs necessary?for that matter are individual autos necessary? In NYC now, less than half the traffic on the streets is personal transportation - it is mostly public and commercial/delivery vehicle ..... and that condition is happening again in London.

The new coal is an advertizing slogan, not a fact. It is a pay me now, or pay me later and the cost later, that our children (my g-children) will have to pay is worse than we can pay.

Nukes are not going to make a difference - they consume too much energy over their life time: construction/producion/dismantle the the cost benefit ratio is the shits.

That does not even touch the dangers of the mining (in the mine north of Fort McM - the ore is so radioactive that the truck drivers can only work months out of a year before their docimetres go black.)

Go back a bit .. replacing oil/nukes is not what reduce is all about .... that s shuffling the cards ..... saying, oh well, can't do it - is not going to get it done.

Double damned are those that do nothing when they feel they cannot do it all.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

transplant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2007, 10:13:13 PM »
Quote from: Croghan27
Go back a bit .. replacing oil/nukes is not what reduce is all about


Shutting down coal plants is what it's all about. Eliminating CO2 coming out of smoke stacks, chimneys and tail pipes is what it's all about. If we reduce our total energy consumption in the process so much the better, but I do know that we have to use all of the tools available to do it.
Hope has met reality

Mandos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5759
    • View Profile
    • http://politblogo.typepad.com/
Nuclear issues
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2007, 10:29:25 PM »
Quote
It is not necessary - are SUVs necessary?for that matter are individual autos necessary? In NYC now, less than half the traffic on the streets is personal transportation - it is mostly public and commercial/delivery vehicle ..... and that condition is happening again in London.


Unfortunately...for most of the USA, and a big chunk of Canada, individual autos are necessary.  NYC (and to some extent Boston, Chicago, and San Fran) is an exception because the city enjoyed its most crucial expansionary years when transportation energy was still expensive, but not too expensive to put together a public transportation system whose overall shape and extent hasn't actually changed a lot in the century that it's been in place.  

Even so, I just visited it, and it needs major upgrades for which the governments' are not willing to fund.

But cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, etc, etc require massive retrofits for a car to be unnecessary there for most of the population.   Yes, they can stop driving SUVs.  But that only cuts out a fraction of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission.   So, what, we get an additional year or so?

If there's anything that Kyoto critics are right about, it's that these little reductions aren't themselves enough to change the overall trend.

But large scale retrofits can make a bigbig difference.  The question is, will people make the change in time?  And the answer seems to be so far, no.  Despite the fact that Atlanta has a subway system now, and Denver is planning a fairly large-scale one or so I hear.  It still won't be enough to supplant the car.  

So what does that leave us?  It leaves us to change the source of energy.  What form of energy production

1. can produce electricity on scales large enough for the retrofit to even happen?
2. doesn't use fossil fuels?
3. doesn't generate CO2?

And the only thing that comes off the top of my limited brain is nukes.

Mandos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5759
    • View Profile
    • http://politblogo.typepad.com/
Nuclear issues
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2007, 10:33:03 PM »
Correction: Denver already has a very successful light rail system, and they are planning major LRT expansions.  Still, I'd venture that most Denverites will still be driving...

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2007, 05:27:27 AM »
Quote from: Mandos
Correction: Denver already has a very successful light rail system, and they are planning major LRT expansions.  Still, I'd venture that most Denverites will still be driving...

Yes and Amsterdam, a city several feet below sea level, is building an underground extension to its' subway system:
Quote
it will be underground for 6 km (4 km being in a 20 m deep bored tunnel) with underground stations at Centraal Station, Rokin, Vijzelgracht, Ceintuurbaan and RAI/Europaplein before leaving the tunnel and entering Station Zuid. The line may be ready for operation in 2013. Later an extension of this new line to the airport of Amsterdam (Schiphol) and further on to the satellite-town of Hoofddorp is possible. Once finished, Line 52 would operate along the new section, whereas Line 58 would continue south along the Amstelveenlijn.


There are things that can be done - I am unwilling to admit that like Cohen observes: 'we are locked into our sufferings and our pleasures are the key' ...

Quote
most of the USA, and a big chunk of Canada, individual autos are necessary
That is certainly a large part of what I am speaking about - cities have to be redefined. The cost of one nuke would go a long way toward that - and is it any more of a disruption to lives then having thousands of people up and truck off to Alberta for work?

Because EXXON/MOBIL has decided it is no longer an 'oil company' and is now an 'energy company' I am not willing to let them have unfettered control over my life.

In my time have seen oil refineries go from pneumatic instruments to electronic, computer driven ones. When I have spoken to the (mostly Honeywell for softwear, HP for hardware) people that designed and installed them they bragged that an efficiency of about 3% is gained.  :shock: If a fraction of that were spent on devising a solution to this problem we are speaking of, I believe we would be knee deep in solutions.

Of course we are trapped where we are now - alternate plans are not being devised nor implimented, save on a hopscotch manner.

