Nuclear Power

[Scot Dutchy]

Do you live under the same rock as Seth and 42?

What?

[Svartalf]

We could use beer here in Straya..

Good for you, I could use a hot toddy, it's damn cold here.

[rainbow]

We could use beer here in Straya..

Good for you, I could use a hot toddy, it's damn cold here.

See!

Not enough Global Warming!

Go out and pollute the planet, do your bit!

[pErvinalia]

Aderpt or derp!

[Seth]

Not a good time to buy land in Florida!

Last year, a massive 583-square-kilometre (225-square-mile) chunk of the Pine Island Glacier - a vast section of ice that holds the West Antarctic ice sheet together - broke free, heading out into the ocean to eventually melt and raise sea levels across the world.

Now, new evidence from satellite imagery suggests that this break was caused by a rupture in the shelf 32 kilometres (20 miles) inland, indicating that the glacier is actually breaking apart from the inside, and not the periphery, as scientists had long suspected. And even worse - a second inland rift is now reportedly forming.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-west-an ... chers-find

Well, except for one small problem with the physics...the ice they are talking about was already floating in the ocean, which is why it could "break loose" in the first place. Therefore, its mass is already accounted for in existing sea levels, and because ice shrinks when it melts, sea levels will actually go down microscopically when it melts.

Only ice that is on land and has not yet entered the ocean can increase the volume of the ocean. Derp de derp derp.

See the kind of fucknut pseudo-science the MSM/AGW conspirators try to foist off on the credulous public?

Why? The article says a second rift is forming that has not yet entered the ocean.

It implied the first one hadn't entered the ocean, which was wrong. As it happens both parts are ice sheets that extend from the foot of the land-based glacier and float on the surface but are being lumped in with "glacier" as if they are on land. The on-land portions of the glacier don't move quickly and certainly don't float out to sea until they've reached the sea...or melted into it...so there's no immediate danger of sea levels rising.

Yes, if all of Antarctica's land-based ice melts and every other bit of land-based ice melts sea levels will rise to a maximum of 70 meters.

But that's going to take centuries so we've got plenty of time to move and adapt...if it happens at all.

On the other hand, geological evidence shows that the shift from warm to cold can happen very, very quickly, like in ten years, in which case humanity is doomed.

[JimC]

Even though serious proposals have been tabled recently to bury radioactive waste in my neighbourhood I am in favour of electricity production using nuclear reactors. It is a lot cleaner and safer than any fossil fuel source. Still, looking at the estimated uranium reserves, it can only be a stopgap measure. Even coal and shale oil resources will outlast them.

I have always though that a useful possibility in Oz would be a nuclear power plant (or plants) next to an outback Uranium mine, complete with an enrichment facility, and underground waste storage. This means overall security could be excellent, and no long-distance transport of fuel rods or waste. A one-stop-shop...

Don't forget the Joule effect, it's not effective to transport power over too long distances.

Sure, there would be significant transmission losses, but then it becomes an economic question as to whether, even with the losses factored in, it provides base-line energy at a reasonable cost without CO2. I'm not saying whether it would or would not, but an analysis by people who know about such things would be interesting...

The current Oz network, simply because of the distances involved, already copes with large transmission losses anyway - we are used to factoring them in.

[Svartalf]

I'd ha' thunk the power plants would be near the major population centers and only minor populated areas would have to be powered from far away, there you propose truly massive transport, and corresponding losses... plus the fact that we may or may not know how to build nuclear plants without the presence of a body of water to serve for cooling, which may in itself be a major problem.

[JimC]

I'd ha' thunk the power plants would be near the major population centers and only minor populated areas would have to be powered from far away, there you propose truly massive transport, and corresponding losses... plus the fact that we may or may not know how to build nuclear plants without the presence of a body of water to serve for cooling, which may in itself be a major problem.

There is a lot of power shifted back and forth between states, and some power stations are quite a way from major population centres. I would not be surprised if Oz had the highest rate of average transmission losses in the world...

The water thing may well be an issue...

[Seth]

I'd ha' thunk the power plants would be near the major population centers and only minor populated areas would have to be powered from far away, there you propose truly massive transport, and corresponding losses... plus the fact that we may or may not know how to build nuclear plants without the presence of a body of water to serve for cooling, which may in itself be a major problem.

It's a complex analysis of all the factors you mention. Sometimes its cheaper and more efficient to locate the plant near the coal mine, as in the Four Corners plant that gets coal from the Navajo reservation (which they get a cut of) and sometimes its cheaper to build a gas-fired plant near a metropolitan area because gas can be piped to the plant more efficiently than coal trains.

[Scot Dutchy]

The locating of nuclear power stations in Europe has always been controversial. The vast majority are on the borders of other countries. We have only one stuck on a island in Zeeland.

[Forty Two]

The preferred term is nuclear energy...

Not anymore. The term "nuclear" is offensive to electrons, which are just as much a part of an atom as protons and neutrons.

[Forty Two]

Who can modify the title of the thread from "atomic" to "nuclear"? I cannot edit it.

I will see if my super mod powers allow me to do it...

I demand that you change it back to atomic energy

Atomic energy is not an inappropriate term.

[DRSB]

Who can modify the title of the thread from "atomic" to "nuclear"? I cannot edit it.

I will see if my super mod powers allow me to do it...

I demand that you change it back to atomic energy

Atomic energy is not an inappropriate term.

Not at all. Atomenergie in German, atomnaja elektroenergija in Russian. In addition to Kernenergie and Jadernaja energetika, all interchangeable.

[JimC]

The preferred term is nuclear energy...

Not anymore. The term "nuclear" is offensive to electrons, which are just as much a part of an atom as protons and neutrons.

Little electrons, weak as piss they are. Millions of times less energy than the brawny nucleus, and all they do is jump around between atoms to amuse those sick weirdos, chemistry teachers...

[laklak]

Plus they're little sluts. Jumping from one nucleus to another without so much as a by your leave. They should be exterminated.