The solutions to Global Warming include. . .

[Buffy]

Many of them are far better understood problems then they used to be. Smarter reactor design makes disasters of like three mile island nearly impossible, and also dramatically reduces the amount of radioactive waste. Breeder reactors could be built that produce little waste, and would quench safely in emergency situations.

 

Unfortunately, its not viable for mostly political reasons. For the most part, no nuclear reactors is something upon which green peace and "big energy" can agree, hence unlikely to ever be built.

I actually agree with most of what you say here, the big problem being that it would require strong government regulation to actually build safe plants and go for breeder designs that all spell one thing for the potential investors: *reduced profits*.

 

Luckily Bush and Cheney are oil men: otherwise we'd have a bunch of nuclear power plants under construction with none of the safety features and no breeder technology because they'd unduly restrict the power company's "freedom to innovate."

 

Its going to take a lot of rebuilding and re-balancing of public confidence to get there unfortunately, and although I agree this would sure be good in the short term *if* it were done right, I think we'll end up with "pebbles" and fusion sooner than it will take to get the right balance between free-market and necessary government regulation....

 

Just to clarify, the quote that you pulled from my earlier post was an objection to the "looking backward, we would have been much better off if we'd started building them like crazy 40 years ago," which at least statistically would probably have resulted in a nice sized Chernobyl-class event in Chicago, providing many more contenders for America's "Second City"....

 

How's that for a centrist position?

 

Sometimes when people are under stress, they hate to think, and it's the time when they most need to think, :hihi:

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

I actually agree with most of what you say here, the big problem being that it would require strong government regulation to actually build safe plants and go for breeder designs that all spell one thing for the potential investors: *reduced profits*.

 

Actually breeder designs are most often cheaper to run (they can use thorium for fuel, which is more abundant/cheaper = more profits).

 

A friend of mine who is a nuclear engineer makes the claim that reactors that quench rather then runaway in an emergency situation are actually cheaper to build, though a quick google search finds no information on this idea. She also makes the claim that the older style reactors are essentially less safe/produce more waste because they were designed to run on u235 and the government liked this because the byproduct of the enrichment was u238 for weapons rounds. I can also find nothing to verify online, but it seems plausible.

 

Anyway, my main point is that even pure,unregulated economics should result in the safer/less wasteful breeder reactors.

-Will

[freeztar]

Anyway, my main point is that even pure,unregulated economics should result in the safer/less wasteful breeder reactors.

 

In the example of the Clinch River reactor, it was not a purely economic issue, but a political one as well. In that case though, it was budgeted at $500 mil and was later estimated that it was going to cost $8 bil, after spending $1.5 bil.

 

It seems the political climate has shifted since then (or at least, is going to shift) and in that case it does become solely an economical issue.

[Turtle]

Do you have Irish genes?

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.

I'm 50% Irish and even I don't get that.

:)

 

Angel, Angel, Angel!!!! :hihi: I just found out there's Irish folk in my familiy's woodpile! ;) Put 'em up!!! But first, a drink. What's a carpenter to do but make a shelali (sp)? :hyper: Anyway, if'n ya see the little headphonicon after Buffaerianana's words (:confused: ), then it is some quote of note. Take heart!! Simply copy the phrase, paste into Google, and stir. The last little bit is found in Bearce's Devil's dictionary as the definition of hypocrite.

 

The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary - Google Book Search

 

A solution to global warming is for everyone to regularly hold their breaths'. :eek: :note:

[freeztar]

A solution to global warming is for everyone to regularly hold their breaths'. :phones:

 

I like that spin and it makes for an interesting quote, misleading as it may be.

[Turtle]

A friend of mine who is a nuclear engineer makes the claim that reactors that quench rather then runaway in an emergency situation are actually cheaper to build, though a quick google search finds no information on this idea. ...

-Will

 

This sounds like a PBR (Pepple-Bed Reactor) to me. I have brought them up as alternative to fossil fuel in some other thread, but can't find it just now.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. And breathe 2,3,4...hold...:) ;)

 

Pebble bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed. ...

[Michaelangelica]

Are China's new nuclear Reactors using pebble- bed technology?

I have the feeling that they are not??

 

Here is one GW problem solved before I knew it was a problem!

 

An Environmentally Friendly Approach To Ethylene

Submitted by News Account on 5 February 2008 - 12:36pm. Chemistry

Ethylene, the world's most commonly produced organic compound, is used many types of industries. Farmers and horticulturalists use it as a plant hormone to promote flowering and ripening, especially in bananas while doctors and surgeons have long used ethylene as an anesthetic and ethylene-based polymers are found in everything from freezer bags to fiberglass.

 

Its current production methods result in a number of greenhouse gases.

A new environmentally friendly technology created by scientists at Argonne National Laboratory may revolutionize creation of this compound by use of a high-temperature membrane that can produce ethylene from an ethane stream by removing pure hydrogen.

 

Says senior ceramist Balu Balachandran, “This is a clean, energy-efficient way of producing a chemical that before required methods that were expensive and wasteful and also emitted a great deal of pollution.”

 

Because the new membrane lets only hydrogen pass through it, the ethane stream does not come into contact with atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen, preventing the creation of a miasma of greenhouse gases – nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide – associated with the traditional production of ethylene by pyrolysis, in which ethane is exposed to jets of hot steam.

The world’s ethylene producers manufacture more than 75 million metric tons of ethylene per year, causing millions of metric tons’ worth of greenhouse gas emissions.

An Environmentally Friendly Approach To Ethylene | Scientific Blogging

[Turtle]

Are China's new nuclear Reactors using pebble- bed technology?

I have the feeling that they are not??

 

Mmmm...don't forget to look before you feelp? :) In fact, China is pursuing PBR technology. :phones: :D

 

Wired 12.09: Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom

...To meet that growing demand, China's leaders are pursuing two strategies. They're turning to established nuke plant makers like AECL, Framatome, Mitsubishi, and Westinghouse, which supplied key technology for China's nine existing atomic power facilities. But they're also pursuing a second, more audacious course. Physicists and engineers at Beijing's Tsinghua University have made the first great leap forward in a quarter century, building a new nuclear power facility that promises to be a better way to harness the atom: a pebble-bed reactor. ...

[Turtle]

Mind you that my suggestions require the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 did it in the conservatory with the wrench. :eek: To whit:

 

Declare a global moratorium on the floristry industry. The land used to grow flowers gets returned to use producing food or fuel, the waste of all the transportation delivering flowers is saved, and the demand for electricity coming from nasty ol' coal plants is reduced when the flower shops and their wasteful lights and refrigerators are shut down. People want flowers, they can darn well grow their own. :hihi:

[Michaelangelica]

Mind you that my suggestions require the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 did it in the conservatory with the wrench. :eek: To whit:

 

Declare a global moratorium on the floristry industry. The land used to grow flowers gets returned to use producing food or fuel, the waste of all the transportation delivering flowers is saved, and the demand for electricity coming from nasty ol' coal plants is reduced when the flower shops and their wasteful lights and refrigerators are shut down. People want flowers, they can darn well grow their own. :hihi:

1. Thanks. How many plants are on the drawing boards?

 

2 Flowers are pretty:(

What else are we going to give the girls?- Chocolates- same problem;

Diamonds no no no

[Boerseun]

Here's a very simple and common-sense solution to Global Warming.

 

Quit international tourism.

 

Think about it.

 

How well do you know your immediate surrounds?

 

The next overseas holiday you've planned, could be spent much better at home, investigating your own area. Local tourism also keeps your money in your community, you get to know your neighbours and fellow townsfolks a lot better, and you GET THOSE FILTHY DAMN AIRPLANES OUTTA THE SKY!

 

How big a percentage of the total of international airplane flights are dedicated solely to people on holiday, with more bucks than brains? STAY AT HOME! You'll get to meet your locals, save money, build up a sense of community, and contribute in a BIG WAY towards cleaning the atmosphere!

 

With the internet at hand, virtual tourism should be boosted. I know - I really want to see Greece, Italy, the Pyramids, etc., for myself. But right now, I think, we should prioritise more rationally than going oversees "because I can".

[Buffy]

Quit international tourism.

 

That's nothing! Let's quit global trade!

 

We don't need your stinking diamonds! Well, uh, maybe just a few.... :phones:

 

The French are glad to die for love, they delight in fighting duels, but I prefer a man who lives, and gives expensive jewels, :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

Here's a very simple and common-sense solution to Global Warming.

 

Quit international tourism.

 

Think about it.

 

I agree, and I have. Have thought about it I mean, but neither have I ever flown internationaly. :friday: My thinking however went beyond just international tourism, and the particulars are back in post #73.

 

Common sense it is, but it is no less a bitter pill. Buffy on the other hand, goes beyond me in her sardonicism:

That's nothing! Let's quit global trade!

 

We don't need your stinking diamonds! Well, uh, maybe just a few. :phones:

 

While the diamond trade is a ridiculous waste, I do not mean to suggest all international trade be stopped. If we want to cross oceans by boat, then use sail boats. If we want to fly over them, then we should use electric powered helium airships.

