[Closed] Global warming update!

Scientists should have learned enough from JET to go for a commercial, energy-producing fusion reactor. Going for anything less is an admission they can't do it and probably never will be able to using current thinking

What an utterly bizarre statement. By that logic, I assume we should stop researching everything then, because if we can't do it now, then we never will. 🙄

What many people forget is the carbon cycle is an equilibrium, if you push it out of balance parts of it begin to work to bring it back into balance, the problem is this is not perfect and so you get a yo yoing between cold house and green house. What were seeing now is an accelerated hydrological cycle (it's rained a lot), this brings additional nutrients into the photic zone, leading to greater productivity in phytoplankton and thereby greater CO2 draw down. Productivity leads to anoxic conditions in the ocean, which in turn leads to sequestration of carbon into marine sediments. That's how oil and coal was formed in the first place, however, it's a slow process.

Our solar panels produce around 3350kWh/year and we consume less than 2000 kWh/year (1645kWh last year).

No we shouldn't stop research, Zokes, but pandering to the fusion scientists who always want bigger and better whilst still shying away from the real challenge which is a power producing reactor is money badly spent IMO. Finding out how the universe works is one thing and a viable reactor is another. I really don't think finding another atomic subparticle will meet our energy needs. The focus should be on using the knowledge we already have to make a workable reactor not just scaling up something that doesn't work well enough so it might work better but still not well enough.

Edit: Plankton, another story that needs more than a one-liner.

[url= http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2993 ]Plankton[/url] types respond to climate.

No we shouldn't stop research, Zokes, but pandering to the fusion scientists who always want bigger and better whilst still shying away from the real challenge which is a power producing reactor is money badly spent IMO.

Ah right, so the scientists who want to work on the LTER have no interest in bringing fusion to market as soon as they can? Righty ho 🙄

Finding out how the universe works is one thing and a viable reactor is another. I really don't think finding another atomic subparticle will meet our energy needs. The focus should be on using the knowledge we already have to make a workable reactor not just scaling up something that doesn't work well enough so it might work better but still not well enough.

Finding out how to split the atom in the first place actually did quite a lot for our energy needs. What a lot of people (funding agencies too) forget is that it's the fundamental 'blue skies' research that creates the primary knowledge that is then applied through applied research. Cut off the fundamental stuff because it's not readily applied to a real world problem, and pretty quickly, you'll run out of research to apply.

Take your solar panels for example. Should research have just stopped when they were first proved to work for use on space missions? For that matter if we'd not put the effort in to explore space or go to the moon, they might never have been invented in the first place. Innovation drives innovation. Stagnation does not.

By all means fund fundamental research that's going somewhere. I don't think ITER will help provide primary knowledge beyond what JET and Cern have/have the potential to do. ITER is either over funded or underfunded depending on how you look at it. It's a half-way house that shys away from tackling the problems to be solved in reaching the ultimate objective, a fusion power plant.

The first solar panels at least had the merit of producing energy. They soon produced more energy than it cost to make them, and for years rather than a second. They are a viable solution today when combined with pump storage if people pay more for their electricity and use less.

I don't think ITER will help provide primary knowledge beyond what JET and Cern have/have the potential to do.

I think they and their funders are probably in a much better position to make that decision than you

The first solar panels at least had the merit of producing energy. They soon produced more energy than it cost to make them, and for years rather than a second. They are a viable solution today when combined with pump storage if people pay more for their electricity and use less.

That's not really the point I was making, and you know it. I was pointing out that the fundamental research of going into space (for what purpose? - none, other than trying to beat the Russians at that time) led to the applied outcome of a renewable means of generating electricity from the sun. Without NASA's dollars, that leap might not have happened until much much later, if ever.

ITER is a step in the right direction, I think, at least it can actually generate useful energy, even if for a short period of time. You cannot expect for them to suddenly build a working fusion reactor - ITER is one step in the right direction in terms of development, and it's totally different from CERN. CERN is a particle collider, designed to research science on an atomic level. ITER is an expermental fusion reactor designed to research whether fusion is possible and indeed viable.

I completely agree with you on solar panels, in the meanwhile I think we should focus on works, but it is important to invest in possible solutions in the future too...

The photoelectric effect was discovered in the 19C, Einstein wrote papers on it in the 1920s and photovoltaique panels were being made by the 1950s. The leap had been made years before and NASA refined the technology for its needs. A bit like if we had working fusion reactors producing continuous power now and NASA built one suitable for use on a trip to Mars.

I know what Cern does and was refering to it in connection with primary knowledge. Read back through my posts and you'll note I compare ITER with JET in terms of a fusion viability project that doesn't go far enough to be worth doing.

06awjudd - Member

ITER is a step in the right direction, I think, at least it can actually generate useful energy, even if for a short period of time. You cannot expect for them to suddenly build a working fusion reactor - ITER is one step in the right direction in terms of development, and it's totally different from CERN. CERN is a particle collider, designed to research science on an atomic level. ITER is an expermental fusion reactor designed to research whether fusion is possible and indeed viable.

are you confusing JET and ITER?

JET = small test reactor, in oxfordshire i think... been used for years (not continuously), the chap sitting next to me right now had something to do with some heat shields.

ITER = demonstration full scale reactor currently under construction in france.

[url= http://www.iter.org/ ]linky[/url]

Reading again, I think we agree what the objectives of ITER are, 06awjudd. I think my negativity comes from the fact I see the next thirty years as a window of opportunity for phaeronic projects like fusion and consider that unless the industrial countries use their current fossil-fuel driven might to produce something quickly it will never be done. Something like ITER just pushes success out further into the future.

Nope, not confusing JET with ITER, did I get some of my facts wrong ? 😛

Reading again, I think we agree what the objectives of ITER are, 06awjudd. I think my negativity comes from the fact I see the next thirty years as a window of opportunity for phaeronic projects like fusion and consider that unless the industrial countries use their current fossil-fuel driven might to produce something quickly it will never be done. Something like ITER just pushes success out further into the future.

I think you'll find the rather sudden hiatus in any research remotely connected to the word "nuclear" following Chernobyl put back working fusion by 30 years or so.

If it was already doable, we'd be doing it. It isn't, so we're not. Instead we're building something that will hopefully allow us to do it. I really fail to see what your beef is, nor how you are more informed than its funders.

I'm absolutely certain I could run rings around my current president (and ITER funder) regarding anything vaguely scientific.

I'm absolutely certain I could run rings around my current president (and ITER funder) regarding anything vaguely scientific.

Once again you obfuscate. 1) It's a joint venture. 2) Whilst ultimately being the one writing part of the cheque, François won't have much, if any say in decisions of how much to write it out for, or even whether to write it out at all.

I think you underestimate the power of a French president.

What, over the many other countries who are co-investors?

The political class as a whole has little understanding of scientific issues. They want to know how much it will cost and how many votes it will win. The ITER project reflects a lack of real political will whilst a the same time a wish to be seen do be doing something even if they've been advise it isn't enough.

Your Apollo comparison is valid here, the politicians were happy to fund it because it was excellent votes/dollar value and ideologically fitted their programme. The ITER project is like an Apollo project with funding for two-stage rocket with the objective of seeing if it might one day in the future be possible to put a man on the moon.

The political class as a whole has little understanding of scientific issues

I'm not disputing this. What I am trying to get into your head is that the political classes get advice from scientists on scientific matters. It is those people who absolutely know a lot more than you do about the subject. It is also their recommendation to the politicians about what should / shouldn't be funded.

There is no way building a nuclear fusion reactor would be a vote winner for many politicians - it sounds too much like nuclear fission, nuclear bombs, nuclear waste etc.

As a scientist who used to provide information for government and public enquiries I feel well placed to say that lobby groups funded by the private sector have more infulence on government than scientists. That'll be BP and Total then. My nephew works for a lobby company, what he does smells so bad it's making him ill.

And do large multinational corporations have a stake in ITER? Nope.

So you're still failing to put forward an argument. Scientists are usually capable of putting forward rational arguments to defend their stance. I'm yet to see one here.

Just lots of obfuscation and straw men as usual.

Multinational corporations put their money where they see a potential profit.

Back to insult then, Zokes. How about you proving me wrong and go through all the ITER information and post up information on how many gigaWatts it will feed into the grid, what the cost per kWh will be, the expected operating life... . I'm disappointed in the project because it's costing billions and promises little more than JET. I fail to see what's irrational about my disappointment in the objectives and failure to see value in the project.

You've only got to look at Germanys response to the Japanese Tsunami and resultant nuclear incident to see normal, inteligent and sane people suddenly knee jerk to save their political asses!

In japan, a huge earth quake, and an even huger Tsunami which, lets not forget killed 20,896 people, also killed i believe 3 people at the nuclear power plant.

In Germany, a country not know for it's earthquakes or proximity to the ocean, decided to pretty much stagnate it's nuclear power program due to the "unacceptable risks"..........

It's this kind of stupid action, that in the long term is going to result in much poverty, death and was as our society starts to come to terms with energy starvation and miriad of problems associated with it. (hint, if you're poor, it's not going to be good)

BTW, the whole point of ITER is the scalability of Fusion reactors, rather than directly proving the basic technology.

The Joint European Torus at Culham (which incidentally my mum signed off the funding for back in the 70's when she worked for the SERC) was a 1st generation reactor. It's only purpose was to research, at a time when simulation of the reactor was not possible due to lack of computer power) the basic layout and compromises / factors in developing a self sustaining fusion system. It was never even close to power unity, nor was it meant to be.

ITER has a very different task. It aim to demonstrate the paractical embodiment of a comercial over unity fusion power system. In itself it is not intended to ever be grid connected, or to provide power to the grid. It aims to take the lastest design and simulation data and realise a practicable fusion system, as a model for building comercial reactors at a later date.

Basically, JET proved the magnetic restraint and microwave heating concept to create sustainable fusion reaction.

ITER aims to show a commercially viable, in economic terms, reactor system. It will identify things like lifetime, materials ageing, running costs, support services, modulation of output, necessary support services, maintainablity and a host of other dull but necessary requirements before large comercial systems could be introduced.

The issus is that even at the most optimistic estimate, we are 50 years from a functional large output commercially viable fusion system. In that gap, fossil fuels are going to get very expensive, yet there is no short term conventional fission reactors being built to fill the energy consumer shortfall.........

You've only got to look at Germanys response to the Japanese Tsunami and resultant nuclear incident to see normal, inteligent and sane people suddenly knee jerk to save their political asses!

Gt of th fence what your point?

In japan, a huge earth quake, and an even huger Tsunami which, lets not forget killed 20,896 people, also killed i believe 3 people at the nuclear power plant.

That is three people so far and it could have been far worse

FWIW i dont see why folk cannot see both argument

Look a Tsunami hit and it till did not go bang despite all the failures look how safe they are

Wow that was a close one we nearly wiped out japan and caused some serious problems on a timescale far greater than a Tsunami

FIW I go for the former

In Germany, a country not know for it's earthquakes or proximity to the ocean, decided to pretty much stagnate it's nuclear power program due to the "unacceptable risks"..........

It's this kind of stupid action, that in the long term is going to result in much poverty, death and was as our society starts to come to terms with energy starvation and miriad of problems associated with it. (hint, if you're poor, it's not going to be good)

perhaps it just highlighted the real risks to them

How about you proving me wrong

It would be easier if you would just prove yourself right. You said (and I'm paraphrasing) that ITER is a complete waste of money and fusion should be binned.

I'm yet to see you post anything that even remotely backs up that assertion. Just the usual obfuscation and straw men, with added doses of avoidance.

And it's not an insult - I'm criticising your arguments (or more accurately, the lack thereof), not you. However, if you feel the cap fits...

I think he thinks that building ITER is prolonging the arrival of/development of a real solution, though that doesn't really make sense to me.
As with anything, development and "prototyping" are required to make a successful final product.

Three 'undred

Those risks being, in a land-locked, tectonically stable country

Well not Tsunami but the risks are real

The simple fact with nukes [ like flying] is that is almost always safe and, due to the risks, the safety is so good than an accident is highly unlikely to happen

however if it does go wrong the results will be severe and catastrophic hence why the wildly varying assessments of its risk in the likelyhood v outcome maths game

Surely everyone can see both sides of this argument whichever way you fall?

[img] [/img]

Junkyard
however if it does go wrong the results will be severe and catastrophic

This is the bit im not sure about:

So far we've had:

1) A load of incidents with research or military reactors going out of control.
2) 3 mile island out of control comercial reactor
3) Windscale fire - fire at reprocessing plant
4) chernobyl - out of control antiquated commercial plant
5) 2011 tsunami Reactor containment falures (3x out of control comercial plants)

No doubt plus others i've forgoten or haven't been publicised. And so far, all the deaths put together for all of those acidents total less than the people killed in a single dam failure in china, and in fact approximately 8x more people die every year in the USA in traffic accidents.

Pretty much with the possible exception of chernobyl, none of those accidents has been what i would call catastrophic?

When you consider the benefits to mankind of cheap abundant and clean power generation, this seems a fair trade to me?

One wonders why they dont build them in the middle of London near all the power demands given they are as safe as you say

None of them were fully catastrophic with the exception of Chernobyl[ they had to evacuate 350.000 people] and that was not fully catastrophic. Tthe death counts varies from near single figures [ 30 ish russsian figures iirc to hundreds of thousands [ greenpeace]

If it really goes it will really go nuclear so to speak 😉

When you consider the benefits to mankind of cheap abundant and clean power generation, this seems a fair trade to me?

Like i say I can see both sides and remain uncertain as to which view i give most weight.

you seem to have made up your mind so i am not sure where this debate will go.

they are not clean [ nor that carbon neutral due to the amount of concrete needed] as the storage of the waste products has yet to be fully realised/solved.

When you bear in mind the energy density of the fuel, and the total lack of waste management for fossil based generation (put it in the atmosphere and see what happens), it puts nuclear in a pretty favourable light compared to BAU.

The future, we don't know the changing.

zokes it's a fair point to say the fossil based alternatives are not actually any better

The single fact that swings nuclear generation as being the best solution to me is that it starts with by far the highest energy density. This means you get a lot out for not much in, and a few relatively small (and located in low population desnity areas) plants can provide the countries electricity demands. They do use concrete, but so does alternative schemes (how much concrete in a wind turbine base, of which you need at least 10,000 to equal the output of 1 nuclear plant?)

Yes they create waste that is difficult to handle, but the relative volume of that waste is small (unlike fossil fuelled plants, that we just let pump thousands of millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere)

Yes, the raw fuel is difficult to extract and process, but you don't need very much of it in terms of mass, so transporting it is easy, unlike fossil fuels again where trains and lorries/ships carry millions of tons of fuel around the place, burning fuel in the process.

Death risk: currently worldwide, nuclear generation is the safest method, per unit of power generated, and something like 5x safer than alternatives like wind power for example.

imo, nuclear generation is the only option that allows us to start to tackle CO2 emissions AND maintain our current energy consumption habits.

The things that let nuclear power down are that it's now too late to start building new plants, and that the comercial sector is so frightened of making any investment in that sector (due to silly knee jerk reactions like in Germany for example). It also cannot be modulated as fast as conventional fuelled generation systems, so we would still depend upon gas fired plants as load levelers. In the long term, local energy storage (in your electric car for example) could ease this requirement for load leveling at a grid level.

Nuclear power is not without problems, but i think that the histeria that surrounds it for the general public in no way reflects the actual reality of it. Lets face it, we are living with an entire generation of people for whom the Cold war, and its "ever pressent threat of nuclear anhialation" were a major part of their lives and concerns. Those people are always going to think of any thing with the word nuclear in it as bad, no matter the circumstance!

nuclear generation is the only option that allows us to start to tackle CO2 emissions AND maintain our current energy consumption habits.

Ps given you spend so much time telling us all how safe they are why not build them in cities where the demand is rather than

a few relatively small (and located in low population desnity areas) plants can provide the countries electricity demands

See we all know its potential to go wrong
a for death per kwh - it really depends on how you work our how many die in getting the nuclear material - the mining plus the incidence of cancer is difficult to calculate as is shorter life span etc - its not a good comparator but it is widely used by the pro nuke lobby -planes use death per mile travelled for similar, distortion, reasons

When wind fails - a tower falls over or a blade comes off. When solar PV fails - someone gets cut with glass. When a Dam fails - buildings and lives are washed away.

But the area around the failure is able to re-occupied. Any dead can be buried.

When fission fails - the land and infrastructure is no longer able to be used. The people exposed will end up with shorter lifespans, some with suffering.

As for a solution that involves us using the power we use today there is none nuclear or otherwise

i also believe the case of nukes as a green power source is a flawed argument but see little point going over them again.

i also believe the case of nukes as a green power source is a flawed argument but see little point going over them again.

Agreed. Though they are a lot more green than anything fossil based

What is needed is a large reduction in energy use. Unfortunately that's exceedingly unlikely to happen, and nuclear is about the only option on the table currently that comes close to having and eating cake, unless the preferred option is old king coal - by far and away the most dangerous form of electricity generation

The bit quoted missed the line about fossil fuels... It should probably involve millions killed and land inhospitable due to inundation, drought, or catastrophic weather events. And that's just when it's working normally.

Sorry, but i was trying to have a mature and sensible discusion, probably silly i know.

Of [b]course[/b] we shouldn't build nuclear generation facilities in the middle of cities. It's called risk management. When the concequences of a serious failure are high, you mitigate them.

Just like a loaded gun. In the hands of a trained firearms officer it's pretty safe (of course, it CAN still kill you), in the hands of a toddler it's a lot less safe. The gun itself doesn't change.

This is the problem with a lot of the anti-nuclear comentators in that that cannot tell the difference between a risk and the probability of that risk leading to some consequence.

You say that as a result of a nuclear accident, large parts of our environment become uninhabitable, and yes they do. But those same areas are far, far, far smaller than the area used for example for open cast coal mining, or even lost under lakes for hydroelectric dams.
(it should also be noted, for the sake of competeness, that the quarantined areas around chernobyl are now some of the most wildlife rich areas, as Mans abscence has allowed nature to florish)

This is why the energy density of the fuel becomes so important when you start to look at the overall impact of a generation solution.

You talk of people living with long term suffering due to nuclear accidents, well, today, hundreds of thousands of people live everyday with the suffering from coal and oil extraction. And hundreds of millioms maywell suffer in someway from environmental changes brought on by buring those fuels.

I for one am not saying for one moment that nuclear power is green (no power generation system is truely green!) but that is the least impact on our ecosystem. Precisely because of the inherent risks it must be treated carefully and with some thought! It is the same reason cars kill many more people worldwide than handguns, because people see a gun as "risky" but not a car as risky (even though the car can easily hold far more kinetic energy than the bullet from the gun)

We have 3 choices:

1) cut back on our energy consumption, and return to a more sustainable way of life.
2) Continue to consume large quantities of energy and generate those from increasingly scarce fossil fuel resources (and live with the cost and environmental impact
3) Fast track a significant program of nuclear generation with the aim of switching our reliance on a majority generation from fossil fuels, leaving the remaining hydrocarbon fuels for more worthy causes
4) Attempt to build enough renewables to replace the fossil fuels, and live with the resultant power shortages / uncertain availibility of power.

NONE of those are "good" options. The least bad imo is 3) because it has the best chance of keeping our lights on for the given environmental and human impact (Yes, a nuclear accident could happen, but it is also very likely NOT to happen)

Here's a final question, how many everyday "green" supporters, the ones who when interviewed in the street say "oh yes, we should build more wind turbines" will still support that view when [b]they[/b] are subject to rolling power blackouts? I suspect very, very few? We have grown very soft, we expect power to be availible, to make our cups of tea, or some toast, or so we can watch Eastenders. People are going to suffer when suddenly they can do those things when the want.

1) cut back on our energy consumption, and return to a more sustainable way of life.

Why is that not a good option? It creates lots of jobs that can't be tranfered to China in the building industry; it gives power to the people and takes it way from the multi-national energy companies; it implies more people working from home and travelling less; it takes traffic off the roads and puts it on rails; it cuts every aspect of pollution.

A sustainable future is not a return to the past, it's a clean, efficient future.

Just like a loaded gun. In the hands of a trained firearms officer it's pretty safe (of course, it CAN still kill you), in the hands of a toddler it's a lot less safe. The gun itself doesn't change

This is the problem with a lot of the anti-nuclear comentators in that that cannot tell the difference between a risk and the probability of that risk leading to some consequence.

