CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32775
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:44 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Fukushima. :mrgreen:


That wasn't a storage problem, that was a tsunami problem. And when you consider the outcome - no one died, the radiation spread isn't all that bad - it's a testament to how safe nuclear power really is.

Places like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have neither earthquake nor tsunami risks. ;)

And it wasn't the earthquake or the tsunami that wrecked the joint, it was the one-two combination of both slamming it that borked it. The facility was built to withstand one or the other of considerable size/strength, but both occurring in short order was too much for it.

As for reprocessing nuclear waste back into usable isotopes, I'm pretty sure Canada has been doing that for years. I don't know if we still are but IIRC, we were one of America's largest suppliers of medical isotopes used in nuclear medicine for some time.


We haven't been reprocessing waste back in to usable products. We do make medical isotopes for most of the world, but that is set to end in 2018. But it uses linear accelerators, not a fast breeder. Japan used to, and France does take their 'waste' and recycle it back in to 'spring fresh' plutonium for use in reactors. I think Russia is one of the few countries reprocessing waste into usable fuel.

E=MC^2 works both ways! :)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:58 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
andyt wrote:
Who's going to pay these private companies to turn co2 into carbon and oxygen?
Who said they had to be private companies?


So raise taxes to pay for what will be an expensive project? You may have a bit of extra generating capacity in Ontario, but on a world wide level, most places are short of power, don't have excess, and much of it is generated from hydrocarbon sources in the first place. Seems like a mugs game to me.


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
andyt wrote:
think of the energy released when you burn carbon fuels - you'd have to input at least that much energy to reverse the process. If you reverse the combustion of a carbon fuel, which gives co2 plus water, you get back a carbon fuel plus oxygen. So we could make carbon fuels from the air, except I doubt it would be energetically efficient. If we make methane from this process, that's a worse greenhouse gas than co2.

There are two ways to break down CO2. One way gives us carbon monoxide(which has industrial uses) and oxygen atoms. The other method produces carbon atoms and oxygen molecules.
However you seem confused. The object isn't to make carbon fuels from the air. The object is to try and reduce atmospheric CO2, n'est ce pas? And that is going to cost money no matter how we do it.


The cheapest way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is not to generate it in the first place. ie reduce is much cheaper than recycle. Your scheme might have merit if all world power was generated by nuclear, but for one that means we'd be putting out less carbon already, secondly the costs would be immense, and thirdly we'd probably run out of nuclear fuel. There are people looking into using sunlight to do this process, (not photosynthesis) certainly they haven't come up with anything viable so far. Photosynthesis would be the way to go, but would take an awful lot of trees planted and then the carbon created in this way would have to be preserved in some way so it does't just recycle as the trees die.

This just sounds like clutching at straws to me. As bad as the carbon sequestration ideas or the idea of reducing sunlight by blowing a bunch of reflectors in the atmosphere. So much easier to just reduce carbon fuel production and use in the first place instead of trying to Rube Goldberg the solution.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:18 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.


It may claim that, but most of the money now funding climate change denial is funneled through foundations who's donors can't be traced.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-effort/

Quote:
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.




Quote:
Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.


A large part of the global climate change denial movement came directly from the decades long campaign against the health risks of smoking by the tobacco lobby.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... lliving.g2

Quote:
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.


Quote:
By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.