Earth matters

[Otern]

The Green movement flip flops back and forwards on nuclear power as I have myself. When you take into account the speed at which CO2 emissions are set to rise with the populations of developing countries demanding more energy and the developed countries dragging their feet on renewable sources I currently think it is the only way forward.However there is a huge but, bigger than JLO's butt, when it comes to safety. Building power stations near the coast in earthquake zones is about as dumb as it gets. Sticking nuclear waste in capsules under the ground till we work out how to deal with them is dumb. Plus you have the fact that Uranium is running out and at current consumption it could be all gone in 60 years.Once that runs out you might have to use Plutonium which is even more dangerous. So it's not too surprising that Greenpeace are against it and that I can't really make up my mind.

Uranium was dug up from the ground, we can dig it back down after using it. We just have to dig deep, and pick a good location. Like really deep. So deep people will make movies about it. An entire new genre of horror fiction deep. And then place the stuff right next to the Balrog.

But, as you've said, we're running out of Uranium. Uranium reactors are not the future, but they're necessary to keep the educational infrastructure and economical incentives to manage to develop Thorium reactors. A drop in nuclear reactors will lead to a drop in nuclear scientists, and those guys are necessary to make Thorium work. Maybe they'll figure out how to make fusion reactors work too.

Also, India has the largest amount of Thorium, and those are the people that will need it the most in the future.

[Montegriffo]

I hear a lot about thorium and fusion but how close are they really? Tidal power seems like a good way to go but the construction costs are huge and the environmental consequences of doing it on coastlines and places like the Severn estuary seem to hinder development. Still, harnessing the power of gravity with relatively low tech equipment would make it a good one to export to developing countries. Constant reliable source of non-polluting(once built) energy.

[Montegriffo]

The Green movement flip flops back and forwards on nuclear power as I have myself. When you take into account the speed at which CO2 emissions are set to rise with the populations of developing countries demanding more energy and the developed countries dragging their feet on renewable sources I currently think it is the only way forward.However there is a huge but, bigger than JLO's butt, when it comes to safety. Building power stations near the coast in earthquake zones is about as dumb as it gets. Sticking nuclear waste in capsules under the ground till we work out how to deal with them is dumb. Plus you have the fact that Uranium is running out and at current consumption it could be all gone in 60 years.Once that runs out you might have to use Plutonium which is even more dangerous. So it's not too surprising that Greenpeace are against it and that I can't really make up my mind.

Uranium was dug up from the ground, we can dig it back down after using it. We just have to dig deep, and pick a good location. Like really deep. So deep people will make movies about it. An entire new genre of horror fiction deep. And then place the stuff right next to the Balrog.

But, as you've said, we're running out of Uranium. Uranium reactors are not the future, but they're necessary to keep the educational infrastructure and economical incentives to manage to develop Thorium reactors. A drop in nuclear reactors will lead to a drop in nuclear scientists, and those guys are necessary to make Thorium work. Maybe they'll figure out how to make fusion reactors work too.

Also, India has the largest amount of Thorium, and those are the people that will need it the most in the future.

Someone once said to me we should fire nuclear waste out into space. I said "trouble with standing at the bottom of a well throwing up hand grenades is sooner or later you are going to fuck up and one will fall right back towards you".

[Otern]

I don't know shit about Peruvian agriculture, so I have absolutely no idea.

Sad Dan closed down the forum, a Peruvian asparagus farmer lurking would probably answer this.

I was making a wider point about food miles really. I mean should we just let people do what they want to do and screw the consequences. Maybe a big import tax on asparagus with the proceeds going to Peru to help out with the loss of trade.

I think high tax on food imports in general is a great idea. It helps a nation being self sufficient in food production, it helps different countries maintain their cultural traditions, and it helps against unsustainable farming in poor countries where they destroy their soil for a short term economic benefit. Basically, it's what Norway does (until the neo-liberals and rightwingers can get their will).

The negative is we have around half as much different foodstuff in supermarkets than Sweden, and everything costs 25%-100% more than across the border (higher wages is also the reason everything is more expensive here).

As for the positive benefit for the environment, hell yes, taxing imports works. A country feeding itself, will have an incentive to keep the soil fertile for future generations, rather than treating food like any other consumer product.

