Learn how to spot and avoid common scams with AARP's Fraud Resource Center. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
79
Views

Re: Environmentalists to Blame?

79 Views
Message 1 of 7

 

 "They could allow Los Angeles to use solar energy collected in the Sahara Desert."

 

Think about that, a world network of solar panels on different continents connected by superconducting cables.

 

The sun would never stop shining somewhere, continuous power into the grid, power for the third world to power pumps for water to drink and irrigation.

 

We could do that now if all the industrialized countries worked together.

 

We could start building the grid tomorrow, but it would take socialism on a world wide scale. 

 

A publicly  owned world wide power grid, a public utility owned by the people of the planet.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
79
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
94
Views

Re: Environmentalists to Blame?

94 Views
Message 2 of 7

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/280265-mit-plans-new-fusion-reactor-that-could-actually-generate...

 

MIT Plans New Fusion Reactor That Could Actually Generate Power

 

 

Twenty more years and we could have a fusion power plant, but they said that twenty years ago.

 

Someday it might happen, but will it be cheaper and safer and cleaner then solar?

 

Solar power is down to 3.5 cents per kWh on a utility scale, twenty years ago people laughed at the idea of solar power, it was like flying cars.

 

Could be a better investment would be better transmission of power, superconductor power lines.

 

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182278-the-worlds-first-superconducting-power-line-paves-the-way...

 

World’s first superconducting power line paves the way for billions of dollars in savings, more nuclear power stations

 

Check this out

 

 "They could allow Los Angeles to use solar energy collected in the Sahara Desert."

 

Of course we wouldn't need to do that in North America, we could generate power in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and send it all over North America.

 

Maybe we better get on the ball before the Chinese build it in Mexico.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
94
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
111
Views

Re: Environmentalists to Blame?

111 Views
Message 3 of 7

@10BlueMule71 wrote:

For almost a decade I have stated that many years into the future (50 years from now?) people will write about how the environmental movement stalled the development of nuclear power such as Fusion. Not the intelligent ones; they'll be talking about how the environmentalists have started the discussion and pushed others to open their minds and look toward better solutions other than fossil fuels like oil and coal.  Good for them!  Fusion power (not fission that powers nuclear plants today) , is the process the sun uses, an almost endless source of 'clean' energy without the concern over nuclear waste.  I agree and good point.....but we should forget, geothermal energy either.

 

But you must give the environmentalist credit to have created one of the best marketing terms of the century 'Climate Change'. 

 

I understand Global Warming, the term is clear and specific. But that term looses credibility during Arctic Blasts and record setting cold temps in parts of our country. Oh no you didn't......c'mon.  Do you know how warm the rest of the earth is???  Record setting warmth in Europe, Siberia has been overwhelmed with polar bears because of the artic ice melt....."our country" has very little to do with global warming.....

 

Geothermal energy, clean, efficient, no waste and renewable.

 

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/geothermal-energy/tech.html

 

Thanks for your topic.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in Washington DC, January 21, 2017.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
111
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
132
Views

Re: Environmentalists to Blame?

132 Views
Message 4 of 7

Read the ITER website - fusion is a plasma based reaction where hydrogen is converted to helium in a extremely high termperture fusion reaction ( the power of the sun) - plasma energy is like what happens in a neon bulb or the CFL bulbs but without the fusion reaction - no nuclear waste like fission

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
132
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
159
Views

Re: Environmentalists to Blame?

159 Views
Message 5 of 7

For almost a decade I have stated that many years into the future (50 years from now?) people will write about how the environmental movement stalled the development of nuclear power such as Fusion. Fusion power (not fission that powers nuclear plants today) , is the process the sun uses, an almost endless source of 'clean' energy without the concern over nuclear waste.

 

We spent a lot of money on fusion power, in the US and Europe, it was the fuel of the future that never materialized.

 

The big problem with nuclear power is what to do with the spent fuel rods. In retrospect is was a mistake to not create a method / industry to deal with spent fuel rods. Nobody want a nuclear waste dump in their state, but we have spent fuel rods sitting in pools of water as every nuclear power plant, and no plan what to do with them.

 

Nuclear power was sold to the public as clean cheap power, but that never materialized either.

 

Then there are the accidents, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and probably many other smaller accidents we've never heard about.

 

Better design has probably mitigated the accident problem, if there is actually some way to enforce it's use, Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't use containment buildings.

 

I think nuclear power would be OK using the newer safer designs if we had a way to dispose of the waste other then a landfill or a cave. 

 

I think nuclear power is undesirable if we have no waste disposal program. Europe, Russia, China, and Japan have programs, industries, to reprocess used fuel rods.

 

The USA does not,  and the USA has a lot of legacy waste.

 

Environmentalists are not to blame for the problems in the nuclear waste industry, capitalism is.

 

To make the numbers work, to make nuclear power profitable, to even come close to the sales pitch of cheap, clean energy, so cheap we would  not even have to meter it ( remember that),  corners had to be cut, and even with cutting corners it still wasn't all that exceptionally cheap.

 

Nuclear power could have been a money losing but relatively safe and clean source of power, owned and run by the federal government,  which included a waste disposal industry.

 

That's not how we do things in the USA, that would be socialism. 

 

So here we are in 2019.

