It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Interesting stuff and I do believe nuclear reactors are a major contributor to climate change...
But the reality is nothing is playing a larger role than the troubled state of the oceans...
The health of the Oceans is the key to turning things around...
Not sure why not much is said about the Ocean when it’s the most important factor...
The culprit? Micro Plastics...
Unfortunately the time is very short to act on this by 2050 it will be too late...
Or at least next to impossible because the Oceans will be virtually void of life...
originally posted by: unwokebutawake
Or its something simple like the Grand Solar Minium
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I've heard that water vapor is the number one greenhouse "gas", although technically it's not a gas. Water holds a lot of heat in liquid or vapor form.
One of the posters mentioned the heat captured in the asphalt jungles that drives up the temperature in urban areas. Apparently many weather stations are situated in these over heated environments and are inflating the regional averages thus contributing to global warming data. There are efforts to green up city roof tops, but that's an expensive idea that can't be good for a flat roof on an old multi-story building, could be a fire hazard as well.
Plants of all kinds are good at making O2 from CO2. Algae is really good at it and grasslands aren't too far behind forests for sequestering carbon. So let your lawn grow tall, let moss cover your roof and let your pool get green and slimy to help erase your carbon foot print. Maybe stop brushing your teeth until they turn green too.
originally posted by: buddha
So they have the next thing up from nuclear reactors.
less heat? um no!
Mast Upgrade: UK experiment could sweep aside fusion hurdle
"Initial results from a UK experiment could help clear a hurdle to achieving commercial power based on nuclear fusion, experts say.
The researchers believe they now have a way to remove the excess heat produced by fusion reactions."
its the heat of a small star, all the time!
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog
I'd like to add another point.
5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.
Agreed .
And there has been some research that "fossil" fuels may well be replenishing between the crust and the mantle. It actually oozes up from below.
Would love to see that research. Care to share?
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog
I'd like to add another point.
5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.
Agreed .
And there has been some research that "fossil" fuels may well be replenishing between the crust and the mantle. It actually oozes up from below.
Would love to see that research. Care to share?
Abiotic oil.
US News
originally posted by: mc_squared
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
To begin, we have to understand and agree that CO2 is a self correcting system.
. . . But you see that other signal - the one going drastically up year over year instead of up and down? That's what it looks like when you take something nature spent millions of years burying away and release it in just a few decades.
Nature can't keep up.
Vapor is a gas and liquid mixture. Indeed, matter exists in that phase and may contain the same number of molecules as a liquid. It is formed as a result of change and can even undergo further alterations. When something exists in this nature, it is regarded as a multiphasic substance. Well, that substance is said to have the same structure as gas.
That source is poor, but even so, it says this:
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Sparkymedic
Vapor is a gas and liquid mixture. Indeed, matter exists in that phase and may contain the same number of molecules as a liquid. It is formed as a result of change and can even undergo further alterations. When something exists in this nature, it is regarded as a multiphasic substance. Well, that substance is said to have the same structure as gas.
Difference Between Gas and Vapor
You must think that gasoline fumes are a gas and not a vapor.
steam exhibits the properties of a gas when it is still hot
I thought energy secretary Chu's suggestion to use white roof tiles or put white coating on your roof was very simple and pragmatic, and by the way, I have white colored shingles on my roof, they don't cost any more and all else being equal, they seem to last longer because they don't get as hot.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Absolutely that plays a part.
So, what do you want to do about that?
I'm more interested in realistic/ pragmatic solutions.
A white (or at least light-colored) roof provides two benefits. The first is reduced air conditioning costs, which can drop 15 to 20 percent. The second benefit is more cosmic. A lighter-colored roof will reflect as much as 80 percent of the solar radiation that hits your house back into space. This increases the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet, which could help reduce global warming-surely a worthwhile goal for any home improvement project.
