Save the Planet. Kill the Birds.

[HawkMan]

Ethanol is a disaster  :pinch:

 

Regarding transportation, I think electricity (when produced cleanly) could advantageously replace petrol for at least 75% of domestic transportation. Plug-in hybrids resolve the temporary range issues that pure EVs have while providing clean energy for the vast majority of trips for your typical commuter. And at the rate at which battery technology is evolving, it's a matter of only several years before pure EVs outrange all other vehicles.

 

Supposedly lithium-air batteries for cars should be available before 2017, offering at least 5 times the distance of a Tesla S.

[Xilo]

Ethanol is a disaster  :pinch:

 

Regarding transportation, I think electricity (when produced cleanly) could advantageously replace petrol for at least 75% of domestic transportation. Plug-in hybrids resolve the temporary range issues that pure EVs have while providing clean energy for the vast majority of trips for your typical commuter. And at the rate at which battery technology is evolving, it's a matter of only several years before pure EVs outrange all other vehicles.

But I can't make road trips or pack a bunch of crap into a pure electronic vehicle...

[Andre S. Veteran]

But I can't make road trips or pack a bunch of crap into a pure electronic vehicle...

You can make road trips if you stop at fast chargers :P Or you could rent a vehicle for the day. Neither are great options, so I think PHEVs currently make more sense for most users, but, as I said, it's only a matter of time before these range issues are solved for pure EVs.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Supposedly lithium-air batteries for cars should be available before 2017, offering at least 5 times the distance of a Tesla S.

That, or Lithium-sulfur. 

[123456789A]

You can make road trips if you stop at fast chargers :p Or you could rent a vehicle for the day. Neither are great options, so I think PHEVs currently make more sense for most users, but, as I said, it's only a matter of time before these range issues are solved for pure EVs.

 

They should just electrify the streets so cars charge as you drive on them. It would also electrocute any jaywalkers.

[sharpy2k4]

Slightly off topic - but somewhat related.

 

Is there no way for us to create an automated radioactive waste dispoal system that launches it up into space towards the edges of our solar system? Or even a way to get it launched similar to how satellites are used. Yes it would be expensive, with companies having to pay the Space Company to do so, but would enable less nuclear waste to be stored on the planet.

[HawkMan]

well primarily it's expensive

secondly it's unnecessary

 

but 

 

thirdly and most importantly. what happens WHEN a rocket fails and explodes high up as a dirty bomb or falls down as a dirty bomb or...

 

Basically same reason why nuclear rockets got abandoned. 

[HawkMan]

In the future when we have a reliable space elevator or linear space launch gun, with a vacuum tunnel inside a mountain, perhaps. then we could just dump it in the sun. But we're a long way from those. 

[DocM]

The maximum beyond Earth orbit payload of current launchers is a few tonnes at about $300-600m per launch. Each reactor core is many times a few tonnes, so launching spent reactor cores to space is not economically viable. Nor are space elevators practical, for numerous reasons, nor are rail gun launchers.

On the other hand, if you use the thorium fuel cycle in a molten salt reactor for most of your units, and a couple of other types to burn their waste, what's left over is much less voluminous, much less radioactive, and with a much shorter decay cycle.

[HawkMan]

The maximum beyond Earth orbit payload of current launchers is a few tonnes at about $300-600m per launch. Each reactor core is many times a few tonnes, so launching spent reactor cores to space is not economically viable. Nor are space elevators practical, for numerous reasons, nor are rail gun launchers.

 

 

You forgot to end with "today" ;)

[Skyfrog]

I came here to see why killing all the birds would save the planet. I guess I misunderstood the headline. :laugh:

[Andre S. Veteran]

Slightly off topic - but somewhat related.

 

Is there no way for us to create an automated radioactive waste dispoal system that launches it up into space towards the edges of our solar system? Or even a way to get it launched similar to how satellites are used. Yes it would be expensive, with companies having to pay the Space Company to do so, but would enable less nuclear waste to be stored on the planet.

As DocM mentioned, that would be a complete waste, as the tremendous energy in highly radioactive nuclear waste can largely still be exploited with the right technology. We're pretty much there actually.

[sharpy2k4]

Thanks for clearing that up. 

[DocM]

WHITE HOUSE SOLUTION!

Surround the solar farm with a wind farm to keep the birds out.

All birds using the surrounding BLM lands will be taxed to a sufficient level that they can't live there.

Now arm and deploy the desert tortoises to keep them out.

If any remaining birds are still not getting the message, set up a special Free Chirping Zone far from the facilities so they can protest.

Any credentialed press will have a Free Reporting Zone, 10 miles away.

/semi-s

[spikey_richie]

There was an article in Nat Geo last year (possibly the year before) about birds flying into the blades of wind turbines. It seems any form of renewable energy is detrimental to the wildlife which inhabit its location.

 

Solar = super heated beam which toasts anything that passes through it

Wind = birds/bats being chopped to shreds by the blades

Hydro = fish getting minced up in the turbine

 

Biomass is considered renewable, but relies on copious amounts of trash to get going. Trash which attracts wildlife such as foxes, badgers, birds, hedgehogs who get sliced by bare metal or choked to death on plastic.

