Global warming 'past the point of no return'

[MovedGoalPosts]

So greenhouse gasses (CO2, etc) are today considered to be major causes of global warming. These are largely attributed to consumption of non renewable energy sources.

At least use of renewable energy such as wind power, is simply converting one energy source to another and not adding to the overall bill to the planet.

Nuclear Energy (aside from the waste storage issue) may have a low CO2 input, however it is still creating energy from a non renewable source. Perhaps more importantly the nuclear reaction isn't something that would normally occur in vast quantities. Thus use of nuclear energy is creating a vast extra input of energy to the planet that is not natural. That still has to go somewhere so why won't it too contribute to global warming

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Rob C

<snipetty> Thus use of nuclear energy is creating a vast extra input of energy to the planet that is not natural. That still has to go somewhere so why won't it too contribute to global warming

IIRC Energy is directly related to mass (E=MC^2 to be precise), so the Energy of 1KG of uranium is equal to that of 1KG of butter/water etc. No extra energy is therefore created, and iirc, the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy states just that.

Having said that, we seem to be using massively inefficient (and unrenewable)e ways of transforming energy to the forms we require.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by danielf

IIRC Energy is directly related to mass (E=MC^2 to be precise), so the Energy of 1KG of uranium is equal to that of 1KG of butter/water etc. No extra energy is therefore created, and iirc, the first law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy states just that.

Having said that, we seem to be using massively inefficient (and unrenewable)e ways of transforming energy to the forms we require.

OK so I'm no scientist, or even physicist (Failed physics A level). Accepting the E=MC^2 rule, the issue is that uranium contains energy that is contained, pent up, whatever but naturally would be released over thousands of years.

Our nuclear processes release that in hours, or weeks (dunno, the excat time is irrelevant). The point is that we are in a relatively short time releasing a whole load of new energy into our planet's system, that nature would not have expected to deal with. Surely therefore Nuclear energy, can contribute to global warming

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Rob C

OK so I'm no scientist, or even physicist (Failed physics A level). Accepting the E=MC^2 rule, the issue is that uranium contains energy that is contained, pent up, whatever but naturally would be released over thousands of years.

Our nuclear processes release that in hours, or weeks (dunno, the excat time is irrelevant). The point is that we are in a relatively short time releasing a whole load of new energy in0to our planet's system, that nature would not have expected to deal with. Surely therefore Nuclear energy, can contribute to global warming

The idea/theory/ laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. All you can do is transform one form of energy into another. We usually burn items to (coal/gas/oil) to create heat which runs turbines that create electricity. But this is all rather inefficient (and depletes resources) Einstein's E=MC^2 says that anything that has mass (weight) has energy that equates to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light (don't ask me...). So everything has a fixed amount of energy. Some forms of creating energy in the way we require contribute to global warming more than others. Nuclear energy atm looks relatively clean (but has its drawbacks in terms of radiation/storage etc.).

Wind/water/solar/tidal energy on the other hand take renewable sources of energy and transform those to the type we require (and generally don't contribute to global warming much

[etccarmageddon]

the problem with nuclear is the cost in the short term is low for the energy you get but overall when you take into account decomissioning the cost is high.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Rob C

OK so I'm no scientist

You're both making it a bit too complicated for yourself.

What you've got to look at is what energy is generated and where does it ends up. Heat is created by increasing the rate of nuclear fission. This is used to heat water and power turbines. The hot water is then dumped into the environment (as steam, hot water......) the heat from this will leave the environment over night into space in the same way as heat from the sun, current power stations or your toaster.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

the problem with nuclear is the cost in the short term is low for the energy you get but overall when you take into account decomissioning the cost is high.

Just something we're going to have to accept I guess......the same as higher prices for gas/oil.

[etccarmageddon]

apparently the cost of "... clean up of the UK's current nuclear sites" is £56 billion of tax payers dosh.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/content...20051129095305

add to that the cost of clearing up the mess made if/when a terrorist flys an aircraft into one of these sites or drives a petrol tanker into one or walks into one and sets of a semtex device etc.

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

apparently the cost of "... clean up of the UK's current nuclear sites" is £56 billion of tax payers dosh.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/content...20051129095305

add to that the cost of clearing up the mess made if/when a terrorist flys an aircraft into one of these sites or drives a petrol tanker into one or walks into one and sets of a semtex device etc.

I love the bit where it says 56billion could build enough wind turbines to provide 20% of the UK's power needs.
Like them or not Nuclear power is here to stay, its efficient, yes its expensive to maintain but so are other forms of electricity generating.

Wind turbines arent good enough to provide our power needs, neother are tidal generators or hydro electric. Greenpeace should remember this, also the fact that people dont want huge wind turbines on every piece of free space in the countryside.

[etccarmageddon]

5 * £56billion = £280billion - so that's all we need to provide all our power needs via wind. spread that over say a 30 year period and it's do-able.

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

5 * £56bill ion = £280bil lion - so that's all we need to provide all our power needs via wind. spread that over say a 30 year period and it's do-able.

What would we do on days when there is little or no wind?

[basa]

Originally Posted by Chris T

What would we do on days when there is little or no wind?

Eat more beans !!

[Chrysalis]

I think until a realistic more friendly source is available we will have to make do with nuclear wind power is too dependant on the weather.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Chris T

What would we do on days when there is little or no wind?

We keep the fossil fuel power stations (although it would be better if they can be converted to run from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, eg bio-diesel) and switch them on if the wind drops.

Thus they generate much less pollution.

[punky]

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

5 * £56bill ion = £280bil lion - so that's all we need to provide all our power needs via wind. spread that over say a 30 year period and it's do-able.

You're forgetting the NIMBY mentality. Wind farms are like prisons... Everyone wants them, but not near them. That lives a fraction of the country available for wind farms. And then when you finally find a place in the middle of nowhere that keeps everyone happy... Environmentalists complain that wind farms kill too many birds

You can't win for losing...