Are We On A Point Of No Return?

[Dreaming Of Pandora]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Greenpeace is still one of the "better" large organizations when it comes to protection of the environment. Compared to lets say WWF, who already tend to bend their opinions to the money of "supporters" and accept building pipelines in the Amazon!

And I agree with them that nuclear power is about the stupidest thing one can do to replace coal and gas. It is an unsafe technology and no one knows yet where to put the waste. Also it is immensely expensive, just the costs do not show up because of subsidiaries (sp?) and mostly because the costs are in the disposal of waste, which is not happening (and not costing anything) yet. There is no reason why not invest the effort and money into solar power instead. It is a proven and safe technology, the power can be stored in various ways (pumping water or air in lake reservoirs or depleted gas reservoirs below ground).

I still wonder what the 500 months mean - I mean what do they say will happen at this point? It is quite a long way until then. 40 years - much can happen until then, so in PR terms this is a backlash, as if I would be a critic and read we still have 40 years, I'd say "oh, no worries then, we still have plenty of time to find some solution". Personally, I think 500 months may be the time when we are seriously doomed, but every year that passes now makes things worse. Did you hear the news, that this winter, the gulf stream already did change? Did you hear that studies show, that the gulf stream is already slowing down even now? Not in 40 years... People say "oh look, we had a cold winter this year, so global warming is a scam", but this is just the opposite - it is a result of global change and it is in tune with the Gaia Theory, that Earths systems have some regulatory mechanisms. Meaning if the gulf stream stops due to global warming, it may actually be good. Europe and Canada may freeze over, the snow cover reflects heat and the warming is slowed. Good for the Earth, not so good for the people living there....

Yeah the effects of the Gulf Stream slowing had huge impacts on Ireland a couple of months ago. Ireland and Britain are most affected by the Gulf Stream and that is evident last winter.

My city never once flooded since it was built (hundreds of years ago). Last winter my city was submerged in 6 feet of water and just when we thought that was over we experienced the coldest temperatures ever recorded in our country. The coldest it ever got was around -4 or -5 celsius, one night during January temperatures plumetted to -25 degrees celsius (-13 Fahrenheit). The kind of temps. the Artic experiences.

So Im getting pretty nervous if this keeps up for the next couple of years because it's just gonna get worse and worse.

At least if we do screw up Earth she has a natural defense mechanism to send us back to the stone age, nature.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Dreaming Of Pandora

Yeah the effects of the Gulf Stream slowing had huge impacts on Ireland a couple of months ago.
[...]
So Im getting pretty nervous if this keeps up for the next couple of years because it's just gonna get worse and worse.

At least if we do screw up Earth she has a natural defense mechanism to send us back to the stone age, nature.

Well - I think it may not get worse every year, but I guess stuff like this will happen with increasing frequency. Also warm winters. Just generally more unstable conditions as the gulf stream "stutters". And it is a result of "global warming" or rather more precise the disruption of regular cimate patterns. Sadly, the induction of self regulatory measures like these could not only help reducing the effects of global warming, they could also fuel the fires of climate change sceptics who then can say"see, it's all blimey, the earth can take it if we put even more gases in the air, It'll be all fine". And at some point, the regulation snaps and Lovelocks predictions come true when the regulation runs away in the opposite direction and we'll not face 2-3°C warming, but 8-10°C and all go live in the Arctic.

I doubt however earth will "set us back to the stone age". That would maybe even be a nice place. I think if things really go south, it will be more like the dark ages - or "mad max". But I doubt it would hit all humans, some may be able to keep up their current ways... I think we even would have all the technology needed to build a "spaceship on earth" kind of city. Then all that is needed would be a nice stash of nuclear fuel and it could outlast the "defense mechanisms"... But that's SciFi of course - in a way.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

And I agree with them that nuclear power is about the stupidest thing one can do to replace coal and gas. It is an unsafe technology and no one knows yet where to put the waste. Also it is immensely expensive, just the costs do not show up because of subsidiaries (sp?) and mostly because the costs are in the disposal of waste, which is not happening (and not costing anything) yet. There is no reason why not invest the effort and money into solar power instead. It is a proven and safe technology, the power can be stored in various ways (pumping water or air in lake reservoirs or depleted gas reservoirs below ground).

