'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

[Marduk]

I absolutely oppose nuclear power. There is no safe way to get rid of the waste,

Congratulations, now everyone knows you are equally qualified to talk about nuclear technology as the average Greenpeace activist.

 

[Bigking321]

Isn't most nuclear waste now completely recyclable and turned into more fuel?

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Isn't most nuclear waste now completely recyclable and turned into more fuel?

Most 'nuclear waste' isn't particularly nuclear. All the concrete that has to be replaced from time to time, gloves/suits, instruments, etc.
Its 'radioactive' but you'd probably only die if you ate the stuff, and even then not from the actual radiation.

 

[bintananth]

Isn't most nuclear waste now completely recyclable and turned into more fuel?

In theory you can take spent fuel and remove all the fission and decay products (some of which - like Americium-241 - are useful in their own right).

In practice? Budgets aren't unlimited and it's not cost effective to do that with all the spent fuel.

The "bury it someplace deep and geologically stable" approach is what we should be doing with all the waste we don't recycle. Heck, we designated a site in 1987 - Yucca Mountain - which hasn't received a single gram of radioactive waste for "reasons". Instead, the can keeps getting kicked down the road and we get this every time a nuclear plant is decomissioned:

Armed Guards Protect Tons Of Nuclear Waste That Maine Can’t Get Rid Of

The situation in Wiscasset underscores a thorny issue facing more than 100 communities across the U.S.: What to do with hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste that has no place to go.

www.mainepublic.org

 

[mrttao]

In theory you can take spent fuel and remove all the fission and decay products (some of which - like Americium-241 - are useful in their own right).

In practice? Budgets aren't unlimited and it's not cost effective to do that with all the spent fuel.

The "bury it someplace deep and geologically stable" approach is what we should be doing with all the waste we don't recycle. Heck, we designated a site in 1987 - Yucca Mountain - which hasn't received a single gram of radioactive waste for "reasons". Instead, the can keeps getting kicked down the road and we get this every time a nuclear plant is decomissioned:

Armed Guards Protect Tons Of Nuclear Waste That Maine Can’t Get Rid Of

The situation in Wiscasset underscores a thorny issue facing more than 100 communities across the U.S.: What to do with hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste that has no place to go.

www.mainepublic.org

eh, sensationalist news.
There is absolutely no need or reason to do anything else with it once it has been encased in a huge block of concrete as is shown in the picture above.

It is not "kicked down the road for reasons".
rather, it is already way way way over secured. to the point where going further is just stupidly wasting (even more) money.

 

[DarthOne]

Scientists Caught Inflating Antarctic Ice Losses 3000% More Than Observations

Scientists Caught Inflating Antarctic Ice Losses 3000% More Than Observations

notrickszone.com

A new study utilizing satellite observations determines Antarctic-wide ice shelves gained 661 Gt of mass from 2009 to 2019. An approach relying on assumptions of an unrealistic "steady state" or fixed calving flux (instead of real-world time-variable observations) estimates a net Antarctic ice shelf loss of -20,028 Gt over this same 11-year period – a more than 30-fold distortion of observed ice loss.

New research (Andreasen et al., 2023) uses observational evidence from MODIS to assess net ice losses, gains for 34 ice shelves across Antarctica from 2009-2019. These observed data show the mass gains from East Antarctica and the Ross and Ronne-Filchner ice shelves were larger on net than the mass losses in West Antarctica and the Peninsula. Consequently, Antarctica as a whole has been gaining mass since 2009.

"Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5,305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area."

Most studies utilize an alarmism-friendly "steady-state assumption" approach to estimate ice losses "in the absence of observations." This allows the agenda-driven facilitators of ice loss estimates to "overestimate ice loss on ice shelves that are advancing."

For example, using the "steady-state assumption" method, a net loss of -20,028 Gt could be alleged for Antarctic ice shelves from 2009-2019. Satellite observations, in contrast, assess a +661 Gt mass gain during this same period.

Thus, assumption-based ice losses are artificially inflated over 3,000% more than observations, flagrantly misrepresenting ice shelf behavior across Antarctica.

The practice of distorting the numbers to drive a narrative has infiltrated another aspect of climate science.

Climate scammers... wrong again:

Antarctica gained 661 billion tons of ice during 2009-2019 vs. a prediction of a 20,000 billion ton loss.

It's all a hoax.

