Is climate change already solved?

[StevenK]

I'm watching the climate change talks taking place at the moment and I'm thinking, hasn't nuclear already solved this problem 50 years ago?

There are about 400 nuclear power stations on the planet and they produce around 11% of the worlds electricity. Simple maths, build another 3,600 and it's job done.

What are the problems with nuclear? If we're thinking of the safety concerns then we can write that off - something like 40,000 people die every day from conventional electricity production but no one seems to give a shit about that. We could have a chernobyl a week and still be smug about the lives saved.

As for the nuclear waste products - fuck it, fire the stuff up into space, no one else will be using the fuel so a couple of rockets a day disappearing into the infinite void of space will make no difference to either our oil supply or the co2 levels in the atmosphere.

I put this to an open university environmental sciences professor and he agreed - the only hindrance was political and baseless fear.

What a fucked up world we live in.

 

[madman]

Nearly 40,000 die each day? Where are the stats on that? Also why not go with more solar or wind power instead of nuclear?

 

[norton9478]

HAHA, firing nuclear waste into space.

 

[wyo]

I am on-board with Team Nuclear. The arguments against it are irrational and there are no other viable alternatives.

 

[ki_atsushi]

HAHA, firing nuclear waste into space.

Might as well, space is already a hellhole of solar and background radiation.

 

[StevenK]

Nearly 40,000 die each day? Where are the stats on that? Also why not go with more solar or wind power instead of nuclear?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

Says 20,000 a day, though to be fair I've been drinking.

Solar, wind, yeah, these are great ideas too and I like that they're being taken up more extensively, but we have to face facts - there isn't the space for wind, it takes in the order of hundreds of times if not thousands to produce the same amount of energy, and even then the technology is based on rare earth metals to run it which (as their name implies) don't have an everlasting source.

Same for solar - though it's not quite as silly when it comes to space required.

Trust me, I hope these things have a future, but for now we have what we need right there and we're not using it enough.

 

[hyper]

Oil is more lucrative

 

[HellioN]

Nuke us till we glow.

 

[StevenK]

HAHA, firing nuclear waste into space.

Typical nuclear power plant generates 20 tonnes of nuclear waste per year, if there were 4000 plants that's 80,000 tonnes per year. Per day that's 219 tonnes.

A Falcon Heavy can lift 53 metric tonnes into space, so four of those per day required. Estimates for a space rocket launch are approximately 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide, so 4 a day is lets say 100 tonnes of CO2 produced per day. At the moment fossil fuel power stations produce over 100 million tonnes of CO2 every day.

Lets take out the obvious errors here, I'm making this up as I go along so of course there are going to be lots of them.

Firstly the falcon heavy doesn't exist yet, it's due to start next year, fair enough.

Secondly I'm not sure how far into space you get to take the payload for your 23 tonnes of CO2.

Lets say I'm out by a factor of ten, or a hundred, or even a thousand. But to suggest these simple calculations are a million times smaller than the reality (which they would need to be for this suggestion to be HAHA) would be, lets say, bold.

 

[norton9478]

The real answer to Nuclear is on site storage.

Might as well, space is already a hellhole of solar and background radiation.

It isn't space that I would be worried about.

 

[bloodycelt]

But that's against the business model.

You see, the plan is... sell oil, and make $$ of that as it dries up, more $$ than what it takes to block any alternative from showing up too soon.
Then because you've been cock blocked on anything else, they can monopolize something else to sell. But it has to be polutiong and depleting.

Reason is, there is profit in destroying the environment. Especially polluted air and water because they can make $$ off selling masks, and bottled water, and the health services to everyone that got cancer and other health problems from said pollution.

There's not enough accelerated growth in nuclear power to interest investors or politicians, sorry.

Think of politicians and the people in charge as having the same mentality as the people that sacrifice AES carts to make knockoffs.

 

[andsuchisdeath]

Think of politicians and the people in charge as having the same mentality as the people that sacrifice AES carts to make knockoffs.

Now you're speaking a language I understand!

I was lost previously, this guy gets it now, thanks friend

 

[StevenK]

The real answer to Nuclear is on site storage.



It isn't space that I would be worried about.

If you're referring to the dangers of an explosion of a rocket releasing radioactive waste into the atmosphere then this has long since been debunked, waste could be packaged in such a way that even a rocket explosion wouldn't be able to cause dispersal, and that was using technology from 50 years ago.

Yes it would be another cost and more weight that would detract from your payload, but I refer back to the 1 million times less co2 calculation above.

 

[ki_atsushi]

If you're referring to the dangers of an explosion of a rocket releasing radioactive waste into the atmosphere then this has long since been debunked, waste could be packaged in such a way that even a rocket explosion wouldn't be able to cause dispersal, and that was using technology from 50 years ago.

Yes it would be another cost and more weight that would detract from your payload, but I refer back to the 1 million times less co2 calculation above.

You'll never convince nortie of anything, stop wasting your time.

 

[Cylotron]

just ban all non-electric automobiles. problem solved....

 

[madman]

But that's against the business model.

You see, the plan is... sell oil, and make $$ of that as it dries up, more $$ than what it takes to block any alternative from showing up too soon.
Then because you've been cock blocked on anything else, they can monopolize something else to sell. But it has to be polutiong and depleting.

Reason is, there is profit in destroying the environment. Especially polluted air and water because they can make $$ off selling masks, and bottled water, and the health services to everyone that got cancer and other health problems from said pollution.

There's not enough accelerated growth in nuclear power to interest investors or politicians, sorry.

Think of politicians and the people in charge as having the same mentality as the people that sacrifice AES carts to make knockoffs.

A++++++ WOULD READ AGAIN.

 

[NeoSneth]

No one does the right thing unless it is profitable or enforced.

Power Plants and manufacturing will pollute and avoid scrubbers until the fines exceed the cost of disposing the waste. It is silly that regulators still do not always take this into consideration.....

 

[Earthquake24]

 

[MuppeT]

Don't worry!!! carbon TAX will save the world from climate change (ex global warming... but they had to scrap it as it went somehow cooler) ..

people are such idiots it pains me.

 

[F4U57]

All you would need is one rocket to bust it's nut on the way out and have nuclear waste rain back down on earth.

What a stupid fucking proposal.

 

[famicommander]

I say we just kick Al Gore in the dick and continue polluting.

 

[GutsDozer]

Slightly off subject but I read today in the new Nat Geo that scientist are measuring a specific type of isotope released into the atmosphere during The atom bomb test to predict where, when, and how much soil erosion will happen.

 

[wyo]

All you would need is one rocket to bust it's nut on the way out and have nuclear waste rain back down on earth.

What a stupid fucking proposal.

Yeah, let's not do that part

 

[Dr Shroom]

also norton is a fat cunt
that is spelled F-A-T C-U-N-T

 

[StevenK]

All you would need is one rocket to bust it's nut on the way out and have nuclear waste rain back down on earth.

What a stupid fucking proposal.

If you're referring to the dangers of an explosion of a rocket releasing radioactive waste into the atmosphere then this has long since been debunked, waste could be packaged in such a way that even a rocket explosion wouldn't be able to cause dispersal, and that was using technology from 50 years ago.

Only as stupid as not being able to read a few posts above.