you do realise that modern reactors produce far less (and lower level) waste? The only reason Cold War-era reactors are still running is lack of funding (and they are all already either reaching or at the end of their design lifetimes anyway). Fossil fuels WILL run out, wind turbines are hugely expensive for the energy they produce, and most solar cell designs actually take a huge amount of energy to produce (and produce hazardous byproducts, are generally shipped from China, and cause further environmental damage when not properly disposed of at the end of their useful lifetime)

It's not actually unsafe... before you bring up Chernobyl, I'll remind you that it was a design flaw in an ancient russian reactor design, which would have caused an automatic shutdown but was exacerbated by human error and improperly trained staff. Ironically, coal releases a higher level of radiation into the atmosphere (which falls to the ground in particulates) than nuclear energy.

I agree that it's only a temporary measure until fusion becomes economical though, but that won't be for at LEAST another decade, more likely 2-3. Until then, energy needs to come from somewhere. Unless you want to end up paying 5-6x as much for it, it's the only option.

[Grif]

And there is also the possibility of a thorium reactor. It's safer than uranium, the waste is stable enough to where you can hold it for a short amount of time with no ill effects and becomes virtually un-radioactive in about 100 years. (This is all just off the top of my head)

[Iluvrien]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I agree that it's only a temporary measure until fusion becomes economical though, but that won't be for at LEAST another decade, more likely 2-3. Until then, energy needs to come from somewhere. Unless you want to end up paying 5-6x as much for it, it's the only option.

Fusion could take far less than that to test and develop, people just need to be willing to pay for it. At the moment only governments seems to be doing so (certainly in the cases of ITER and NIF) and we all know how happy they are to part with money. Especially for something as unpopular as science research.

[Human No More]

That is true. You'd think more companies would be interested, since if they did manage it, they'd be able to put all the energy companies out of business practically overnight, but I think it's just the high cost of the research and the fact that the companies who COULD afford it having interests against its success . Maybe the technology being in the hands of government rather than companies for profit is a good idea anyway for something this important though, I don't know...

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

you do realise that modern reactors produce far less (and lower level) waste? [...] Fossil fuels WILL run out, wind turbines are hugely expensive for the energy they produce, and most solar cell designs actually take a huge amount of energy to produce [...]
It's not actually unsafe... before you bring up Chernobyl, I'll remind you that it was a design flaw in an ancient russian reactor design

Yes. modern reactors are safer and produce less waste, but they still have a lot of dangers. failures happen all the time and the problem is, that even small failures can cause quite ugly results. And even if there is less waste, there still is waste and up to now nobody knows what to do with it. There have just been some major scandaly around nuclear waste disposal in Germany where I live... It was known that these places would not be suitable for nuclear waste for decades by alternative scientists and activists (like Greenpeace) but only now it was made official and quite a few people involved are under investigation.

On alternative energies - I think more should be invested to advance this technology. But there are technologies that can be used already. Classical thermal solar power plants are safe, efficient and not that expensive to build. Biogas plants are also good and you do not have to put food in there, just the wast products. Basically it is a compost heap with a power plant attached. Also geothermal energy has still a lot of potential. A key change that would be required though for such energy is an enhanced network. To bring energy from the wind turbines of the North sea or from the Sahara desert or from geothermal fields in Italy to other parts of Europe, one would need to build more power lines and storage facilities. But that can be made and is still efficient. A couple of big companies actually plan to build thermal solar plants in Northern Africa and use them to supply Europe with alternative energy.

fusion becomes economical though, but that won't be for at LEAST another decade, more likely 2-3. Until then, energy needs to come from somewhere. Unless you want to end up paying 5-6x as much for it, it's the only option.

Well - there is still a lot of potential to save enrgy, but yes - energy has to come somewhere. I think 3 decades are a possibility, but no less than that, probably quite a bit longer. I just read an article in our local variant of Scientific American and it seems there are still huge huge problems that have not even begun to be worked at. Experimental fusion ractors may in the near future be able to put out more energy than they consume, but the fuel is immensely expensive (you need tritium, not just water) and the emitted energy can not yet be collected. The theoretical capabilities of the capture blanket have been defined, but no one knows yet what kinds of metarials could be used, not to mention that the development of these devices will take decades also. So I would not count on fusion for 3-4 decades

I looked up Thorium reactors on Wikipedia. Seems like Thorium is most often used in MOX (mixed fuels). They really seem to be a bit more efficient and safe and the waste has less plutonium and transuranic elements, but the advantages are not that great and it also has some disadvantages. So maybe it is better to use than Uranium reactors, but it is far from a clean energy. I could not find anything on the 100 year period though - maybe you can point me to some article on that? From what i have read, there are quite a few long term radioactive elements produced in this type of reactor also.

