The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

The biggest problem it's airplane, since it takes a lot of power, and no fuel cell will reach it, and even if could the turbines depend of heat oproduced by gasoline.

I presume before oil run out of enter in a danger shortage, the countries will try to let the oil/gas just to airplanes, and not for cars, to get maybe 25 more years until technology find a better solution.

Wasn't thorium a big hoax, unviable, and scientists was proposing it since 50's or 60's, but never managed to reaaly find a way nto keep it right, stable etc ?

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

By 2050 oil may be running low but their will still be plenty of coal and no shortage useabe fissile fuels even if no technological further advances are made.

It isn't a problem of resources, it is a problem of waste.
Where are we going to take all the carbon dioxide?

There is not a single solution. We'll need renewables AND nuclear AND carbon/carbon dioxide binding/storage in gas fields.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by sendler

Rebuttal to the SolutionsProject's feasiblity of replacing all energy with Wind/ Solar/ Water.
.
ROADMAP TO NOWHERE
The Myth of Powering the Nation
With Renewable Energy
.

http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/wp-c...compressed.pdf
.

I read the first part of it, but I'm a bit disappointed.
They start off by repeating that SolutionsProject's claims are unrealistic several times over before the first attempt to actually show why. Prepping the reader?
Then they explain how gigantic the area would be that's covered by the windmills and solar panels if they are to provide all our energy, and what a gargantuan effort it would be to maintain these and replace when they reach end of life.
Sure, it is a big effort. It would take hundreds of billions of dollars yearly.
BUT they are talking about the complete energy supply of the USA. Guess what that's worth yearly!

What to expect from nuclear advocates. But they'd better join up than try to fight renewables. We'll need both.

[oil pan 4]

Thorium was not viable for creating plutonium 239 nuclear weapons.
So there was no need for the for the government to develop it.
An experiment conducted in the 1960s ran a uranium thorium blend fuel that was mostly thorium for commercial power production and it ran flawlessly, using a normal pressurized water reactor with no modifications.
Actually the thorium blend was safer than standard commercial power plant enriched uranium (3% u235) as it produced less iodine 131. Less iodine 131 produces a safer more stable reaction normally achieved by far more expensive high enriched uranium which is your 20% and higher enrighment blends.

[sendler]

Thorcon has a great design we should be pulling for.
.
.
Thorcon Power | The Do-able Molten Salt Reactor
.
I am also hopeful the Moltex can come to fruition.
.
Moltex Energy | Safer Cheaper Cleaner | Stable Salt Reactors | SSR
.

[oil pan 4]

The anti nuclear sheeple will work as hard as they can to stop it because they choose to be ignorant.
They just assume all nuclear reactors are the same, because taking a few hours to learn about the different types of reactors is far too difficult for them.

[All Darc]

Nuclear power energy it's more expensive than coal or hydroelectric, am I right?
The nuclear waste it's anothe rproblem. Or even a terrorist crashing a plane in the building of the reactor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk

Smaller planes in not maximum speed are not enough for a reinforced concrete :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=zPe-bKIid8w

But I'm not sure for a huge plane, loaded with a lot of fuel and in maximum speed.

Anyway, Greenpeace got some similaristies with radical feminism :

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The anti nuclear sheeple will work as hard as they can to stop it because they choose to be ignorant.
They just assume all nuclear reactors are the same, because taking a few hours to learn about the different types of reactors is far too difficult for them.

The other big problem is that the sheeple have been greenwashed by trade magazines promoting sales of their product into thinking we can just replace all of the 17 TeraWatts we are now using with solar and wind without ever running the numbers to find out how impossible it is to create that much hardware and find the room to install it. Renewables (rebuildables) are not nearly dense enough to replace fossil fuel. Not to mention the storage issues to prevent frequent blackouts. And the loss of the versatility and storage density of liquid fuels for large machines.

[freebeard]

With a single process that combines removing CO2 from the atmosphere with creating topsoil and gasoline, one could overturn all those expectations when implemented at scale.

Soil Health Solutions

[sendler]

There is no possibility of building a fraction of the SCALE of any hardware to replace our oil consumption. These are all pipe dreams that can't happen and are delaying rational thought toward a plan that works to bring us in for a softer landing.