Author Topic: Addressing climate change  (Read 7594 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline queenmandy85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #225 on: September 21, 2019, 05:03:33 pm »
They never include consideration of the human and environmental destruction from mining uranium.
Nobody wants a new reactor built near them.
It isn't a popular alternative with Canadians, so it isn't pursued.

More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #226 on: September 21, 2019, 05:20:00 pm »
More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.

I agree, and of course the Fukushima accident helped cast a shadow over the system which is misguided. A nuclear plant built on a fault line, next to an ocean, with the backup generators in the basement. Who the hell designed that? I think we can do a lot better now having learned from such events and carry on and clean a lot of that coal/diesel smoke out of the air which kills a hell of a lot more than nuclear plants have.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline queenmandy85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #227 on: September 22, 2019, 08:56:33 am »
Only one person died from the Fukishima event and he died of a heart attack. Yes, the placing of the plant was bad.
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8308
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #228 on: September 22, 2019, 09:37:00 am »
Tesla model X. 2" towing receiver, 7-pin connector, 5000lb rating. Range is over 500km, but yes that will be cut back when towing and on logging roads. That still however gives you lots headroom as you are only looking for under 200. Ground clearance may be an issue. Depending on how you set the suspension, and wheel size it can be anywhere between 5.3" to 8". Not sure what you mean by "logging road", that is not very descriptive and I have see all kinds including all kinds.

The Model X and itís AWD system is designed for superior on road performance like most AWD vehicles, it is as likely to be used off road as your average Mercedes SUV. Towing any serious load will cut its range in half and what happens when you get out in the bush, you wonít find charging stations and you canít throw a few jerry cans of diesel or gas in the back to get you home. Evís wonít be suitable for all uses.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #229 on: September 22, 2019, 10:30:44 am »
More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.
The danger of nuclear accidents is one issue that has affected public support for nuclear power.

But I referred to the health and environmental effects of uranium mining. (Upstream)
And of course, downstream, the dangers and damage of 'disposing of' radioactive waste.

All enter into consideration, and all are factors in minimal support for nuclear power.
.

Offline queenmandy85

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #230 on: September 22, 2019, 08:43:04 pm »
Uranium is just a temporary bridge to using thorium in liquid thorium reactors. The Candu can already use thorium but the liquid thorium reactor is even safer and more efficient.
A friend will help you move. A good friend will help you move a body

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10985
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #231 on: September 22, 2019, 08:52:37 pm »
Uranium is just a temporary bridge to using thorium in liquid thorium reactors. The Candu can already use thorium but the liquid thorium reactor is even safer and more efficient.

Why doesn't the Candu sell better ?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #232 on: September 22, 2019, 10:17:56 pm »
More people die in motor vehicle accidents in one year in Saskatchewan than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years. More people die in Canada in two weeks by suicide  than have been killed in nuclear accidents world wide in the last 75 years.
The irrational opposition to the one fuel that can reduce carbon emmissions world wide is an indictment on our education system.

Nobody wants it mined, used or buried as  radioactive waste.
Upstream downstream it's all vile.
Mother Earth filters toxins in her organs, like us.
Leave it in the earth.

Our Treaties are only valid "to a plough's depth", for
"As Long as The Sun Shines, The Grass Grows and The River Flows".
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 10:29:55 pm by Granny »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #233 on: September 22, 2019, 10:51:34 pm »
Wind, wave, and sun are all welcome sources of power IMO. However they are not dependable or available enough for all. Advancements in nuclear power generation make it a very good back up when the sun sets or the wind dies. Build them at proper locations and put the waste back in the earth where it came from, such as the Canadian Shield.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8308
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #234 on: September 23, 2019, 12:31:59 am »
Renewables wonít supply all our needs, choices will have to be made.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #235 on: September 23, 2019, 12:41:24 am »
Renewables wonít supply all our needs, choices will have to be made.

Quite true, and we all know there is that last barrel of oil down there somewhere and we need to make those choices before that day comes.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #236 on: September 23, 2019, 12:49:10 pm »
Why doesn't the Candu sell better ?

It requires heavy water which is expensive. There are also many smaller pressurized water reactors giving wider applicability. CANDU reactors however are fairly flexible, including ability to use thorium and spent fuel from other reactors as fuel.

I believe what queenmandy meant by "liquid thorium" reactors was a completely different technology, using molten salt as a moderator. There are inherent safety factors of that design, but it has yet to be proven in a practical application. The only molten salt reactor ran for a few years in the 1960's and was shutdown. While there is a lot of theoretical promise to the design, that experimental reactor was not without problems including a large radioactive waste created.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #237 on: September 23, 2019, 12:54:27 pm »
Renewables wonít supply all our needs, choices will have to be made.

Black and white thinking isn't helpful. It assumes we have no control, we can't change the status quo, and encourages apathy.
Instead, I suggest:
'Renewables wonít supply all our needs YET. PROGRESS will have to be made QUICKLY.'

Then it's a call to action, not apathy.

The fossil fuel and war industries have been holding us hostage for over a hundred years, creating apathy and inaction in the public by buying up and squashing every invention that could have alleviated GHG emissions.

No more of that predatory and self-destructive nonsense. We can't wait apathetically for the corporate world to take the lead. We're pushing them ... hard.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-industry-continues-to-squash-renewable-energy-age-1881784883.html
To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.

Offline Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1285
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #238 on: September 23, 2019, 12:56:36 pm »
No more of that predatory and self-destructive nonsense. We can't wait apathetically for the corporate world to take the lead. We're pushing them ... hard.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-industry-continues-to-squash-renewable-energy-age-1881784883.html
To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.

The corporate world knows. That's why Trump's efforts to rollback climate change initiatives haven't really worked. People ultimately want to use less and businesses market to that.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8308
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #239 on: September 23, 2019, 01:42:16 pm »
Black and white thinking isn't helpful. It assumes we have no control, we can't change the status quo, and encourages apathy.
Instead, I suggest:
'Renewables wonít supply all our needs YET. PROGRESS will have to be made QUICKLY.'

Then it's a call to action, not apathy.

The fossil fuel and war industries have been holding us hostage for over a hundred years, creating apathy and inaction in the public by buying up and squashing every invention that could have alleviated GHG emissions.

No more of that predatory and self-destructive nonsense. We can't wait apathetically for the corporate world to take the lead. We're pushing them ... hard.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuel-industry-continues-to-squash-renewable-energy-age-1881784883.html
To survive this era, humanity must become much smarter about this new kind of energy and then take the steps necessary to compress the third carbon era and hasten in the Age of Renewables before we burn ourselves off this planet.
It isnít black and white thinking, it is reality. Electricity isnít suited for everything and renewables canít supply all our electrical needs. Things like nuclear will have to be considered if you are serious about drastically reducing C02  emissions. China is by far the largest producer of renewable electricity from wind and solar yet 60% of their power comes from fossil fuels and they still produce a quarter of the worldís CO2 emissions.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC