New Cold War US-Russia?
Pages
| Author | Topic: New Cold War US-Russia? |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, March 4 2007 07:12
Profile
Homepage
I'm under the impression that modern nuclear plants don't really have meltdowns except under conditions of incredibly severe neglect. We've come a long way from Three Mile Island (which, by the way, was costly and annoying, but — if Wikipedia is to be believed — not harmful to any people, particularly). -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, March 4 2007 10:00
Profile
Homepage
Three Mile Island probably would have been largely forgotten except for Chernobyl, which was an immense disaster. Chernobyl was run poorly by the standards of the time and plants are safer even without that much careful supervision now, but the damage is done. —Alorael, who thinks the big push for nuclear power will come when the fossil fuel crisis becomes bad enough that the cost of oil makes the perceived risks of nuclear power seem worthwhile. It's a shame that that will probably only happen after global warming has become an even bigger catastrophe. Don't put your reactors anywhere near the coast. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Sunday, March 4 2007 11:11
Profile
The actual problem of nuclear weapons is that, while being widely disastrous in the long terms, those warheads are NOT an “ultimate solution to the war” tactically. Among various points of view, the one that appears to me to be the most adequate is that nuclear war can be fought, and, under some particualr definition of the word, can be won. The particular definition I use is terrtory. In that meaning, for your information, it is already like 30 years tactical anti-nuke defences exist (usually the same units as anti-air defence), as well as various protective means for personnel and armor. According to big-level military statistical research and forecasting (wich I tend to take with a grain of salt, however, there is a certain degree of common sence sometimes to be found there), the average combat lifespan expectations of field-going units measure in minutes. In that regard, every long-term effect of nuclear weapon could be easily omitted. And in the short term, nuclear explosion will roughly equal in battlefield efficency to carpet bombing, contemporary artillery barrage and other less-scarier-sounding things. (God have mercy on us never to experience those less talked-about, enviroment-friendly tools of mass murder, as Chechens, Iraquians and many others had to recently.) In all that regard I’d not fear nuclear war more then any other kind of this popular big men’s pasttime. -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Sunday, March 4 2007 14:56
Profile
Homepage
Nuclear meltdowns don't happen very often, so that isn't much to be afraid of. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
|
written Monday, March 5 2007 13:51
Profile
Homepage
I'm currently wondering whether global warming, pollution, cancer, AIDS, bird flu, or nuclear war will kill us first. And I feel sooo happy about any of those. Yay. And for those of you who don't get it yet... [/intense sarcasm] -------------------- You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together. Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7501
|
written Monday, March 5 2007 14:02
Profile
FACT: The Earth is radioactive... The human body can take in radiation( to a point) Hydrogen bombs are only known to exist under the countries who are permanently in the UN security council... and nuclear weapons become more devastating each day, quote:i remember watching a top 10 ways of global extermination a few months ago, #1 was a Pandemic(think SARS/small pox) and small pox was one of em oh yeah, and the effects of global warming are incoming faster, ice age in the next century... cancer is abnormal cell replication... bird flu??? Pollution is being work on more nowadays, we all w ant to drink clean water don't we! [ Monday, March 05, 2007 14:04: Message edited by: TAKE ALL ] -------------------- previous display name was TAKE ALL SHAPER I am ALWAYS with you i know all that u do i know all of your secrets including how to shape Posts: 41 | Registered: Sunday, September 17 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, March 5 2007 23:00
Profile
Homepage
A pandemic could certainly be disastrous, but it's extremely unlikely to wipe out the entire human species. The human immune system is a remarkably adaptive thing; pandemics have wiped out over 90% of human populations in the past, but there are always survivors. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, March 5 2007 23:10
Profile
Assuming a less than immediate demise, I am rooting for pandemic. It would solve many problems. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Tuesday, March 6 2007 09:03
Profile
Revealed storages of oil on the planet are to last for about 50 years. Well, with new discoveries maybe 100. My bet that will "kill" the civilisation as we know it way before any doomsayers' cataclysm. Edit and clarification: "Biological" fuel, unlike oil, takes up farm LAND. therefore abides by the math "X land can support Y people". By all calculations possible now there is too much Y for this planet's X. [ Tuesday, March 06, 2007 09:06: Message edited by: Acidic Helixbolt ] -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, March 6 2007 11:43
Profile
Homepage
My hope is still that people will figure out that we need power from somewhere in time to start building a whole lot of nuclear plants. Unpleasant catapulting into the nuclear age beats missing the boat and plunging half the world back into the Stone Age due to lack of power plants. —Alorael, who has low expectations for other technologies. Nobody really expects novel technologies, though, or they wouldn't be all that novel. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Tuesday, March 6 2007 18:35
Profile