I knew a reporter that interviewed K.C. Irving. Mr. Irving's big quote at the time was: "I like to see wheels turn." Perhaps that is the wrong paradigm - wheels have to stop spinning for a while.

A couple of years ago France was in deep trouble with its nuclear program. For cooling purposes all their reactors were build along waterways. A drought hit Europe and the water level in the rivers dropped - meaning that not only was their less water for cooling, but the hot sun on the smaller quantity of water heated the rivers. most of the nuke plants had to operate at 40-50% capacity.

They have deep operational troubles - are ecologicallty a disaster and I have yet to hear of any one being successfully and safely decommissioned. (The plant that produced the material for the Japanese bomb, Hanaford in Washington state, still stores its spent fuel in 'on site' pools.)

Look to reduction before you devise reasons to produce more.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

lagatta

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2007, 05:40:14 AM »
A lot of Amsterdamers I know think the idea of having a subway there is frigging nuts. It isn’t such a big city that people can’t commute by trams and rapid commuter trains.

It is a very strange sensation, being below sea level.

And yes, car-dependent cities must be redesigned and densified. That postwar mess, deliberately created by car and oil companies, must be cleaned up.
" Eure \'Ordnung\' ist auf Sand gebaut. Die Revolution wird sich morgen schon \'rasselnd wieder in die Höhe richten\' und zu eurem Schrecken mit Posaunenklang verkünden: \'Ich war, ich bin, ich werde sein!\' "
Rosa Luxemburg

Holly Stick

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2007, 10:28:28 AM »
There are ways to live without owning your very own car.  Car rental, car co-ops, borrow a friend's, use a taxi.  And some people can work at home; companies that employ many people could run their own buses; probably they haven't needed to do so, but companies can adapt too.

People adapt to the situation and often there are many small solutions, each for a particular situation.  We used to live differently than we do now; and in the future we will live differently again.
Economics is a human creation, borders are human creations and nature doesn’t give a damn about these things. - David Suzuki

justme

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2007, 10:32:47 AM »
Quote from: Holly Stick
There are ways to live without owning your very own car.


Not always, unfortunately.  No car = no going to work, or anywhere else for that matter.  Walking to the corner store?  Better block off a couple of hours . . .

I wish I could take a bus, but there isn't one to take.

Berlynn

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
    • View Profile
    • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com
Nuclear issues
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2007, 10:36:56 AM »
A car co-op just started up here.  We haven't signed up for it, but I think we might in the future, when DNA daughter gets her license -- which isn't that far away!
Never retreat, never explain, never apologize--get the thing done and let them howl.  -- Nellie McClung

Holly Stick

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2007, 10:58:15 AM »
Quote from: justme
Quote from: Holly Stick
There are ways to live without owning your very own car.

Not always, unfortunately.  No car = no going to work, or anywhere else for that matter.  Walking to the corner store?  Better block off a couple of hours . . .

I wish I could take a bus, but there isn't one to take.
Yes, there's the urban design problem.
Economics is a human creation, borders are human creations and nature doesn’t give a damn about these things. - David Suzuki

skdadl

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32874
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pogge.ca
Nuclear issues
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2007, 11:23:38 AM »
Taxis! I am very fond of taxis!   :mrgreen:

But then I don't often go anywhere tricky enough to require one -- maybe twice a month? They are expensive, but I think people who don't own cars should get taxi credits, maybe five rides per month or something. A single ride is expensive, but if you're not spending on any other kind of transport, taxis do fit into a reasonably socialized transport system. I don't see how else, eg, I could get a sick cat to the vet's, which is about two miles away. I could take two (infrequent) buses to do that, but anyone who has ever had a sick cat will know ...

Boom Boom

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9962
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2007, 11:34:05 AM »
It's been my opinion for going on thirty years now that cars should be banned 100% from the inner city, and you need one, then call a cab. Ottawa is an example - ridiculous congestion downtown especially during morning, noon, and afternoon rush hours. Take the bus or call a cab, but otherwise ban cars from downtown. Give folks back their fresh air! :age:

Berlynn

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6363
    • View Profile
    • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com
Nuclear issues
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2007, 11:51:52 AM »
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I really like what Calgary has done with their wind-powered C-Train and the car-free walking area downtown.  As for the urban sprawl, well, there be another contradiction.
Never retreat, never explain, never apologize--get the thing done and let them howl.  -- Nellie McClung

lagatta

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
    • View Profile
Nuclear issues
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2007, 11:54:22 AM »
I couldn’t believe the congestion the last times I was in Ottawa. Despite the rapid growth (and alas sprawl) of the National Capital region, it remains much smaller than the Montréal region, but the bottlenecks!

Buses are no longer adequate: trams or some other kind of rapid transit are really imperative on the largest arteries, at least Bank and something East-West.
" Eure \'Ordnung\' ist auf Sand gebaut. Die Revolution wird sich morgen schon \'rasselnd wieder in die Höhe richten\' und zu eurem Schrecken mit Posaunenklang verkünden: \'Ich war, ich bin, ich werde sein!\' "
Rosa Luxemburg

 

Return To TAT