 

Geothermal seems to be (to me anyway) the least detrimental to wildlife.

[HawkMan]

The whole birds being chopped to bits by wind turbines is extremely exaggerated. and mostly used by anti wind farm protesters 

[Vykranth]

It seems any form of renewable energy is detrimental to the wildlife which inhabit its location.

 

Oh, because the rest is better? Warning, graphic material

 

 

Evolution of the forest in Borneo

 

 

Deforestation in Brazil

 

 

Strip Mining in West Virginia

 

 

Terrills, remains of coal mining in Northern France

 

 

Asbestos mine in Canada

 

 

Amoco Cadiz oil spill in Western France (1978)

 

 

Turtle stuck in oil during the Deepwater spill Mississippi, 2010

 

 

The DeepWater Horizon oil spill as seen from space

 

 

A fisherman from Nigeria tries to clean his boat from the oil spill due to the oil exploitation in the Niger river delta

 

 

A skeleton of an albatross who died scooping plastic waste from a debris field in the Pacific ocean

 

 

Piglet with dipygus at Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum in Kiev

 

All these examples are demonstrating that Earth resources are being raped every single days.

And now, some people are finding their environmentalist consciences because four pigeons have been cooked. You are ######ing kidding me.

[spikey_richie]

Oh, because the rest is better? Warning, graphic material

 

<snipped/>

 

All these examples are demonstrating that Earth resources are being raped every single days.

And now, some people are finding their environmentalist consciences because four pigeons have been cooked. You are ####ing kidding me.

 

Dude, we're on the same team! I didn't say non-renewable/fossil fuel was ok, m'kay?

 

I guess we'll just have to all go nuclear.

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

No, as of today and available technologies, Nuclear Fusion is the cleanest we have. Yes there's waste. but modern new reactors have very little waste, and we have places to put it away safely. remember a lot of the waste getting dumped in those vaults aren't from reactors but from other things that use radioactive materials, like mostly medicine(Remember the mexico case from a few months back).

Nuclear fusion cannot produce electricity on a commercial scale. You're referring to nuclear fission, which still produces significant amounts of waste. There is no way to process that waste - it's simply a matter of digging a big hole and containing it. However, it has a low carbon output and is able to work around the clock making, which is essential as renewable energy output is more variable. Modern reactors can withstand strikes by planes and are self-contained so they cannot meltdown like older designs but it would be wrong to suggest that there isn't the potential for serious environmental harm. Decommissioning nuclear plants is still a major environmental issue.

 

You just proved how little you know about modern nuclear reactor design and fuel cycles. Thanks for the clarification.

Incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect.

Please be specific. Simply saying I'm wrong isn't a rebuttal.

[DocM]

1) there are reactor technologies that produce much less waste, both volumerically AND in terms of its half life. The VAST majority of this waste can be burned in other types of reactors, further reducing its volume and activity. You end up with a much smaller amount of waste that decays rapidly.

2) many of these designs are meltdown-proof, and some use reactants that are dissolved in liquid salt solutions which have a nil vapor pressure. No vapor pressure, no core containment explosions possible. Liquid cores also have no catastrophic meltdown problem, its their normal state, and if they overheat plugs in the bottom of the tank passively melt. The reactant solution drains into multiple tanks, each containing a sub-critical mass which then solidifies. Annoying, but no China Syndrome possible.

3) many use a thorium fuel cycle, which replaces the vast majority of reactants. Thorium is far more plentiful than uranium, and more completely burns leaving that reduced waste discussed above. Feed that waste to other types of reactor and you have the vastly reduced waste I discussed.

4) these "burner" reactors can also use existing spent fuel rods as fuel, further reducing the waste issue. One Belgian design uses a sub-critical reactor core consisting of spent fuel which is transmuted to safer form using a particle acceletator which generates a neutron beam. Shut off the beam, the reactor shuts down. Accelerator-driven systems (ADS) have been tried before on a small scale, but it can now be done at an industrial scale.

5) there are other safe, advanced designs including mini-reactors no larger than a living room which can be buried and provide power unattended for 50-80 years. Excellent for remote, low population areas.

and so on.

[HawkMan]

 Modern reactors can withstand strikes by planes and are self-contained so they cannot meltdown like older designs but it would be wrong to suggest that there isn't the potential for serious environmental harm. Decommissioning nuclear plants is still a major environmental issue.

 

 

Yeah I wrote fusion instead of fission. I'll let Doc's post handle the rest. 

 

but for these points... you're also wrong. Let's look at Fukushima, Many, or most, would consider it proof that Nuclear power is to dangerous even today. That is wrong, in fact Fukushima is proof of how safe nuclear is.

 

Fukushima has one of the worst reactor designs ever made, not even the upgraded version, but the base horrible design where everything can go horribly wrong, it was also very old, but that's goes without saying since that design was old when it was built. Despite all this, despite the structural weaknesses of the plant and all the other problems with it, the result of this horrible disaster was "virtually" negligible. Any other design and we'd have near zero or zero "fallout" and leakage. 

 

As for decommissioning plants, yeah, that's an issue... for OLD plants. as Doc says, for new plants it's not an issue. They have automatic systems that separates the radioactive stuff in separate containers in case of a disaster, that can be removed. And after they cannot longer be used, they are constructed so radioactive materials are kept insulated and separate so it's not a big deal to decommission. 

 

Decommissioning isn't such a big deal anyway. even today, radioactivity isn't transferable. so it's not like the building becomes radioactive. Look at the plants they've taken down in the UK, US and rest of the world after getting to old. they remove the fuel and parts in direct contact with it. then the cooling towers gets demolished with regular explosive demolition. 

 

and again, the vaults for storing radioactive waste is safe enough. 

[jkenn99]

Not sure if this has been said already, but there are thousands of birds killed by planes in the US every year, and thousands more per airport culled to prevent bird strikes. Why is nobody calling for flight travel to end?

[DocM]

Becaise 99.999% of those airport birds are seagulls, geese and other non-endangered species.

The birds that are disproportionately being killed by becoming streamers or getting chopped by windmills are raptors; eagles, hawks, falcons, owls etc. which are protected species.

The same goes for bats, many of which are also endangered and protected - and when they swarm to get the insects attracted by the bright lights they can be killed in large numbers.

Also, if a raptor fries on a power line or is killed by some other process or activity the person or company gets heavily fined, but if it's by a windmill or solar concentrator the administration does nothing. Zip. Nada. Special treatment for favored techs much?

[theyarecomingforyou]

1) there are reactor technologies that produce much less waste, both volumerically AND in terms of its half life. The VAST majority of this waste can be burned in other types of reactors, further reducing its volume and activity. You end up with a much smaller amount of waste that decays rapidly.

2) many of these designs are meltdown-proof, and some use reactants that are dissolved in liquid salt solutions which have a nil vapor pressure. No vapor pressure, no core containment explosions possible. Liquid cores also have no catastrophic meltdown problem, its their normal state, and if they overheat plugs in the bottom of the tank passively melt. The reactant solution drains into multiple tanks, each containing a sub-critical mass which then solidifies. Annoying, but no China Syndrome possible.

3) many use a thorium fuel cycle, which replaces the vast majority of reactants. Thorium is far more plentiful than uranium, and more completely burns leaving that reduced waste discussed above. Feed that waste to other types of reactor and you have the vastly reduced waste I discussed.

4) these "burner" reactors can also use existing spent fuel rods as fuel, further reducing the waste issue. One Belgian design uses a sub-critical reactor core consisting of spent fuel which is transmuted to safer form using a particle acceletator which generates a neutron beam. Shut off the beam, the reactor shuts down. Accelerator-driven systems (ADS) have been tried before on a small scale, but it can now be done at an industrial scale.

5) there are other safe, advanced designs including mini-reactors no larger than a living room which can be buried and provide power unattended for 50-80 years. Excellent for remote, low population areas.

and so on.

I don't dispute any of that. The point is that there is no effective way to deal with nuclear waste - it can be reduced, in many cases dramatically, but what remains is simply buried underground. It is not a clean alternative to renewable energy, though it makes sense as a bridging technology until better replacements come along.

 

but for these points... you're also wrong. Let's look at Fukushima, Many, or most, would consider it proof that Nuclear power is to dangerous even today. That is wrong, in fact Fukushima is proof of how safe nuclear is.

I know what you're trying to say but it's still a ridiculous statement. Everyone accepts that Fukushima was a dated design but the real issue is that it was operated long after it should have been, despite numerous safety warnings. As for Chernobyl, it wouldn't have gone critical if unapproved tests weren't being conducted but human error has a way of laying waste to the best laid plans. There have been numerous other safety issues with nuclear technology and we also know that many nuclear reactors in the US are unsafe. With regards to the new designs, we don't know how they will operate beyond their intended life cycle or when serious human errors occur. There is also the clean up to be considered when plants are decommissioned, with governments usually footing massive bills (the decommissioning of Sellafield alone is expected to cost UK taxpayers in excess of ?70bn).

 

Nuclear plants are a major commitment at a time when research into renewable energy is producing major improvements all the time. While it's prudent to have some degree of nuclear energy, it doesn't make sense to tie the majority of energy production to nuclear plants that are expected to run for the best part of half a century. Imagine all the breakthroughs that will happen in the next 50 years.

[HawkMan]

Renewable energy isn't viable at this point in time. windfarms are huge and don't make a lot of power, solar farms have the same issue, one of the ones that make the most power is probably the one in spain, using a similar design to the one in this article, yet it's huge and only powers a small town. And they can only be placed in areas with a lot of high intensity sun. and they only make power for half the day. 

 

a nuclear facility makes many times the power, on far less space, it's safe and modern designs leave little waste and far less volatile waste.

 

And so what if we have breaktrhoguhs in the next 50 years. we're not there yet, we need power UNTILL we get there. and those hundreds of brown coal burning and gas burning plants in eastern europe aren't doing us any good.