Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread (Read 44340 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #585 –
Sabine present a rational case based on historically available technologies, and that is a reasonable position to take as she doesn't want to be drawn into a debate about future capabilities. It's a bit like not planning the use of a space telescope until it gets into space.

But even so she still arrives at the fundamental conclusion that no one technology can deliver the targets we need, which is either an invisible or uncomfortable truth for some it seems! ::)
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #586 –
Quote from: LP on
You keep presenting examples of designs from the 80s and 90s and using them to talk down current and future technologies.

It's like using the steam powered horseless carriage as a reason not to have an EV.

By the way though the Virginia class nicely supports my longevity argument, they are expected to remain in service until 2070 from first launch in the early 2000s. But how can that be, the Renewable Apparatchik's tell use nuclear power plants have to be decommissioned after an average service life of 30 years? Is it because they want to compound all the environment overheads into 3 decades to make the emissions overhead twice the real world case?

You keep saying that LP but you're wrong.

The Rolls Royce PWR3 used in the latest Astute class submarine draws heavily on the S9G reactor used in Virginia class submarines.  While the first Rolls Royce PWRs date to the mid 1980s, the PWR3 reactor is a 21st century design.  S9G stands for Submarine, 9th generation core General Electric and the first S9G reactor went into service this century.  As mentioned previously, the PWR3 and S9G reactors are water cooled.  All nuclear powered vessels currently in service are water cooled.

Nuclear submarine reactors produce around 200 megawatts (thermal), and that contributes to the longevity of the fuel.  SMRs are expected to produce around 300 megawatts (electric or 1000 megawatts thermal). While there's a world of difference between reactors used to produce steam for propulsion and those used to generate electricity, the prototype Russian SMRs are based on nuclear icebreaker reactors that produce 30 megawatts (electric).  It makes sense, in terms of safety, energy requirements and economics for nuclear submarine reactors to have full life cores.  The same doesn't apply to conventional nuclear power plants or SMRs.  SMRs may have longer fuel cycles than conventional nuclear power plants but will still require regular refuelling.

SMRs are future terchnology with only three prototypes in operation (one is gas cooled).  However, the literature is quite clear on the likelihood of successful designs being water cooled and the need for clusters of SMRs to meet both grid demand and for modular construction to be cost effective.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #587 –
Quote from: DJC on
You keep saying that LP but you're wrong.

The Rolls Royce PWR3 used in the latest Astute class submarine draws heavily on the S9G reactor used in Virginia class submarines.  While the first Rolls Royce PWRs date to the mid 1980s, the PWR3 reactor is a 21st century design.
They are not a "21st century" design, they are a 21st century update to a 1980s design.

Given it's Airshow week maybe an aircraft analogy, not matter how many 2000s era James Hirds you pack into a DC-3 it'll still be a 1940s aircraft!

I can add Android to the dash of a FC Holden, but it's still an FC!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #588 –
Interesting arguments about solar geoengineering: dispersing particulates into the upper atmosphere to deflect a fraction of the sunlight.

Block the sun, save the planet?, Politico.

The Wapo reports that the US intelligence agencies and national security officials have workshopped how to deal with geopolitical tensions where one country may push ahead with measures that detrimentally affect neighbours.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #589 –
Quote from: Mav on
Interesting arguments about solar geoengineering: dispersing particulates into the upper atmosphere to deflect a fraction of the sunlight.

Block the sun, save the planet?, Politico.

The Wapo reports that the US intelligence agencies and national security officials have workshopped how to deal with geopolitical tensions where one country may push ahead with measures that detrimentally affect neighbours.
Unfortunately, because of such slow progress, these geo-engineering solutions are being seriously considered by some locations. But it's like pollution and won't respect borders! btw., Many of them are already under small scale test, by small scale it still means large enough to affect a major region like a state.

The most likely so far is going to be seeding the oceans.

To me this is a step too far, it's like tapping a metronome and expecting it to settle into a new regular beat, but we should take heed of the mysterious effects of synchronicity and chaos. Such is the biosphere.