What exactly makes people believe nuclear fuel to be less exhaustive then said oil... ? -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, March 6 2007 19:17
Profile
Homepage
Earth's supply of uranium is limited. It's just not nearly as critically limited as fossil fuels right now. If uranium buys us a century or two to figure out power, that's not a bad deal. In that time we can work the kinks out of using thorium and get more time. Hopefully somewhere in that interval someone will work out how to get energy out of nuclear fusion and we'l be set. —Alorael, who doesn't think the problem with fossil fuel is running out per se. It's running out of fuel that's cheap enough to use. Uranium is quite cheap and it's all over. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, March 6 2007 21:48
Profile
Homepage
We already have the technology to use thorium for nuclear energy, and thorium supplies will last practically forever (thousands of years, at least, which is plenty of time to pave the Sahara with solar panels). The main problem is a political one: breeder reactors happen to have the right characteristics to be very good for secretly making weapons-grade nuclear material, if that's what you want to do. [ Tuesday, March 06, 2007 21:51: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 02:35
Profile
Well, to all things there is a beginning, and to all things there is an end:-) To uranium, to thorium… Guess a thing: if at times of Gottlieb Daimler someone’d counted the expected longetivity of oil supplies, he’d probably give the simillar “practically forever” extimation. Based on consumption levels of his time;-)))) Last, say 2-3 centuries humanity developed quite a manner of gnawing through “practically forever-lasting” supplies with frightening speed, starting from the so-called “ship wood” in Great Britain all the way through the whales to fossil fuel. And in each example at the time of first bites everyone voiced this resource to last “practically forever” or something to that effect, therefore it is quite frightening for me to hear such arguments. For example, nowadays planet-wise nuclear plants provide somewhere below 10% of electricity, and mind you tht electricity is practically NOT used to charge electrocars. I’ve seen a rough estimation that in theoretical “make every car electric, home plug – charged” (Coupled with diesel rails/ships and – the funniest – airplanes. Wich will mean step back from jets to propellers) will more then triple electricity consumption. Not sure if this is any credible, but it’s all I can remember on subject. Then, mind you that about 15-20% of electricity planet-wise is produced by – guess what – burning coal and/or natural gas. (My mortherland especially likes this stupid method… anyways, back on topic) This is exhaustible fuel btw;-) What this gives us is that our “simple solution” leads to almost 10 times increase in uranium/thorium/whatever consumption… (x3 for cars x3 for coal/gas = x9) and this providing the OVERALL energy consumption will stop increasing almost exponentially like it does last 100 years… While this describes one side of the problem, “solar panels over Sahara” is a very, very precise hit to other. Unfortunatelly, free cheese belongs to only one place. Why Sahara is Sahara in the firist place? Because Sun heats. Let me note that heat is what we will use on solar panels to get electricity. This means that for every watt of electricity taken this way, Sahara will get 0,000x degrees colder. Did I got you right that you didn’t wanted a single watt, you wanted AMOUNTS? … huston, we’ve got a problem. And next, let me guess, that electricity will transfer to where, Europe, USA, China… Now let me tell you the other thing: there is theoretical “absolutely efficent” machine where 100% of energy input does the job. Practically those are impossible. There is always a huge chunk of so-called “loss”, and it’s quite rarely less then 20% (Actually, many common mashines have an efficency around 10% meaning 90% loss…) Anyways, take as given, every, even the most perfect machine will be losing some part of energy. You know how? Friction mainly. Try that with your hands. Feel the warmth? These losses are first and foremost to HEATING. (Therefore widespread “coolants” everywhere). Are you getting my drift? You will be taking heat from Sahara and transporting it to Europe. And if I got you right you plan to do it for big, for real. The climate is an expendable thing, too... [ Wednesday, March 07, 2007 02:45: Message edited by: Acidic Helixbolt ] -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 03:53
Profile
Uh? Sahara won't get colder if we put solar panels, actually it may heat up a little more depending on the color of the panels. If we use standard black, walking above the panels would equal to walking on a heated up frying pan. If Sahara would get colder from our use of the panels, that would indicate something *really* weird is going on with the sun, and if that was the case, getting enough energy would be the least of our concerns. You see, although we take energy from the light, sun will be giving us more energy for several billion years or so. As long as the sun shines and nothing drastic happens to earths alignment to it, we can leech as much as we want without having to fear running out of it. You are right, though, that humankind's need of energy will roughly triple during the next century (has been stated in at least one science magazine here in Finland). If this is the case, then nuclear energy won't really solve any problems at all, 'cause we would need to build one reactor per day for several dozen years, and that's not gonna happen. Fusion won't be our savior either, as getting much more energy from fusion than fission would require humongous reactors, so we really can't expect a fusion plant to generate much more energy than a fission one. And so we again come to the problem of building enough reactors in a limited time. As it seems, sun is our only solution if our needs for energy will be rising at this rate. Of course we can always cut consumption, but I'm skeptic of that happening unless human population drops drastically. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 08:21