 

It's not to late, we can still do it, we can still build a waste industry to deal with legacy waste, we should, spent fuel rods sitting at power plants all across the nation in pools of water are going to be a problem sooner or later. We can decommission aging power plants and replace them with the most modern designs, and have the federal government pay for and run them, we would pay for that through taxation and utility bills.

 

Can can do all of that, but will we ? Or would that be socialism.

 

One thing for sure, there would be no profit in it, so don't look to capitalism for a solution

 

Then there is solar and wind power, Europe is largely powered by renewable power, Sweden burns trash to generate electricity. Maybe we should look at what other people in other countries are doing.

 

Maybe the answer to trash and landfills is to recycle and burn the trash to generate power, kill two birds with one stone. It beats burning coal right?

 

 

Far as arctic blasts go, look at the effects of stratification in the atmosphere, the break down of the jet steam, and warming at the poles. We hear a lot about a 1.4 degree temperature rise since 1880 and think, well that's nothing, but the temperatures at the poles have risen 30 to 50 degrees, permafrost is melting, ice is disappearing, and it causing problems at lower latitudes, like arctic blasts.

 

Simply put, hot and cold fluids don't readily mix, think of a water heater with a dip tube, the greater the temperature difference the more resistance to mixing, and the inverse is true.

 

The poles warm and the cold arctic air is no longer contained in a cap at the poles by stratification, the arctic ice and permafrost melts and latitudes closer to the equator get arctic blasts.

 

Once that ice is gone, once that permafrost melts, it's gone until the next ice age

 

So are environmentalists to blame? 

 

No, if we listened to them instead of thinking we could bring back coal we would be a lot better off then we are. Not all of us of course, not the coal industry and the people who work in it, the towns that depend on it, but as a whole, as a nation among many other nations, we would be better off.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
159
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
160
Views

Re: Environmentalists to Blame?

160 Views
Message 6 of 7

Someone else wrote here, maybe OlderScout or GruffStuff, that our government no longer has any vision of the future.  You could say Obama did, and that’s why he was so strict on environmental restrictions and mandates.   Government’s forcing fleets to have an average MPG each year forced companies to add hybrids and electric cars to their fleets. Develop cleaner diesel. Look at natural gas.   

 

I didn’t hear of any nuclear developments or mandates. But it wasn’t on my radar.  So I don’t to what extent that fell through the cracks on environmental planning by the government.

 

On the private side, we don’t seem to be anywhere near as innovative outlook or ability as other countries do. You cite France here.  I know it’s true in relation to places like Germany and China.

 

So, we seem to lack both a centralized vision from our government that could push us toward innovation, as well as a lack of, or at least declining innovation that would spur private scientists to research more. Although of course, so much of our research budget is federally funded.   Again coming back to government’s role.  And I don’t really know when government can or will get back to long-term planning for our future.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
160
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
179
Views
6
Replies

Environmentalists to Blame?

179 Views
Message 7 of 7

For almost a decade I have stated that many years into the future (50 years from now?) people will write about how the environmental movement stalled the development of nuclear power such as Fusion. Fusion power (not fission that powers nuclear plants today) , is the process the sun uses, an almost endless source of 'clean' energy without the concern over nuclear waste.

 

I believe they can now add the irony of the environmental movement's semi-successful attempt to stop nuclear energy has created their biggest concern over increases of atmospheric CO2. If nuclear energy had been further developed and fossil fuel use diminished, CO2 would be much less of an issue. Also, unlike the 'renewable' variety of energy that is not reliable 24/7/365 - fusion energy is reliable and could meet the majority of our energy needs at a very affordable cost, night and day, all year long.

 

But you must give the environmentalist credit to have created one of the best marketing terms of the century 'Climate Change'. 

 

I understand Global Warming, the term is clear and specific. But that term looses credibility during Arctic Blasts and record setting cold temps in parts of our country. So the term Climate Change was created that can mean anything, too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too much snow, no snow, too many hurricanes or tornadoes, etc. The term beats out the the term we use in contingency clauses in product supply agreements. Lawyers state we would not be held liable to supply due to war, sabotage, inability to obtain electricity or 'Acts of God'. Both Climate Change and Acts of God cover it all and can mean whatever you want it to mean - inspirational and motivational.

 

Google the term ITER. From that website:
ITER ("The Way" in Latin) is one of the most ambitious energy projects in the world today.

In southern France, 35 nations are collaborating to build the world's largest tokamak, a magnetic fusion device that has been designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free source of energy based on the same principle that powers our Sun and stars.

 

The experimental campaign that will be carried out at ITER is crucial to advancing fusion science and preparing the way for the fusion power plants of tomorrow.

 

ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. ITER will be the first fusion device to maintain fusion for long periods of time. And ITER will be the first fusion device to test the integrated technologies, materials, and physics regimes necessary for the commercial production of fusion-based electricity.

 

In the meantime, embrace climate change and keep debating the environmental mess and anger that the environmental fanatics have created. They will bring up past experiences with nuclear events, but they were lessons we learned as part of life's story. We have advanced and improved - and will keep on making improvements. Furthermore, fusion is not like fission, it offers much higher energy without the radioactive exposure.

 

Fusion,this game changer in energy for the world may not start in our USA. We are too focused on electric cars; cars being charged at night when we come home from work by the next increment of electric generated by natural gas power plants - but it makes us feel good about electric cars being 'green'.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
179
Views
6
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors