Kyoto Treaty

[Happy Monkey]

And what happened with all those DDT poisoned birds? After the ban they started doing great! Was the DDT scare a hoax after all?

Originally Posted by Irie

Beestie: I don't understand your connection between the Kyoto treaty and lost jobs. Not that you're right or wrong, I'm just in the dark.
I think the number of jobs or the economic backlash shouldn't be as important as the overall death of the planet. If we wait till no one loses something from the changes, then it will be far too late- if it isn't already. I think the whole world culture needs to agree to a very proactive change in the way we treat the planet. Like the Kyoto Treaty as a start

No jobs would be lost, in fact many would be created by creating the c02 scrubber industry.
If we do not adopt it, we have no position to convince other nations to adopt it. I prefer us adopt the high ground instead of being hypocrites yelling "you first".
I also agree that methane needs to be the next thing addressed.

[Undertoad]

There were massive productivity losses associated with the adoption of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, but they are losses that we had to take as a nation.

[Griff]

We do have other, security oriented, reasons to get off fossil fuels. We subsidize oil heavily with blood and treasure. If we shifted (skip the blood part) that subsidy to biofuel, solar, and wind power (insert nuke argument at your own risk) we could address both GW and energy security, creating a left/right coalition. It wouldn't be painless but the new growth in the cleaner energy sector would offset things somewhat.

Exactly, and those productivity losses are projected to only be temporary.
The more we diversify our energy sources and get off of fossil fuels the better-off we will be.
The only reason not to do it is fear of change and nothing more.
Now is only better for the long run.

Only after the last tree has been cut down.
Only after the last river has been poisoned.
Only after the last fish has been caught.
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

-Cree Indian prophecy

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A "severe draught" would at least injure a tree -- by blowing the leaves off.

[Aliantha]

draft? At first I thought you meant drought. You do mean draft right?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

He meant drought. Unfortunately, his fingers didn't quite cooperate and his spellchecker was, of course, useless.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

We do have other, security oriented, reasons to get off fossil fuels. We subsidize oil heavily with blood and treasure. If we shifted (skip the blood part) that subsidy to biofuel, solar, and wind power (insert nuke argument at your own risk) we could address both GW and energy security, creating a left/right coalition. It wouldn't be painless but the new growth in the cleaner energy sector would offset things somewhat.

Unfortunately, in the USA, Biofuel immediately gets translated into methanol. As you can see happening already, methanol is being made from corn because it's the easiest (high sugar content) and most profitable raw material available.
The flies in the ointment are; that corn is food for us and livestock, corn is very energy intensive to grow, corn is susceptible to weather/wind damage, corn requires huge amounts of water.
Also, since methanol gives you only 2/3 the mileage of gasoline, producing it from corn, or any biomass for that matter, will use immense tracts of land.

Nukes for power, is the smart way to go. Three mile island happened because the government over regulated the industry, driving the costs through the roof on every plant constructed. This caused the operating companies to cut costs any where they could. It became a cat & mouse game between the feds and power companies. The company sees something that costs $100 and not covered in the rules.... poof, gone and $100 saved. Feds see it gone and make a new rule that will now cost the power company $200. More need to cut costs... more expensive rules, etc, etc, etc.

I've often wondered about the umpteen layers of automatic alarms and controls. The control room operators had too much time to get distracted with entertainment. Too much opportunity for multitasking. Like the guy with the cruise control set, reading a book, while roaring up the turnpike at killing speeds. When the shit hits the fan, he's not prepared to make the right decisions even if he has time. People that are not focused make more mistakes, are not prepared to make those second nature moves in an emergency.

The Soviets may have been the opposite although I'm not sure how their plants operated. But, the other nations have been successful, especially France, by making a design and repeating it as often as needed instead of every plant being unique because of ever increasing government rules.

Hey guys, lets build a nuke.
What's it going to cost?
Damifino, the rules keep changing during, and after, construction so we don't know till it's done.
Uh, well, no thanks.

[piercehawkeye45]

Nuclear power is a good base power system because you can build them anywhere, perferably not in heavily populated areas, but you are not resticted by the enviornment.

[Happy Monkey]

A river is useful, if not necessary, for the cooling tower, though.

The biggest bonus of a nuclear reactor is that the pollution goes into barrels instead of the air. And the danger related to those barrels has a silver lining- unlike the toxic sludge from any number of other industries, many steps are taken to ensure they don't just get dumped in the river.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Unfortunately, in the USA, Biofuel immediately gets translated into methanol. As you can see happening already, methanol is being made from corn because it's the easiest (high sugar content) and most profitable raw material available.
The flies in the ointment are; that corn is food for us and livestock, corn is very energy intensive to grow, corn is susceptible to weather/wind damage, corn requires huge amounts of water.
Also, since methanol gives you only 2/3 the mileage of gasoline, producing it from corn, or any biomass for that matter, will use immense tracts of land.

We need to keep in mind that cars are not the main source of co2 emissions. Electricity production is the real problem, with cars providing a convenient scapegoat. Electricity producers have fooled around with other kinds of biomass such as poplar trees and switch grass which still have emissions but don't introduce sequestered co2 into the atmosphere. I'd like to see energy production become more distributed using whatever makes the most sense in a given locale. I would think that spreading out production would make the grid more bullet proof, terrorist proof, and idiot proof.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

A river is useful, if not necessary, for the cooling tower, though.

The biggest bonus of a nuclear reactor is that the pollution goes into barrels instead of the air. And the danger related to those barrels has a silver lining- unlike the toxic sludge from any number of other industries, many steps are taken to ensure they don't just get dumped in the river.

The cooling towers can run a closed loops, they are replacing the need for huge amounts of cooling water. They do, however, need a river or lake for an emergency supply of water that is instantly available. The lake can be man made though.

You bring up the waste problem that's constantly pointed out. Yes, the existing plants are up to their ears in barrels of waste with no place to send them because the Feds have been dragging their feet.

Some of the waste is highly contaminated or spent fuel, but most of those barrels are full of dirty laundry.
Seriously, the Boiling Water Reactors the General Electric builds, have the steam created in the reactor powering the turbines, so everything that steam/water touches is contaminated. Subsequently, the work clothes and small tools, rags, etc, have to be disposed of in barrels, constantly.
Every man, on every shift, of every day, for the last howmany years, has had to put everything in the barrels. That's a lot of damn barrels of very low grade contamination they don't know what to do with.

Seems to me the feds have all that property where they did A-bomb tests, above and below ground, for years. Now that property is contaminated for the next seventy eleven thousand years anyway, so put the shit there. OK, the high level spent fuel and such has to be handled more carefully but that's a fraction of the waste generated and it can still go there.

Building Pressurized Water Reactors, where the steam from the reactor transfers the heat to another closed steam loop for the turbines, keeps the contamination out of the turbines. That way the workers in most of the plant don't have to "suit up" and subsequently fill more barrels. PWRs are more expensive to build but cheaper to operate.

It can be done. It has been done. All over the world, nukes have been running successfully and safely for a long time. Ask the French.
The key is to design a plant that's acceptable and build them all the same. That way everybody knows the plan and it's cost, up front. No expensive delays for changes in the middle of construction and uniform, proven, control systems that are familiar to every operator.

OK, I'll get off my soap box now.

[Deuce]

xoxoxoBruce, you're right on the money about the nuke plants. Go Nukes! But I think you missed a point about the biofuels. Corn, being so full of sugary goodness, usually gets converted to Ethanol, not Methanol, by way of fermentation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes Ethanol, my bad. Methanol is drawn off and reused in the Bio-diesel process but not used as a motor fuel. Maybe if they put a little meth in the ethanol, it would get better mileage.