[tm20]

in terms of resources, no it isn't. If all resources could be given a value of 1, then we are currently using 1.4 of it. Yes, we are over the limit BUT it's not too late. However the resources that we use are part of our everyday lives. Some things we can reduce the intake of, other things we can't.

[Seshat Tsahìk]

You know ZenitYerkes, I wonder about this sometimes too? Sometimes it seems to me, like with my cousins and friends kids, and well even in the news there seems to be problems with birth defects and health issues. That's when I start asking is there too many toxins in this world and what is it doing to us? Not a happy thought to start ones morning. I hope it isn't too late, I hope that we haven't reached the brink>

[auroraglacialis]

Maybe birth defects and therelike are kind of a regulatory response from "Mother Nature". Well - I think at least they probably could increase with increased toxins and therelike. Normally, they should go back because we have all this medicine and healthcare, but reading that much of the tap water has substances in it that should not be there (toxins, pharmaceuticals) and that bottled water is even worse (as it is basically just tap water from another region, even less regulated and then put in plastic and transported across the country) - I get shivers. Look at how cows are kept for beef and how this ends up on our tables. That cannot be healthy at all. I recommend watching "Food Inc." - a movie that traces back some regular products in the supermarket to the origins - and I tell you it is not the nice farm with the red barn that is on the product picture... Whatever we humans do - it always comes back to us.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

From what i have read, there are quite a few long term radioactive elements produced in this type of reactor also.

The length isn't as important as the actual level of radioactivity. As an example (although not one generated by normal reactors, it is found in EVERYTHING), Carbon-14 poses no danger to anything, yet has a half life of nearly 6000 years.

[auroraglacialis]

Hmm - the level of radioactivity is important, yes, but if halflife is short then the material can "cool down" in the reactor building. I think the most dangerous elements are the ones that either poisenous themselves (like plutonium) or that are active for a long time. If it is active only for some decades, you can bury it as it is proposed now, but as it will be active for thousands of years and more, disposal has to be planned for that long times and that is nearly impossible.
I'm a bit too busy now to search for a good comparison of these kinds of fuels besides Wikipedia, but it seems both have been around for half a century and from Wikipedia I do see that MOX may be a bit more efficient and less toxic, but to me that is still not acceptable. It still is a dangerous and toxic way of producing electricity. Right now I think the best option are thermal solar plants or geothermal energy supplemented by wind power. Cheap, effective and reliable. For the near future also Solar Sterling Power. Energy storage can be achieved by pumping compressed air in old gas reservoirs (that is already done to store energy) or pumping water into a reservoir. A nice idea is also to store energy in electric cars once they are abundant or it could be used to create hydrogen fuel.
A very nice emerging technology I actually considered applying to work in is production of biofuels by algae. Basically you create basins or bioreactors in an area with lots of sun, put a special kind of algae in it, maybe add CO2 from a power plant, wait 10 days, harvest the algae and process them to get oil they produce directly and use the rest to make bioethanol. Some work has to be done to make it economic and maybe the algae can be modified or crossbred to create more oil, but I think it is a nice option for the future.

[Human No More]

Algae biofuels are promising, unlike ones from crops which produce biofuel, but are heavily subsidised and reduce food production, which is bad with the level of overpopulation we have.

[Iluvrien]

So many good ideas about ways to produce clean power... and yet so few governmental agencies and commercial entities looking to take them on in large scale projects.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Iluvrien

So many good ideas about ways to produce clean power... and yet so few governmental agencies and commercial entities looking to take them on in large scale projects.

That is indeed sad.


I don't think we have reached a point of no return environmentally speaking, socially speaking however I do believe this society and civilization has peaked and is coming to an end, whether or nor it will be abrupt like in the Mad Max movies or the movie the Postman for example or gradual like the fall of Rome remains to be seen.