The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Renewables are good exactly because they are not concentrated.

Run the numbers. There is no way to possibly build out enough wind and solar hardware to even come close to replacing what we are using. Not to mention the storage issue that no renewable (rebuildable) advocate ever wants to talk about. The editorial style of the writers gets a little cutesy and long winded but the "Roadmap To Nowhere" lays out some good analysis to show the futility of believing a wind/ solar energy system can ever replace what we have now.
.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/wp-c...compressed.pdf
.
.

.
.

[oil pan 4]

Renewable energy does need need military protection.
Let's say we cover the southern US with solar and wind power, some how Mexico gets their stuff together in the next 50 years and becomes more aggressive.
With no military they roll in and take what they want, smash the rest.

Most of the renewable energy is under government or corporate control. Huge government funded and or controlled renewable power projects are precisely what the globe warming true believers are demanding.
I don't know how you came up with this fake "renewabls belong to everyone" idea.
I think a large portion pf the solar should be collected by individual roof tops of residences.

Every other country with a nuclear program doesn't have this nuclear waste problem. The US didnt either we started letting people with political science majors make decisions better handled by nuclear chemists.

If you are so worried about radio active waste then what's the plan for all the radio active waste that comes up with all the rare earth metals needed to make all this renewable tech such as high efficiency mono and poly crystalline solar, high efficiency motors and alternators that use permanent magnets?
Do you have any idea how this stuff is usually mined?
Because what you are saying makes me think that you don't.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Renewable energy does need need military protection.
Let's say we cover the southern US with solar and wind power, some how Mexico gets their stuff together in the next 50 years and becomes more aggressive.
With no military they roll in and take what they want, smash the rest.

Apart from the unlikeliness of Mexicans developing such aggressiveness, even if they get very powerful. Why should they? Have the US invaded them and smashed everything? If so, who can blame them for evening the score?

But never mind that. Suppose they do want to smash solar panels. Those hundreds of billions of panels needed to generate all of the power the US needs do take a lot of time to get smashed up. Several thousands of Mexicans would have to spend years of daily smashing from early in the morning till after the lunch break and then again in the evening, and still hardly make a dent in the total capacity.

They could of course flip a few switches and have free power instead coming to them over the border. But hey.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you are so worried about radio active waste then what's the plan for all the radio active waste that comes up with all the rare earth metals needed to make all this renewable tech such as high efficiency mono and poly crystalline solar, high efficiency motors and alternators that use permanent magnets?
Do you have any idea how this stuff is usually mined?
Because what you are saying makes me think that you don't.

Yes, rare earth mining does pose pollution risks especially without proper precautions and monitoring:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/boom_...ng_toxic_risks

The richer the ore, the easier it is to extract the rare earth metals making it economically viable and more likely that the necessary measures for safe mining are taken.

As luck has it Japan, which is otherwise naturally poor in raw materials, has just discovered quite rich deposits of rare earth metals.
Massive Japanese Rare Earths Find Means Less Dependence on China | Fortune

[oil pan 4]

They don't have to smash the panels. Just take the land and cut off the power. It will be very valuable land, 1 to 2 years of US GDP, loss of which would cripple the US power grid. If that is not a strategic target I don't know what is.

Handling nuclear waste is no different. As you said just needs the proper precautions and monitoring.

[Xist]

They do not need to smash millions of panels or conquer the land. They can sever the power line or some other critical component.

Aside from Mexican terrorism, there are plenty of other individuals and groups that want to bring harm to the U.S., but it seems like they focus on shooting people instead of destroying infrastructure.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by 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.

Everything is more expensive than hydro and coal. Nuclear is probably the next cheapest thing.

There are hundreds of nuclear plants in operation now that are susceptible to terrorist acts. I suspect modern designs could be built to withstand a hijacked plane running into it if the reactor was placed underground. Modern designs won't rely on a cooling tower to prevent meltdown and loss of containment.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

They don't have to smash the panels. Just take the land and cut off the power. It will be very valuable land, 1 to 2 years of US GDP, loss of which would cripple the US power grid. If that is not a strategic target I don't know what is.

You can't be serious? Come on!

On the other hand - let's hope Canada does not find out or the US gets roasted between two fires

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Handling nuclear waste is no different. As you said just needs the proper precautions and monitoring.

Definitely!
We need to care for the waste and safely store and monitor it until the end of time or until we can refine and reuse it, whichever comes first. I do not mean this jokingly. We must keep our waste safe.

That said, we've caused over a teraton of carbon dioxide that accidentally entered our atmosphere and ocean water, and it is building up fast. What to do?

[sendler]

Melt down is not even a thing for reactors which use a molten salt fuel mix. The fuel is already molten and there is no water to boil away in the core or the cooling ponds.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Run the numbers. There is no way to possibly build out enough wind and solar hardware to even come close to replacing what we are using. Not to mention the storage issue that no renewable (rebuildable) advocate ever wants to talk about.

That equation has two sides. Attack the usage side.

Originally Posted by R. B. Fuller

• There are over 2 million cars standing in front of red lights with their engines going. Then we have over 2 million times approximately 100 horsepower being generated as they are idling there, so that we have something like 200 million horses jumping up and down and going nowhere. Now, we have to count that in our economy when we begin to get down to what is the efficiency of the economy.
  
• There is something patently insane about all the typewriters sleeping with all the beautiful plumbing in the beautiful office buildings — and all the people sleeping in the slums.
  
• We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop. We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work?

Originally Posted by ReDevil

Let's say we cover the southern US with solar and wind power, some how Mexico gets their stuff together in the next 50 years and becomes more aggressive.

Fun fact: Texas exists in order that Mexico not have access to the mouth of the Mississippi River.

[oil pan 4]

Storing the raw waste till the end of time is ignorant. There is no advantage to doing this.
When the raw waste separated from the fuel, the unwanted waste is reduced 85% to 95%.
The 2nd gen mixed oxide fuel is reblended with depleted uranium, which there is no shortage of and is marginally more radioactive than enriched uranium 1st Gen fuel. The MOX has a shelf life of at least a few hundred thousand years.

The concentrated nuclear by products lose 99.9% of their radioactivity after 40 years. Not "forever".

It's only "till the end of time" if you read what people with English majors have to say about nuclear related subjects and believe the fuel should be used one and thrown away.
I thought you people believed in things like recycling?

The United states recycled nuclear waste until 2004 I believe.