Profile
Homepage
Solar energy is already a fairly viable (though expensive) option. It certainly won't cover all energy needs or be the best option everywhere, but a well-designed home (that is, small, well-insulated, and oriented to take advantage of the sun) can be run entirely on solar. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 09:02
Profile
Solar energy is only cosher when used in neglible amounts. Otherwise it it our climate. Either we are absorbing more light, allowing less to be reflected back to the space => global warming, or we "transfer" temperature as described above. Neither is particularry harmless. -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 10:04
Profile
Homepage
Acidic, you don't quite understand the physical processes involved. Tranferring energy is not the same as transfering temperature. There are power lines running into your house that don't cause your house to heat up like an oven. The amount of heat radiated by a wire is proportional to the resistance of the wire. Some wires have very low resistances (and superconductors have zero resistance), so it is possible to transfer a whole bunch of energy without radiating much heat at all. Besides, I don't think we're talking about literally using the Sahara to provide power to the whole world. Solar panels can be installed locally to provide power to local neighborhoods, which doesn't involve transferring energy more than across a city at most, and we do that already. Likewise, absorbing light doesn't cause global warming. Radiating light from the Earth's surface at infrared wavelengths causes global warming. The amount of surface area we're talking about is negligible compared to the surface area of the Earth, so the effect would be minimal, and since the panels would be at approximately the same temperature as the Earth's surface, they'd just radiate like normal blackbodies and have no effect on global warming at all. [ Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:57: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 11:29
Profile
And I did believe I explained it clear enough about what shortcut “heat transfer” actually means. Let’s give it another try, Kelandon. Wires do not radiate much heat, yes. But any electrically-powered equipment you got that wires in for – invariably will. At the “final destination” of any “energy carrier”, be it electricity, fossil fuel or whatever else, say, just winded up spring, there will be a process of “work” that consists of a) useful work and b) losses, mostly in the form of heating. Also, let’s not confuse two parts of what I was talking about; those are quite interconnected, but different: a) Global warming as an aggregated result of many factors. Most important among those: - Amount of sun radiation received by planet (As opposed to one reflected by infamous Ozone atmosphere layer) - Amount of IR radiation out of the planet (as opposed to IR radiation “caught” by atmosphere CO2) - And, what I am talking about, amount of heat produced on planet from initially enviromental-temperatured sources (coal, fossil/nuclear fuel, hydro plants etc). You could easily see that ALL of those factors are reported to be getting worse: Ozone layer thins up, CO2 emissions grow (even to the point of being noticed by many governments, with various efforts to limit it already made), and our civilization’s energy consumption keeps going up. And b) Trans-area climate changes via “heat/cold” transfer, of whatever form. There are numerous explanations on this topic; the easy vocal example would be a sudden turn of Gulf Stream: while overall “average patient’s temperature of hospital” remains the same, one areas will be getting dramatically colder while others dramatically warmer. The cataclysmic consequences of this are not to be underestimated. One easy example: let’s assume we managed to achieve +3 degrees over Antarctica while getting -3 degrees over the same square of, well, Oceania… From one side we’re up for a nice flood as ices melt, from another we’re up for a biological catastrophe for your jungles, corals etc. In this regard your argument about “neglible” and “minimal” effects is not appropriate: while neglible on the planet scale, it may well be enough for Sahara locally. Both processes can indeed take place simultaneously. Another word about “neglible”. Those of you who live in big enough industrial cities can right now, right for himself, see a trick. It works nice in “easy winter” of around zero. Take a thermometer. Measure a temperature in your city. Make 5-6 observations on roughly the same latitude. Now travel 50+ kilometers away from the city, “into the wilderness”, keeping the same latitude. You will need two travels actually, west- and eastwards, to offset various atmospheric fronts effects. … you may guess that in theory, barring rare moments of exact passing of atmosphere front (evade such a time), you should get a linear temperature gradient west-city-east. You will not. You will get about +1/+2 degrees in city. And you will then go to a great length of argument to remain in peace with your optimism. -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 11:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've numbered them for easier reference. 1. This is a constant. It is not contributing to any "growing more warm," just to an underlying factor of "being warm to begin with." 2. This is the significant factor in the greenhouse effect. 3. I can't say that I know statistics on this, but I'm fairly certain that this is a negligible effect. The amount of heat produced by burning coal is small compared to the amount of heat produced via the greenhouse effect. quote:This is not going to be worsened by solar panels. quote:This is not optimism. Greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic environmental changes that get worse with each year. We have to deal with them or we risk completely destroying our way of life. However, your there-are-no-green-sources-of-energy point of view is not really accurate. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 11:52