Look a Tsunami hit and it till did not go bang despite all the failures look how safe they are

Wow that was a close one we nearly wiped out japan and caused some serious problems on a timescale far greater than a Tsunami

FIW I go for the former

however if it does go wrong the results will be severe and catastrophic hence why the wildly varying assessments of its risk in the likelyhood v outcome maths game

its going to become tiresome if i need to repeat gentle attacks.

You say that as a result of a nuclear accident, large parts of our environment become uninhabitable, and yes they do. But those same areas are far, far, far smaller than the area used for example for open cast coal mining, or even lost under lakes for hydroelectric dams.

(it should also be noted, for the sake of competeness, that the quarantined areas around chernobyl are now some of the most wildlife rich areas, as Mans absence has allowed nature to florish)

You talk of people living with long term suffering due to nuclear accidents, well, today, hundreds of thousands of people live everyday with the suffering from coal and oil extraction. And hundreds of millioms maywell suffer in someway from environmental changes brought on by buring those fuels.

Not disagreeing but this does not mean nukes are safe or safer.

We have 3 choices:

The least bad is 1 and 4. As for resultant power shortages and uncertain availability - i think if we put our mind to it is not beyond us andis a bit of scare mongering - for sure usage will need to change but surely that is a given anyway.
Nukes cannot be built fast enough to help though there use is inevitable.
FWIW traditional fossil fuels will inevitably lead to it because they will run out as will nukes [ granted it will take a rather longer time frame - few thousand years say for the later unless of course we all get nukes in which ase a few hundred years [ we have debated the figures before so i give you the ranges]

To repeat I am not anti nukes per se I still sit on the fence - I started these debates as firmly anti nukes but I am not sure what I think currently nor do I think alternatives are risk free.

I dam not convinced by the nukes are safe and our only choice though.

Just like a loaded gun. In the hands of a trained firearms officer it's pretty safe (of course, it CAN still kill you), in the hands of a toddler it's a lot less safe. The gun itself doesn't change

This is the problem with a lot of the anti-nuclear comentators in that that cannot tell the difference between a risk and the probability of that risk leading to some consequence.

Look a Tsunami hit and it till did not go bang despite all the failures look how safe they are

Wow that was a close one we nearly wiped out japan and caused some serious problems on a timescale far greater than a Tsunami

FIW I go for the former

however if it does go wrong the results will be severe and catastrophic hence why the wildly varying assessments of its risk in the likelyhood v outcome maths game

its going to become tiresome if i need to repeat gentle attacks.

You say that as a result of a nuclear accident, large parts of our environment become uninhabitable, and yes they do. But those same areas are far, far, far smaller than the area used for example for open cast coal mining, or even lost under lakes for hydroelectric dams.

(it should also be noted, for the sake of competeness, that the quarantined areas around chernobyl are now some of the most wildlife rich areas, as Mans absence has allowed nature to florish)

You talk of people living with long term suffering due to nuclear accidents, well, today, hundreds of thousands of people live everyday with the suffering from coal and oil extraction. And hundreds of millioms maywell suffer in someway from environmental changes brought on by buring those fuels.

Not disagreeing but this does not mean nukes are safe or safer.

We have 3 choices:

The least bad is 1 and 4. As for resultant power shortages and uncertain availability - i think if we put our mind to it is not beyond us andis a bit of scare mongering - for sure usage will need to change but surely that is a given anyway.
Nukes cannot be built fast enough to help though there use is inevitable.
FWIW traditional fossil fuels will inevitably lead to it because they will run out as will nukes [ granted it will take a rather longer time frame - few thousand years say for the later unless of course we all get nukes in which ase a few hundred years [ we have debated the figures before so i give you the ranges]

To repeat I am not anti nukes per se I still sit on the fence - I started these debates as firmly anti nukes but I am not sure what I think currently nor do I think alternatives are risk free.

I dam not convinced by the nukes are safe and our only choice though.

Do you know back in 2000, The Independent had a story headlined 'snowfalls are now just a thing of the past'

Dr Viner, Head of the Climate unit at the university of east Anglia said ... Children just aren't going to know what snow is'