For the fun of it, this example uses a resonant surface to accelerate the effect, but given enough time this can even happen when devices are spread over surfaces as diverse as rough or sandy terrain or a concrete floor. The very last one to sync and how that seems to happen by brute force is the most surprising
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5eBf2KwF8
People are perhaps a little ambitious if they think they can safely fiddle with things on a global scale.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #590 –
Revealed: 1,000 super-emitting methane leaks risk triggering climate tipping points, The Guardian.

Why are there so many super-emitting methane leaks when methane can apparently through catalysis be more profitable than having a goose laying golden eggs?

Thank heavens the blue hydrogen producers will be generating enough methane to address our global shortage of methane.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #591 –
There is some irony in the photos they used for that article, a cow walking past a oil rig!

Human methane emissions versus natural methane emissions, that would be an interesting bit of research to wrap up.

Anybody notice the hydrogen garbage truck launched in Melbourne yesterday, they'll make there own green hydrogen from the solar power on the roof of the plant that builds the trucks using high performance solar powered catalysts.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #592 –
I wonder if the fossil fuel industry will fund research into human and animal emissions of carbon dioxide versus emissions related to fossil fuels. No doubt the former are the real problem.

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #593 –
Redcycle, what a tragedy, proof bloody minded environmentalists can do as much harm as they do good.

Redcycle was a global technology leader, but it was handcuffed by a lack of political will, politicians too scared to oppose protestors. Which in the end prevented Redcycle from developing an end user market for it's product, relegated to collecting 300% more waste than they could recycle, and not having a revenue stream it went broke.

This technology has already moved off shore and will become a world leading part of the recycle, reuse, repurpose mantra, but not here, not in my backyard! It'll be foreign governments that get it right, and provide the infrastructure to advance the technologies that reduce waste, which apparently is not good enough for woke Australia.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #594 –
Methane? Look over there - Redcycle!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #595 –
Quote from: Mav on
I wonder if the fossil fuel industry will fund research into human and animal emissions of carbon dioxide versus emissions related to fossil fuels. No doubt the former are the real problem.
Facts help in a debate.

Methane is 35x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Total methane emissions equate to 1/200th of Total CO2 emissions.

About 60% of Total Methane emissions come from human activities, the rest is nature.

The largest known methane reserves are natural, if they burp they will potentially cause global effects that dwarf anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions. Every earthquake, every volcanic eruption, every tsunami is a roll of the dice.

Methane longevity in the environment is about 1/18th of the longevity of CO2.

But let's not worry about the facts, let's just ban anything that is methane, regardless of whether it leads to a cleaner environment.

The big problem isn't really the emissions of methane, because globally it has a miniscule effect, the really big and stupid problem is the fact it is another resource that gets wasted, humanity at it's best.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #596 –
The burping tends to happen during oil extraction, fracking and the like. But let’s not worry about the facts.

What I want to know is why the big emitters of methane don’t capture it and convert it through catalysis into commercially saleable products? Isn’t that a licence to print money?

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #597 –
Sometimes I wonder if the anti-methane, anti-LPG or pro-electric cooking lobby have shares in the production of Induction Cooktops?

But will that new Induction Cooktop ever break even on the global carbon budget, with the elements and rare earths used in the power and electronics, or the specialist float glasses used for the hob?

Shhhh, lets not talk about the war, I want to sleep well!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #598 –
Methane? Look over there - Induction Cooktops!

Re: The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

Reply #599 –
Quote from: Mav on
What I want to know is why the big emitters of methane don’t capture it and convert it through catalysis into commercially saleable products? Isn’t that a licence to print money?
If they could get a license, but the political will is not there, lobbyists are too powerful, the engineering and science doesn't really matter.

Recently, I noted councils around Australia have taken to banning Bluescope / BHP from using ethanol to power the steel and pickling mills. The BHP plan was that the factories would use the gas that is normally flared off to generate electricity that they needed for furnaces and operations. But that takes BHP/Bluescope off the grid as a user of renewable energy, a big earner for the energy sector, so the councils said no.

Yet the same councils issued new licenses for ethanol to be flared off, probably after it has been collected and compressed using SolarPV sourced energy! ::)
The Force Awakens!