[Montegriffo]

Too many TV chefs telling everyone all about variety and posh restaurants using mini courgettes with the flowers still on just because they look pretty on the plate. I have a lot against the current trend for fine dining (nouvelle cuisine by another name) Seems to be all about charging the most money for the smallest amount of food, with eating out becoming more about theatre than food. And while I'm on about it, the Chinese developed nice porcelain plates thousands of years ago, I don't want to eat off a bit of old slate or off some sort of filthy log just cos it makes you a little bit more "edgy".

[Otern]

I hear a lot about thorium and fusion but how close are they really? Tidal power seems like a good way to go but the construction costs are huge and the environmental consequences of doing it on coastlines and places like the Severn estuary seem to hinder development. Still, harnessing the power of gravity with relatively low tech equipment would make it a good one to export to developing countries. Constant reliable source of non-polluting(once built) energy.

The downside to most green energies, except dams (in warm areas), is the lack of ability to increase output on demand. Since electricity really can't be stored efficiently, it has to be used as it's produced.

Solar is great, as long as the sun's up. Wind is great, as long as it's blowing. Don't know much about tidal power, but suspect it has some of the same limitations. Coal, water and nuclear power, you can increase production, as demand increases. And the demand shifts a lot during the day.

[Montegriffo]

That's why you need a wide range of clean sources. The wind can help out in the winter when there is no sun etc. If energy is relatively non producing you can just over produce it. On the farm there is a big wind generator so if it is windy and cold farmer paul heats his house with electric heaters. If it is calm he chucks another log on the fire.
Photo voltaic is pretty crap anyway. Have you seen that new plant in Morocco which heats up oil to 400c with mirrors and then powers steam turbines? They even store heat in big containers of salt so they can produce energy for a few hours after the sun goes down.

[Otern]

That's why you need a wide range of clean sources. The wind can help out in the winter when there is no sun etc. If energy is relatively non producing you can just over produce it. On the farm there is a big wind generator so if it is windy and cold farmer paul heats his house with electric heaters. If it is calm he chucks another log on the fire.
Photo voltaic is pretty crap anyway. Have you seen that new plant in Morocco which heats up oil to 400c with mirrors and then powers steam turbines? They even store heat in big containers of salt so they can produce energy for a few hours after the sun goes down.

True, and it's why I want a European perspective on the electrical grid, no matter how much I despise the EU. But you still need those kinds that can increase and decrease on demand. Like water, gas, coal and nuclear. Can't remove one of them, without increasing another.

And not all countries can have dams. Hard to build one in Denmark. Then they really have no other option than gas, coal and nuclear, at least for managing the grid. And exporting electricity turns inefficient over long distances, so there's limits to an European electrical grid.

Norway and Iceland got lucky with the geography, and can be totally renewable energy reliant. But most countries aren't that lucky.

[Ex-California]

The Green movement flip flops back and forwards on nuclear power as I have myself. When you take into account the speed at which CO2 emissions are set to rise with the populations of developing countries demanding more energy and the developed countries dragging their feet on renewable sources I currently think it is the only way forward.However there is a huge but, bigger than JLO's butt, when it comes to safety. Building power stations near the coast in earthquake zones is about as dumb as it gets. Sticking nuclear waste in capsules under the ground till we work out how to deal with them is dumb. Plus you have the fact that Uranium is running out and at current consumption it could be all gone in 60 years.Once that runs out you might have to use Plutonium which is even more dangerous. So it's not too surprising that Greenpeace are against it and that I can't really make up my mind.

Uranium was dug up from the ground, we can dig it back down after using it. We just have to dig deep, and pick a good location. Like really deep. So deep people will make movies about it. An entire new genre of horror fiction deep. And then place the stuff right next to the Balrog.

But, as you've said, we're running out of Uranium. Uranium reactors are not the future, but they're necessary to keep the educational infrastructure and economical incentives to manage to develop Thorium reactors. A drop in nuclear reactors will lead to a drop in nuclear scientists, and those guys are necessary to make Thorium work. Maybe they'll figure out how to make fusion reactors work too.

Also, India has the largest amount of Thorium, and those are the people that will need it the most in the future.

We have the Sahara and various deserts worldwide. No reason to dig too deep there, its a built in nuclear waste dump

[Montegriffo]

Oh you can go further than that. Imagine all those poor, hot, desert nations with no soil producing enough energy to attract the big manufacturing companies with large energy demands. A bit like globalisation so not going to get much support around here but it's not always a bad thing. Rather than competing with each other all the time in a race to use up resources we could get together and work out what we really need and where to make it. Australia could stop over farming it's precious fragile land and concentrate on mining and import food instead. Starting to sound like a commie or a Star Trek utopian now of course but maybe in the future.