Turning off nuclear power plants and focusing on fossil fuels AND reforestation I think are pretty manageable goals as opposed to...I dunno....seems like you could write your own thread about how you might want to find realistic ways to cool cities?
we find that our planet intercepts about 174 petawatts of sunlight... quite a lot of energy!
the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
If it's not man made, it certainly is the sun. Heck it could be both!
originally posted by: Phage
Water vapor is, indeed a very powerful greenhouse gas. However its concentration in the atmosphere is dependent upon temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold. CO2 concentrations are not temperature dependent.
Rising concentrations of CO2 will result in an increase in temperatures due to increased radiative forcing. This increase in temperatures will lead to greater amounts of water vapor which will lead to further warming. It is a positive feedback loop. One of several which are initiated by the increase in CO2 concentrations (changes in Arctic albedo would be another).
The heat contributed to the system by nuclear power plants is utterly insignificant when compared to that which comes from the Sun. But, since radiative forcing is increasing (due to increases in greenhouse gasses), less of even that insignificant amount of heat can escape the system.
When heat is retained temperatures rise. When temperatures rise climates change.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sparkymedic
If it's not man made, it certainly is the sun. Heck it could be both!
Is the Sun sending more radiation our way?
originally posted by: butcherguy
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog
I'd like to add another point.
5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.
Agreed .
And there has been some research that "fossil" fuels may well be replenishing between the crust and the mantle. It actually oozes up from below.
Would love to see that research. Care to share?
Abiotic oil.
US News
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Sparkymedic
I am fairly sure that nuclear fuels, nuclear detonations, and the processing required in their use contributes something towards global warming, however that is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the 2,400,000,000,000 tons of carbon emitted from 1850 to 2019.
Also, the natural carbon cycle keeps most of the carbon sequestered in biomass, it doesn't release most of it into the atmosphere, like when you burn it.
In the case of marine organisms, when they bind carbon and die, they sink to the bottom and concentrate carbon sequestered safely under the seas. 2/3rd of the Earth's surface is water, so there is a lot of carbon sequestering going on there. The Earth's atmosphere is usually very balanced without the human burning of fuels and so burning of carbon fuels, especially in the amounts that we do, upsets that.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I thought energy secretary Chu's suggestion to use white roof tiles or put white coating on your roof was very simple and pragmatic, and by the way, I have white colored shingles on my roof, they don't cost any more and all else being equal, they seem to last longer because they don't get as hot.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Absolutely that plays a part.
So, what do you want to do about that?
I'm more interested in realistic/ pragmatic solutions.
How much can a white roof help reflect heat?
A white (or at least light-colored) roof provides two benefits. The first is reduced air conditioning costs, which can drop 15 to 20 percent. The second benefit is more cosmic. A lighter-colored roof will reflect as much as 80 percent of the solar radiation that hits your house back into space. This increases the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet, which could help reduce global warming-surely a worthwhile goal for any home improvement project.
Turning off nuclear power plants and focusing on fossil fuels AND reforestation I think are pretty manageable goals as opposed to...I dunno....seems like you could write your own thread about how you might want to find realistic ways to cool cities?
In 2019, the cumulative capacity of nuclear power plants in operation worldwide reached approximately 392.1 gigawatts.
Normally I use scientific notation, but the OP says he's not a scientist, so for that reason I will write out the numbers to see how big they really are.
392.1 Gigawatts is 392,100,000,000 watts
Now let's look at the amount of energy Earth receives from the sun:
Calculating Planetary Energy Balance & Temperature
we find that our planet intercepts about 174 petawatts of sunlight... quite a lot of energy!
174 petawatts is 174,000,000,000,000,000 Watts.
So to see how much power generated from nuclear power plants is as a percent of the total energy from the sun divide one by the other.
392,100,000,000 watts/174,000,000,000,000,000 Watts = .00000225
Now, that's not the total energy added by Nuclear plants. Thermal efficiency of nuclear power plants is about 33% so total heat is three times that much:
.00000225 x 3 = .00000675
So that's a tiny fraction of Earth's incoming heat budget. To look at it another way, the incoming energy from the sun is about 150,000 times greater.
So, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases either trapping or not trapping heat is dealing with a base amount of energy that's about 150,000 times larger.
That doesn't mean that turning nuclear power plants off won't make a small difference, but just that the heat they generate is a very small fraction of the Earth's energy balance.
But what are you going to replace them with when you turn them off? Coal burning plants are still going to generate a lot of excess heat, their thermal efficiency is somewhat higher, but the pollution from burning coal will kill many more people than nuclear power plants. Coal burning plants produce more deaths and more radiation than nuclear plants (barring any accidents).
www.scientificamerican.com...
the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
I could dispute some of the figures in this video, but, I have to agree with their point that coal plants will kill many more people than nuclear plants:
There are no easy solutions that can be done immediately that I know of. Locking everything down for COVID certainly reduced CO2 emissions temporarily, but it's not sustainable, we need the economy.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
I appreciate the effort in replying, so thank you for that.
White roof's are a great idea! Seems pretty easy to do over time - but I thought time was of the essence on this topic?
You didn't answer my question, so that would be a polite thing to do if you want me to answer yours. You talked about shutting down nuclear plants. I asked what you would replace the nuclear plants with if you shut them down, and I don't see where you answered that. If nothing, someone will be going without electricity. If coal or gas-fired plants, they also generate heat, and of course they add to the CO2.
I agree, the sun is the sun - it will always be THE source of the earths heat. I will never deny that.
But when you say the GHG's are trapping the heat, would you not consider H2O as the main GHG doing so? And what if we add a completely new source of heat to the water cycle, likely putting just that much more water into the atmosphere (heat rises). How much heat/ water in the atmosphere is required to tip the scales? I don't know the answer to that, but I would imagine not much.
Radioactive decay happens naturally, Earth would be an iceball if it didn't add heat. But the way we refine uranium and generate heat with it speeds up the process, so yes we are adding heat, but again, how is that any different than a coal plant? We burn a lot more coal than burns naturally too. Why the focus on nuclear, and not worry about any process of generating electricity that adds heat then, like coal-fired plants, gas-fired plants? If you want to shut down every electric plant that adds more heat than naturally occurs it seems you'd also have to shut down coal and natural gas plants too.
Nuclear fission does not naturally happen, at least not very commonly - the only natural fission reactor on earth is estimated to barely have produced 100kW for a few hundred thousand years, approximately 1.7 billion years ago - I would consider this to be insignificant. Nor did it emit to the atmosphere, that we know of - so moot point.
Regardless of what the answer to that is, why is this a nuclear plant question? Coal and natural gas plants also add heat. Replacing nuclear with coal or gas is not going to stop adding heat.
So, if nuclear reactors, which mainly heat water and put it back into the water cycle (H2O, the most abundant GHG) for power generation and cooling purposes, would that completely new source of heat not have any contribution to adding more of the most abundant GHG to the atmosphere?
I don't know the answer on this, but do you know how much heat it will take to push the water cycle out of balance?
Your main point makes no sense to me for the reason I just explained. Even if you forget about CO2 completely, changing from nuclear to coal or gas plants doesn't stop adding heat, they all add heat. And if CO2 does have an effect which it apparently does, then you've got that added to the heat you're so concerned about.
I guess this is my main point. I really think focusing on CO2 is simply asking the wrong question about a common problem. Therefore, we are naturally going to get the wrong answers, thinking they are the right answers.
I can dispute some of what they said, but, they do have a point about pollution from coal plants killing more people than nuclear plants, which is true independent of any concern about CO2.
That video was just pure cringe BTW (could the presenters get more of an inflection with every word they said?) - again, focusing on the wrong question of CO2 and not addressing the NEW HEAT produced by the nuclear power plants and only focusing on "yay no CO2", therefore not giving much insight in terms of this conversation.