 

[DarthOne]

'I feel a little duped': Why Rowan Atkinson says electric cars are not 'the environmental panacea they are claimed to be' and tells friends not to get them

Rowan Atkinson feels 'a little duped' by electric cars

Rowan Atkinson, 68, has now said 'electric motoring doesn't seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.'

www.thisismoney.co.uk

Blackadder and Mr Bean star Rowan Atkinson has claimed that he feels 'a little duped' by electric cars and has urged friends not to get them.

Mr Atkinson, who bought his first electric hybrid 18 years ago and his first pure electric car nine years ago, has now said 'electric motoring doesn't seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.'

In an essay written in The Guardian, Mr Atkinson, who has a degree in electrical and electronic engineering, points out that a study from Volvo suggests that greenhouse gas emissions are 70 per cent higher in the production of an electric car compared to petrol vehicles.

According to the car-obsessed actor, this is mainly due to 'lithium-ion batteries' which is nearly in all electric vehicles and extremely heavy. They use 'many rare earth metals and huge amounts of energy required to make them, and they only last about 10 years.'

This means that although electric cars have zero emission they are not yet as environmentally efficient as some may imagine.
The 68-year-old is also critical of what he says is 'society's relationship with cars' and describes the car industry as participating in the 'fast fashion sales culture.'

He says that on average most car users change their automobile every three years before selling them on - mainly due to the 'ubiquitous three-year leasing model.'

This is in comparison to his childhood, in which he says that cars after five years, where 'a bucket of rust and halfway through the gate of the scrapyard' whereas today a £15,000 car with some 'tender care' could last up to 30 years.

Mr Atkinson concludes that: 'Increasingly, I'm feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that's no bad thing: we're realising that a wider range of options need to be explored if we're going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.

'We should keep developing hydrogen, as well as synthetic fuels to save the scrapping of older cars which still have so much to give, while simultaneously promoting a quite different business model for the car industry, in which we keep our new vehicles for longer, acknowledging their amazing but overlooked longevity.

'Friends with an environmental conscience often ask me, as a car person, whether they should buy an electric car. I tend to say that if their car is an old diesel and they do a lot of city centre motoring, they should consider a change. But otherwise, hold fire for now. Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn.'

Mr Atkinson, who has a degree in electrical and electronic engineering, points out that greenhouse gas emissions are 70 per cent higher in an electric car compared to petrol vehicles.

 

[Typhonis]

Climate disaster is coming.....when? Nobody knows.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Wasn’t there a book that’s useful for shaping the narrative called How to Lie With Statistics?

 

[bintananth]

'I feel a little duped': Why Rowan Atkinson says electric cars are not 'the environmental panacea they are claimed to be' and tells friends not to get them

Rowan Atkinson feels 'a little duped' by electric cars

Rowan Atkinson, 68, has now said 'electric motoring doesn't seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.'

www.thisismoney.co.uk

Mr Atkinson, who has a degree in electrical and electronic engineering, points out that greenhouse gas emissions are 70 per cent higher in an electric car compared to petrol vehicles.

That's just the emissions involved in manufacturing one.

When it comes to the per-mile emissions from actually driving one? That zero CO2​ coming out of the non-existent tail pipe is the feel-good end-user number which conveniently forgets to include the pollution produced by the powerplant which generated the electricity used to charge the electric vehicle's battery. Toss in line losses and an EV is likely close to a wash when compared to low-emissions gasoline powered vehicle if the powerplant burns a fossil fuel.

 

[mrttao]

That's just the emissions involved in manufacturing one.

When it comes to the per-mile emissions from actually driving one? That zero CO2​ coming out of the non-existent tail pipe is the feel-good end-user number which conveniently forgets to include the pollution produced by the powerplant which generated the electricity used to charge the electric vehicle's battery. Toss in line losses and an EV is likely close to a wash when compared to low-emissions gasoline powered vehicle if the powerplant burns a fossil fuel.

Theoretically, those EVs should be powered by clean green nuclear power.

But then we see the clown world of shutting down nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal plants

 

[S'task]

Theoretically, those EVs should be powered by clean green nuclear power.

But then we see the clown world of shutting down nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal plants

That's the most frustrating thing about all this. We have the tech to dramatically reduce emissions from energy production to near zero. As well as greatly reduce emissions from certain categories of privately owned transit (electric cars are really good for small commuter vehicles used in suburbs, which account for a HUGE number of cars on the road).

A well crafted strategy would reward car manufacturers for making small, affordable electric or hybrid cars, nuclearize the grid (of shift from coal to natural gas), while leaving certain categories of vehicles alone as far as them remaining gasoline or diesel (large vehicles meant for carrying heavy loads and vehicles meant for use in rural regions are better served by using gasoline and/or diesel based engines). This could result in dramatic reductions of emissions very rapidly and with no impact on standard of living for most people... actually nuclearizing the grid would likely IMPROVE standards of living as the cost of electricity would plummet with all the useful knock on effects that has.

 

[Blasterbot]

That's the most frustrating thing about all this. We have the tech to dramatically reduce emissions from energy production to near zero. As well as greatly reduce emissions from certain categories of privately owned transit (electric cars are really good for small commuter vehicles used in suburbs, which account for a HUGE number of cars on the road).

A well crafted strategy would reward car manufacturers for making small, affordable electric or hybrid cars, nuclearize the grid (of shift from coal to natural gas), while leaving certain categories of vehicles alone as far as them remaining gasoline or diesel (large vehicles meant for carrying heavy loads and vehicles meant for use in rural regions are better served by using gasoline and/or diesel based engines). This could result in dramatic reductions of emissions very rapidly and with no impact on standard of living for most people... actually nuclearizing the grid would likely IMPROVE standards of living as the cost of electricity would plummet with all the useful knock on effects that has.

but then they would be improving peoples standard of living. their goal is to

1 gain power
2 destabilize the system
3 attack capitalism
4 bring about their socialist utopia

at no point in this is helping improve people's lives going to help their goals.

 

[DarthOne]

That's the most frustrating thing about all this. We have the tech to dramatically reduce emissions from energy production to near zero. As well as greatly reduce emissions from certain categories of privately owned transit (electric cars are really good for small commuter vehicles used in suburbs, which account for a HUGE number of cars on the road).

A well crafted strategy would reward car manufacturers for making small, affordable electric or hybrid cars, nuclearize the grid (of shift from coal to natural gas), while leaving certain categories of vehicles alone as far as them remaining gasoline or diesel (large vehicles meant for carrying heavy loads and vehicles meant for use in rural regions are better served by using gasoline and/or diesel based engines). This could result in dramatic reductions of emissions very rapidly and with no impact on standard of living for most people... actually nuclearizing the grid would likely IMPROVE standards of living as the cost of electricity would plummet with all the useful knock on effects that has.

Electric and hybrid cars still require lithium batteries and those are stupidly toxic to make. Plus, I like not having to rely on the power grid for everything, thank you.

 

[Marduk]

Electric and hybrid cars still require lithium batteries and those are stupidly toxic to make. Plus, I like not having to rely on the power grid for everything, thank you.

Resources aside, this is extremely nasty to the used car market. The batteries are often over half the car's price, and they die in 5-10 years. There you go, no more cheap used cars. Might be one more reason why the greens who push this the hardest are often the same people who hated private car ownership back even when global cooling was cool.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Resources aside, this is extremely nasty to the used car market. The batteries are often over half the car's price, and they die in 5-10 years. There you go, no more cheap used cars. Might be one more reason why the greens who push this the hardest are often the same people who hated private car ownership back even when global cooling was cool.

For a pure EV the battery replacement cost is prohibitive.

For a Hybrid, the battery replacement is MUCH less expensive because the batteries are no where near as high capacity. In fact, hybrids do a really good job of enhancing mpg and performance without any add'l stress on our power grid because you don't have to plug them in.

You do have the extraction and disposal issues to some degree, but not as heavily.

 

[Doomsought]

Just from a safety standpoint, I am reluctant to move away from gasoline power in cars. Batteries must be a nasty corrosive acid or worse base due to the mechanism of their function (ion transfer). If you get splashed by gas, it evaporates. If you get splashed by battery acid, your skin evaporates.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Just from a safety standpoint, I am reluctant to move away from gasoline power in cars. Batteries must be a nasty corrosive acid or worse base due to the mechanism of their function (ion transfer). If you get splashed by gas, it evaporates. If you get splashed by battery acid, your skin evaporates.

I always found it pretty amusing how compared to gasoline, stuff which burns, explodes, and otherwise is unpleasant, batteries are far far worse.
A battery with gasoline-level energy density would be particularly terrifying.

 

[mrttao]

EV stands for Exploding Vehicles

 

[Simonbob]

Wow.

They really blew up. There was a guy hit by a bumper bar, after it bounced. And he didn't move.

I'm not going anywhere near those deathtraps. (Well, perhaps a Green protest....)