 

The way I see it, if we are really on the verge of disaster than we better be taking drastic measures, and in spite of quaint proverbs on the nature of bread and circuses, the obvious place to start is with the extravagances. :friday: :phones:

[Michaelangelica]

I think with Virgin Airways now you can buy carbon offsets when you fly.

 

Also there is some weird scheme that planes could drop some garbage in the atmosphere to help cool the planet.

Anyone know the details?

 

People do not see any urgency in GW. It is going to take a few international cities to go first. At the moment is only a couple of unimportant pacific islands.

 

Terra preta is such a great scheme (and not just for slowing global warming).

It amazes and saddens me that it is not yet even on the radar.

I remember a lecture on "attitude change" where the lecturer said it was high status people who changed opinion and attitudes( eg doctors, celebs, etc)- others then followed . So I guess we will have to wait for Bush to have an epiphany?

I agree in the past we had time to wait for change eg "Please wash your hands before cutting me open doc!" 'Please don't smoke'. But even with these two examples it has /is difficult to change attitudes there is still a lot of backsliding. One big USA hospital recently cut its death rate from 10,000 patients a year to 1. just by enforcing and encouraging everyone to wash their hands (This IS the 21st century isn't it? Where is my TARDIS key?).

Look at how hard it is to change attitudes on Hypography.

 

For Buffy et al Are SA diamond mines near the coast?

Buffy have you seen W Oz "champagne diamonds? very classy sparkly and pretty

you could start acollection there are pretty pink ones, pretty yellow ones. One of each is surly not too much to ask?

Australian Diamonds

Argyle Diamonds - Library

[Turtle]

I think with Virgin Airways now you can buy carbon offsets when you fly.

 

That scehme is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. Common sense says don't incur the debt in the first place.

 

Also there is some weird scheme that planes could drop some garbage in the atmosphere to help cool the planet.

Anyone know the details?

 

I have heard boron, but can't find it right now; I heard aluminium dust too and here's a bit on that. >> Engineering Menu

There was an interesting article in the NY Times this week on possible geo-engineering solutions to the global warming problem. The story revolves around a paper that Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize winner for chemistry related to the CFC/ozone depletion link) has written about deliberately adding sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere to increase the albedo and cool the planet - analogous to the natural effects of volcanoes.

 

The contrails themselves are cooling the planet, and I heard a guy saying recently that the new efficient jet engines no longer have black unburned particulates to act as nucliae(sp) for ice crystals, but rather white ash which is making contrails even more reflective. >> http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/6279-global-dimming.html?highlight=global+cooling

 

People do not see any urgency in GW. It is going to take a few international cities to go first. At the moment is only a couple of unimportant pacific islands.

 

I'm old enough, as I believe you should be Micha, to react to few urgencies but my own to find a WC. I'm greener than Kermit, but not because of climate change.

 

I call for a boycott, then ban, on fast food restaurant kid's toys. Talk about a waste of resources! :doh: :doh:

[Boerseun]

I call for a boycott, then ban, on fast food restaurant kid's toys. Talk about a waste of resources! :doh: :doh:

110% with you one that one!

 

...and then, while we're at it, we can ban "Supersizing", in all its forms!

 

Not only is it unhealthy, but I think over here the Competition Commission will declare it uncompetitive behaviour, forcing the smaller operators out of the market, and the rest to follow suit in offering ridiculously big helpings for a pittance - with the end effect that only the biggest franchises will survive the "supersize" wars.

 

If there's 100ha tillable soil available in the world, and 50% goes to feeding humans with their required nourishment, how much of the remaining 50% goes into overstuffing humans via "supersize" schemes? It's a total waste, because people really don't need 2kg's deep fried chips when 250g will do.

 

Agriculture is only of the biggest polluters, what with all the chemicals being pumped into the soils. So, obese people (and they are gaining in numbers, every day) who are creating an artificial demand for agricultural products, are contributing in a big way to global warming.

 

Maybe we should increase taxes for fat asses?

 

For a given height, you've got an ideal weight. You should supply the taxman with your length and weight, and if you're more than 10% over your ideal, you'll start paying penalties. Think about it!

[Michaelangelica]

 

I'm old enough, as I believe you should be Micha, to react to few urgencies but my own to find a WC. :doh: I'm greener than Kermit, but not because of climate change.

Got me in one do you have a secret camera on my computer?

 

LOL:):doh:

 

I think, as a very low status person, I am sick of batting my head against a brick wall of ignorance and insouciance.