Thursday, November 1, 2018

More Climate Change Info

25 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

OK, here is another expert, using the IPCC's own climate models. Feel free to deny the "science." we'll always have Paris

John said...

I am watching the video, but why would I even bother to consider the views of a Political Science major?

Why do you?

Okay, I watched the whole thing... That was silly...

John said...

By the way, I do agree with one thing. Since the USA only has ~320 million of the 7,530 million humans on the planet(~4%) and the EU has only ~9%... It is the rest of the world that will drive the majority of the problem.

Especially if we both don't set a better example and help to lower the cost of less carbon intensive sources of power.

jerrye92002 said...

Why would I consider ANYBODY's views? Because they have the science right, and the doomsayers have it wrong.

How about this: I will COMPROMISE with you. I will allow that we should produce less CO2 (for some unknown reason), if you will promote the use of nuclear power-- preferably US-built advanced nuclear-- to reach that goal.

John said...

Sounds fine to me... I am not anti-nuclear...

But what to do with those spent rods???

John said...

Here is a link to a search on the topic

jerrye92002 said...

What to do with spent rods? Easy. You recycle them, take out the 1% waste and use the "renewable" 99% back in the same reactor. And there are advanced reactors that do not have the (small) used-fuel problem at all.

John said...

Funny. Apparently you should start a business based on those links.

jerrye92002 said...

Did I post links? If you are referring to nuclear fuel recycling, I WAS in that business, until the federal government made it illegal. And if you are talking about the advanced reactor business, most of that is being done everywhere except in the US; we have to build windmills.

John said...

No. My links that you likely did not read.

jerrye92002 said...

Actually I did, some of them. Some of them said pretty much what I said, except they said 97%, not 99%. I suspect some inefficiency in the process.

John said...

This link and info...

"“This was a great opportunity to build on our ongoing communication and discuss the key topics relevant to radioactive waste and spent fuel management,” Chudakov said. “These matters are at the heart of the sustainable use of nuclear technologies.”

While radioactive waste has been safely and securely managed for decades, there is still no facility in operation for disposing of HLW or spent nuclear fuel not destined for re-processing or re-use. But meeting participants noted that good progress is being made—particularly in Finland, Sweden and France—on developing DGD, which entails permanently placing solid radioactive waste in a facility located underground in a stable geological formation.

“We at the Agency reiterate that the only solution for safe radioactive waste management is disposal, as outlined in the IAEA safety standards,” Lentijo said. “This includes geological disposal of high level waste and spent fuel declared as waste. Our waste management support to Member States follows this principle.”

EDRAM promotes robust disposal programmes for HLW globally to ensure safety for present and future generations. The association groups the heads of waste management organizations from 11 countries: Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States."

jerrye92002 said...

Again, disposal being the only solution allowed, inefficient and wasteful. With recycling, the waste from 100 US reactors could be stored, supposedly, in a space the size of an office desk (plus overhead, of course).

John said...

Get real...
Forbes Recycling

"The outlook might be different if Congress were to lift the ban on nuclear-fuel recycling, which would cut the amount of waste requiring disposal by more than half. Instead of requiring a political consensus on multiple repository sites to store nuclear plant waste, one facility would be sufficient, reducing disposal costs by billions of dollars."

BBC France

jerrye92002 said...

97% is more than half, is that what you are saying? Forbes clearly says recycling solves much of the problem.

John said...

Jerry,
If it worked so well... A little country like France would not still be having big storage problems. And an international team would not be researching how to solve the problem.

jerrye92002 said...

Source, please?

John said...

See the BBC France source above.

jerrye92002 said...

"A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one-fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself."

"Reprocessing used fuel to recover uranium (as reprocessed uranium, or RepU) and plutonium (Pu) avoids the wastage of a valuable resource. Most of it – about 96% – is uranium, of which less than 1% is the fissile U-235 (often 0.4-0.8%); and up to 1% is plutonium. "

"In the last decade interest has grown in recovering all long-lived actinides* together (i.e. with plutonium) so as to recycle them in fast reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products. "

source

jerrye92002 said...

why are you fighting common sense?

John said...

I am fine with recycling if it is cost effective and safe, however as my link showed... It does not eliminate the problem...

Here is an exhaustive look at the issue

jerrye92002 said...

It only vastly reduces the problem. The article states that we will soon have more waste than even an approved Yucca Mountain can hold. Reducing the current stock by 50% through recycling solves the problem. If we face a CO2 crisis and cannot go full nuclear because of the waste problem, what would you like to do? And don't say windmills.

John said...

Let's see.

If we cut the waste problem in half...

And quadruple our use of nuclear...

Where does that leave us again?


We need a better solution and I assume that is why they have a task force working on it.

jerrye92002 said...

We already know the better solution, but nobody wants to pursue it because "Oooh, nuclear is SOOOO scary!" Recycle more than 50%. Better yet, Fast breeder reactors practically eliminate the problem, and can consume the spent fuel rods we already have. Create a small standard design (avoiding long regulatory delays and cost) and put it next to every conventional BWR reactor and storage pool. Double our generation capacity while DECREASING the amount (and toxicity, AFAIK) of waste.

jerrye92002 said...

And mind you, this is a good idea that, just incidentally, reduces CO2 emissions per MW generated. You can't necessarily say that for wind and solar.