Profile
Acidic - I had to stop reading your post because I believe your ideas to be complete nonsense. As an example, including radiant energy from the sun as a cause of global warming is idiotic, at least in the manner you ascribe. Perhaps if you tell us something of your credentials we can converse on more even ground. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 12:22
Profile
There are a lot of mistakes here. We are not going to run out of fuel anytime soon. Estimations are that by 2030 20% of fuel will be from renewables, by 2050, 50% renewables. Nuclear energy is a rather bad solution. It takes a long time to build a nuclear power plant 5-10 years, it has to use a lot of water-- something which will become scarcer, it has waste which can't be gotten rid of easily, most people don't want to live close to nuclear power plants, and it is a security threat. Soya based biofuel will be added to jet fuel soon within the next couple years, they are not that far from creating a biofuel for jet engines. Cellulosic ethanol can replace a large portion of our oil use eventually. This means anything which can produce cellulose can be used as a fuel source-- algae, wood chips, rapeseed, farm leavings, etc. Combined with hybrid electric engines for trains, cars, buses, and boats you have an immediate real answer to a lot of the oil problems. Something like the Opel Astra is a good example of biodiesel hybrid car. Green Goat in Canada is converting diesel trains, and boats into hybrids. These are solutions for today. A simple statement may be passed into law tomorrow all gas and diesel will be cut by 5-10% ethanol or biodiesel. Wind power is growing at a clip of 300% annually in the United States. There are huge 1.5 MW wind turbines being pumped out by GE in quantity. ADM is already the defacto leader in producing ethanol. There are no new gas refineries being produced, but ethanol and biodiesel refineries are growing fairly quickly in most states. So are biogas facilities from agricultural waste. We are a long way from being forced to choose one single energy source. By the time you build a nuclear plant, you could have probably built several wind farms, several agricultural biogas plants from farm waste, and a couple of biorefineries which are both cheaper and safer. We have not even started developing geothermal power which is the most underused source of alternative energy. It is not intermittent and never goes away. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 12:26
Profile
ADM may not be the deity we choose, despite their attempts to manuever into a position of control over all the world's food and fuel supplies. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8229
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 12:53
Profile
As usual, warmest part first. Spent Salmon, I really can not get it how credentials help put the conversation on more even ground with “your position is nonsence and idiotic” argument, rather, those only further increase the gap. quote:Actually, it is not, because of the aforementioned ozone. Ozone Layer’s “natural” purpose is to absorb/reflect a portion of solar radiation. Therefore, thinning of it will cause more radiation, and in that form more heat, to reach the planet. (And this even omitting all the health problems from UV) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer quote:Very might be globally at the moment. However, I’m not discounting it for the simple reason of displayed humanity’s quite unsatable appetite, and because the introduction of newer and “better” power sources is likely to keep the trend. quote:Mea culpa. Seriously. I had not made myself clear on this critical point. I do not think that there-are-no-green-sources-of-energy. I think that There are no way not and can not be enough green sources of energy for the current, and growing, levels of consumption by the current, and growing, number of Earth’s population . Biofuel, the green but fair “land-can-support-only-so-much” fuel, makes exceptionally fine example of this. Here the first google result: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108206&org=NSF (I am sure those interested can eaasily find more on the topic). Note this: quote:Notice that we’re speaking about using up basically all the land we could. You can dig deeper, but farmland is more or less fixed. Less then 20% Please notice that this amount is naturally limited, unlike our consumption. So what is 13% and 19% now will be less tomorrow if we keep going as we do. [ Wednesday, March 07, 2007 15:39: Message edited by: Acidic Helixbolt ] -------------------- "At ease, guys, it's just some nonsence green wingbolt..." - Guardian Kantor, Shaper infiltrator forces, last words. Posts: 36 | Registered: Sunday, March 4 2007 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, March 7 2007 16:51
Profile
Homepage
Ozone absorbs ultraviolet light, which is good for us because ultraviolet is highly energetic and dangerous to our health. Ozone doesn't reflect it, and it can in fact act as a greenhouse gas by absorbing light and energy. Less ozone would mean more chances for ultraviolet light to bounce, I suppose, but I really have no idea how much of the solar energy that Earth receives comes in the form of ultraviolet. —Alorael, who wants to see statistics on heat produced by wires and appliances. Yes, use of electricity produces heat, but it's not much of a contributor to global warming, and global warming is not the same issue as energy production although they're now linked by CO2-emitting power sources. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |