Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Best time was 30 years ago, 2nd best time is no (Score 1) 52

Building nuclear plants at the rate you suggest would be another way to throw massive amounts of money into building things that will never be profitable because the power demand won't be there when the AI bubble pops.

Do you want lower CO2 emissions or not?

All kinds of electricity consumers are willing to pay for electricity production that is reliable regardless of the weather. They can have that from fossil fuels or nuclear fission. One produces far more CO2 than the other.

As it is now there's about 1200 GW of nameplate generating capacity on the USA grid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If we were to build nuclear power plants at a rate of one gigawatt per week, and assume the average build time of about 7 years holds, then we'd not get to an all nuclear powered grid for 30 years if we assume no growth in demand over that time. We will figure out if the AI bubble pops long before then and so can adjust our build rate accordingly. In the mean time with every gigawatt of nuclear power capacity added to the grid that is one gigawatt of coal power that can be removed. With over 200 GW of coal generating capacity, and that ~7 year build time again, that's about a dozen years to replace coal with low CO2 emitting nuclear fission. If this build rate exceeds the growth in electricity demand then that's removing coal power more quickly, potentially moving into removing natural gas from the grid in less than 12 years. If this build rate isn't enough because some other industry starts sucking up electricity like AI is now then it is still replacing coal.

Had we been on this path of replacing coal with nuclear fission 30 years ago then would we have any coal power plants left today? Well, probably quite a few, but not over 200 GW in capacity. Had we simply maintained the "slow and steady" pace of one GW of new nuclear fission generating capacity per month that was reached in the 1970s then we'd have something like 600 GW of nuclear fission generating capacity today, or about half of the total capacity we have now. Would that have been so bad? France seems to have figured out how to make that work. At that build rate we'd likely reach a kind of steady state of new nuclear replacing old nuclear for a while, no longer adding more capacity since the expected operating life of a nuclear power plant was to be in the 30 to 50 year range. The expected operating life of nuclear power plants now are reaching 60 to 80 years, not necessarily because they are all that cheap to run but because we've failed to keep up with building newer and less costly nuclear power plants to replace them.

A large part of the demand in new power plants is a lot of old power plants getting to be so old they are unsafe, unreliable, and therefore expensive to maintain. What are we to do as aging nuclear power plants, many of which were built in that surge of new construction in the 1970s, reach their end of life? If we assume they are shutdown and decommissioned at 60 years of age then we have about a decade to get to adding one GW per week to the grid just to not go backwards on low CO2 electricity generating capacity. Are we to expect wind and solar to make up the difference by then? They can't keep up with growth as it is now and they've been trying for 50 years. Maybe it is time to reconsider nuclear fission. It was time to reconsider nuclear fission 30 years ago. The 2nd best time to reconsider our options is now.

It appears people are not comprehending the electricity demand in the USA. If I'm reading this correctly there's plans to build about 10 GW of natural gas generating capacity per year for the next 8 years: https://www.powermag.com/hundr...

Does that make building 12 GW of new nuclear fission capacity per year unreasonable? Or even 50 GW per year if that means replacing so many aging fossil fuel and nuclear power plants? We will need new nuclear power plants with or without AI data centers. We should have figured that out 30 years ago. The 2nd best time to figure that out is now.

Comment Re:Russia Is Doing Everything It Can (Score 2) 25

Anything that would make Putin look bad, Trump won't do.

What do you expect President Trump to do? Mock the man to his face? Is that how anyone negotiates for peace? Or restoring trade of food for fuel?

I can point to how Zelenskyy handled his first meeting with Trump in the White House as how to not negotiate. The first mistake Zelenskyy made was to show up in his pseudo-fatigues. I can understand that while in Ukraine, in a state of open conflict, he'd want to dress like he's a military leader. Since he's the commander in chief than a commissioned officer it might look bad to wear a proper military uniform so the compromise he made on that appears to be a good idea to me. But when traveling as a guest to another nation, a nation at peace and quite capable of providing his protection, it was a bad look maintain that style of clothing. We saw Zelenskyy get "taken to school" on TV. Zelenskyy was being disrespectful and so got little respect in return. On the next trip Zelenskyy was wearing a kind of military style suit, and was praised for it. Trump was more receptive and Zelenskyy got more of what he wanted.

Zelenskyy also had a change in attitude on his second meeting with Trump. Zelenskyy was more respectful, more pleasant, less demanding, less aggressive and as a result Trump was far more receptive to what Zelenskyy had to say.

Now consider how Trump and Putin interacted in Alaska. Trump was looking to convince Putin to end hostilities in Ukraine. This meant rolling out the red carpet to gain his favor. Literally. There was a red carpet. Trump put on a show for Putin, in a way, with plenty of military hardware in sight to demonstrate Putin could expect to be safe there but also to show he'd not remain safe if he went too far with the "special military operation" in progress in Ukraine.

It's the same reason he has not put real sanctions on Russia despite the Senate having the bill to act as a sledgehammer.

How is Trump responsible for what Senators decide to do? I don't understand the complaints so many people make of Trump. If Trump imposed sanctions on Russia then he's imposing taxes, and taxes are the job of Congress. If there's a Senate bill to impose tariffs on Russian trading partners, but it is stalled in the Senate, then Trump is asleep at the wheel for not imposing the tariffs on his own. If Trump is being, well, "diplomatic" with Putin then he's not being tough on the international equivalent of a schoolyard bully. Had Trump been any less diplomatic then I'd expect complaints on him being rude to the point of potentially starting World War Three.

Putin doesn't deserve the treatment he got but when trying to get a peace deal then you do what must be done. The other option is handing out rifles and uniforms to teenagers, then put them on airplanes to go fight in a land where they don't speak the local language. Do you want war? Showing disrespect to Putin, and Russia generally, is how to start a war. Russia is barely a "top ten" nation by many metrics but they get oversized attention because they are still riding on the momentum from WW2, the Cold War, and what they inherited from the fall of the Soviet Union. That may not last much longer.

Comment Best time was 30 years ago, 2nd best time is now (Score 3, Insightful) 52

The best time to have been building nuclear power plants for this expected growth in electrical generation demand was 30 years ago, the 2nd best time is now, to paraphrase a point on planting trees. It's not like we didn't see this coming, demand for energy was always going to grow.

A couple points to make clear. First, this demand for electricity isn't driving the building of new coal power plants, but rather delaying their retirement. From the fine article:

Warnings emerged last year that rising energy demand from the proliferation of data centers in the US risked outstripping available generation capacity, potentially extending the operational life of coal-fired power plants.

That still means more coal burned, so no need to point that out in any reply.

Second, these data centers need reliable power and so on site natural gas is preferable. From the fine article:

Natural gas-powered turbine generators had been the favored choice to power the ongoing datacenter build boom, especially as these can be sited directly on campus to provide local generation. However, current gas prices have made this option less economically attractive.

If it were as low in cost and reliable to use solar plus storage then these data centers would be using that instead. Solar PV takes a lot of land to produce meaningful amounts of power for data canters, and land costs money. Maybe with onshore wind and storage they can get competitive costs and not need the same kind of land use as natural gas prices rise. As I understand the issue there's still a lot of land needed for wind power but at least the land around the windmills can be used for crops or grazing. Wind power is reasonably low cost but to be "firm" requires batteries or some other storage. Don't forget the long wires that can be vulnerable to weather that can impact reliability. Do we have the manufacturing capacity to build the batteries desired in time to compete with natural gas?

We will need to be building nuclear power plants at a rate double or quadruple that we saw at the peak of building nuclear power plants in the 1970s to keep up with growing demand. That peak was an average of about one gigawatt per month. So, we might need to see about one gigawatt per week. I know there will be people that will claim this is impossible. I expect these people to be told to hold someone's Diet Pepsi as they are proven wrong.

Oh, and I expect someone to claim the data centers could adjust their electricity demand to match the wind and/or sun to avoid the need for energy storage. That means idling a very large investment in hardware and such, putting them at a disadvantage with the competition that is using fossil fuels. That's not going to happen as that would be economic suicide, and people don't like losing money.

Comment Re:Attacking the sewage system.... (Score 2) 25

I don't care how much you hate a country, attacking their sewage system is just a shitty thing to do.

A blind man could see what you did there.

Russia is waging a war on infrastructure, and with winter approaching in Europe that will make repairs difficult. We are coming up on three years since Russia invaded Ukraine and Russia will want to create a miserable winter for Europe in order to have more time and space for another invasion as spring comes.

It was no accident that Russia invaded in February. That's the time of coming out of winter, the ground and many rivers would still be frozen to allow for the movement of heavy equipment but with the thaw coming in a few weeks that would impede movement of any heavy equipment by defenders. Once the spring comes the ground turns to mud until there's some plants growing and sunlight to firm it up a bit for trucks and such.

Russia is timing their attacks to the seasons for maximum effect. Losing electricity in summer isn't near as bad since there's no deadly cold (though heat can kill, just less likely), and longer days to minimize the need for artificial lighting. I'd expect these attacks to continue, and only let up as the people involved would be expected to aid in another attempt at a land grab in February.

This is much like Russia denying natural gas to Europe when they started this war, they want to create problems for Europe so as to limit available resources for defense against a land grab.

Comment Re:Russia Is Doing Everything It Can (Score 2) 25

Russia is doing everything it can to escalate itself into WWIII. Unfortunately, it makes sense from Putin's perspective since the only thing propping up Russia's economy, and thus his tenure in power, is war.

Russia is not doing everything it can to start WW3. If Putin wants WW3 then all he needs to do is "touch the boats" like Japan did in the start of WW2. I know that there are people that will claim that WW2 started in late 1939 but I can make a case that it wasn't a global war until 1941 when Japan touched America's boats and initiated direct involvement from nations on the American continents. Don't touch the boats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

What I see happening is that while there's a lot of players in this game that want to see Putin removed from power, even if that means war, but these same people don't want to go down in history as the person that started the war. Putin knows he's not likely to survive any direct involvement from NATO alone so he'd need help from the likes of China, North Korea, and the other usual suspects. Putin is not likely to get this support if he is seen as initiating the conflict.

Consider how WW2 would have looked if it was UK that executed some kind of preemptive attack on Germany, would the USA have come to their aid in any way at that point? While the USA was technically neutral in the early part of WW2 they did provide aid in various ways, if only in that trade continued for food and fuel. Would the American public have been so willing to allow trade to continue if UK was seen as the aggressor nation?

There's a parallel here with international relations with Russia. If Putin starts a war with any member nation of NATO then how willing would President Xi in China be willing to join that fight? I'd expect XI to stay out of it and let NATO soften up Russia as Xi has ambitions to invade Russia for their land and natural resources. This would also mean NATO is expending resources needed to defend Taiwan, and that would make their plans to invade Taiwan in the next year or three that much easier.

There is a military advantage to starting a war as that means being able to pick the time and place for the first attacks, and if done correctly can mean a quick victory. There is a political advantage to being seen as the one attacked as that means it is easier to get support from allies. Putin must know this.

Putin has set a precedent for probing NATO defenses, claiming any crossings into NATO territory as accidents or movement in international territory. These are clearly provocative actions but so long as Putin claims no ill will then that's an "out" for the likes of President Trump to start a war. Putin needs to be able to play the victim, not just for international relations but also to avoid some kind of popular uprising inside Russia. I doubt Trump wants war, he's a businessman, not a soldier. If Putin wants the USA to start a war then he'd likely need to wait for a President Vance. Or maybe someone else. I don't know if Vance would be any more willing to start a war but by having served in the military he may, perhaps, have less fear of one.

If Putin wants war then he can have one by sinking the "right" (or "wrong") boat. He has not done that yet, so if he wants war then he's very careful on who he starts a war with.

Comment Re:Stupid fiddling (Score 1) 88

This is a well understood process and has been under intense investigation for decades. What appears to be new here is some means to reduce the cost of this "enhanced weathering" that can allow for improved quality of croplands while producing a means to lock up CO2 into the soil. There's no real downside here, other than the cost which is the point of this scientific study.

Part of the study is if this process is as viable of a carbon sink as other processes. If they can prove how much CO2 is removed from the air then there is a means to collect on "carbon credits" to fund this effort.

If you want this to stop then put an end to carbon credits. So long as there is money in "fiddling with processes that we do not actually understand" it will continue. What we don't understand is how much CO2 emissions "fiddle" with the climate, we may have some ideas but we don't really know what it means to emit CO2 from burning fossil fuels. If you want that to end then work on ways to make energy from low CO2 emitting energy sources lower in cost. So long as fossil fuels are lower cost energy there will be people burning them.

Comment Re:Turn up the air conditioning, leave the door op (Score 3, Interesting) 88

.... If nothing else, processes like this just gives the polluters more incentive to keep polluting and will further reduce the investments into clean energy.

Not quite. Farmers have a need to maintain the pH of the soil and restore nutrients removed by the crops harvested from the land. The maintenance of pH is often done with adding lime or limestone. Agricultural lime is often from limestone "cooked" to break down the CaCO3 to CaO so that it can soak up the CO2 from the soil that adds to the acidity. Limestone is a compromise as there is a buffering function still in the CaCO3 that involves chemistry that escapes me at the moment. Either way the addition of lime or limestone is adding the calcium needed by the plants, with the plants often consumed by cattle, pigs, chickens, or whatever so they can produce meat, milk, eggs or whatever for us humans to eat. Certainly the vegetables and fruit we eat need this calcium too, just not in the same quantity.

The idea of adding basalt than limestone is there's still that calcium being added to the soil. The reason that basalt isn't used now is that it is a "hard" mineral that is difficult to mine while limestone is "soft" and so doesn't produce the same kind of wear on the machines used for mining. Further limestone is often quite pure CaCO3 while basalt is often half silicon sand and maybe a quarter CaO, so for the same material hauled from a quarry there's more useful pH mitigation and calcium in the limestone.

For modern agriculture to keep feeding the world we'd need to keep mining for minerals to sustain our croplands. By switching to basalt from limestone we can accelerate the reduction in CO2 in the air in the process. This can also mean more mineral rich soil since there's a greater variety of minerals in the basalt than in the limestone we mine currently.

A complaint I've seen with people pointing to the increase in modern agriculture is we have more productive croplands but the larger tomatoes or whatever means there's more starch but less minerals that we need to be healthy. We can get more minerals in the soil with basalt.

Again, the reason we aren't using basalt now is due to the difficulty in mining. Basalt is not rare, but it is very abrasive. Fix that cost of mining and we'd solve a lot of problems beyond just CO2 in the air.

Comment Re:Wrong headline, it is now "War Users" (Score -1, Troll) 35

would that matter if that economy didn't depend on constantly producing weapons to function?

A nation that cannot defend itself will inevitably cease to be nation. There's exceptions but that is generally the case.

One example of an exception to the rule on needing a military is Iceland. There is an Icelandic Coast Guard that serves to defend the island nation but its primary function is mostly like any other coast guard, that of a serving as a kind of police force to do search and rescue as well as enforce rules on fishing and safety of navigation. Their position in a major passage for anything from Russia to any member of NATO means that all of NATO will defend this island vigorously.

The USA is full of natural resources that so many other nations would like to have. The USA also holds all kinds of educated people, technology, manufacturing, and more that other nations would like to have. If the USA didn't invest in defense then it could expect to see attempts for invasion to take the wealth it has from it. That's not exactly ideal but we don't live in a perfect world. Part of that defense means we provide military aid to nations like Iceland. It appears the presence of US military forces on Iceland have been fairly limited for the last decade or so, but the Icelandic Coast Guard has maintained facilities the USAF abandoned in case there is a need for them to return. This included upgrades to hangars and such to accommodate the larger patrol aircraft used by the USAF, US Navy, and USCG since the US officially abandoned the base they built in the 1950s in 2016.

I went on about the base at Iceland to prove two points. First, nations that don't have their own military will be reliant on friendly nations to defend them. To be defended by other nations means being useful because of location and geopolitics. Second, as the USA is a big fat juicy target for wealth there is a need to use some of that wealth in defense from those that would like to take this wealth by force, and that means doing things like making deals with Greenland, Iceland, Taiwan, and so many other nations to put some "speed bumps" in the path from the nations most likely to attempt to take what the USA has by force. Those "speed bumps" will be things like airfields and naval bases that we have to provide some funds and manpower to maintain.

The USA depends on constantly producing weapons to function because if we stop producing those weapons then that is effectively an invitation for an invasion by nations like China and Russia. Certain weapons will have a limited shelf life and so needs constant replacement or refurbishment even if not ever used. If we never go to war then there is still a need to produce new weapons, ammunition, and so on since they will be consumed or worn out in training. I had enlisted in the US Army and I shot a lot of ammunition in training. At the time there was a shortage of grenades so the live weapon training was cut to tossing a single live grenade than the usual two or three. Do you want those defending the USA to not be trained with live weapons? There were some pretty wild and crazy simulators on base to reduce the need for ammunition but it was still not like the real thing.

these limitations mainly apply to the defense sector.

True, but not solely to the defense sector. There's a lot of rare earth minerals in the windmills scattered over the USA. Without those rare earth minerals to make them as light and efficient as they are they'd need more steel to hold up the heavier generator inside them, and that will cost money. That added cost will result in higher costs of energy, less steel to go around because of the more durable towers to hold them up, and so on. There could be a cascading effect of higher costs for so many things we rely upon, and that will mean a lower standard of living.

Comment Re:The bright side (Score -1) 35

The shortage of rare earth mining in the USA is an "own goal" from Congress putting tighter and tighter rules on the disposal of the tails from refining.

I'd like a better chart on the production of rare earth minerals over time but they are hard to find, this may just have to do:
https://www.visualcapitalist.c...

A large part of the issue with mining rare earth minerals in the USA is that the ores with high concentrations in the heavy rare earth minerals tend to also be high in concentration of uranium and thorium. Because we have nonsense rules out of Congress on disposal of material high in concentration of uranium and thorium it is very expensive to deal with the tails of refining heavy rare earth minerals. The rules are such that the tails cannot be simply dumped back in the hole they came from but must instead be disposed of at a secure site for radioactive materials. Now, if we had a market for uranium and thorium with a robust nuclear energy program then this uranium and thorium would be a product that could be sold for profit than waste that must be hauled off at considerable expense.

One of two things need to happen to see rare earth mineral mining be restored to the USA. First option is to grow the nuclear energy industry so the radioactive tails can be sold as fuel than be treated like radioactive waste. Second, we could have Congress follow the model of most sane nations and recognize that the radiation hazard of elements with half lives measured in billions of years is not a real radiation hazard. That's not saying they pose no hazard. They can still produce dust that is an inhalation hazard like any other mining and refining operation would produce. They can produce a heavy metal poisoning hazard like mining of copper, gold, iron, lead, or whatever could produce. There's heavy machines so there's the typical industrial hazards. We deal with this stuff all the time and adding that tiny extra hazard of radiation can be mitigated with the existing protocols of filtering air, goggles, gloves, hard hats, etc.

I call this an "own goal" because this is a problem Congress created. Because Congress created the problem then they can fix the problem. We've had a Democrat party that's been either openly opposed to anything "nukular", or pretending that nuclear energy doesn't exist, from the Carter administration until Andrew Yang forced the Democrat party to at least acknowledge the existence of nuclear energy. From that has flowed policies that opposed the development of sane laws and regulations on not just nuclear energy but anything related to handling of radioactive material. Since mining of rare earth minerals will disturb naturally occurring radioactive materials (or NORM), and Democrats in Congress consider anything radioactive as something that should be avoided at all costs, we can't mine enough rare earth minerals in the USA to meet our own demands.

Democrats on on a path to political suicide. They can't continue to cripple the economy like they are and expect to stay relevant in DC. They were forced to soften their opposition to nuclear energy when Andrew Yang forced the issue in 2019/2020 but little has come from that since. Should they maintain their opposition to revising rules on mining in the USA, and China decides to start a shooting war in the South China Sea, then I'd expect Democrats to be removed from DC as people wise up to the need for the USA to be able to defend itself from China.

Comment Re:Good that UK is building more nuclear power pla (Score 1) 56

'wind and solar will power datacenters more cheaply than nuclear, study finds':

No, that's not what the study said. It specified SMR, small modular reactors, not all nuclear power. That level of specificity tells me that they likely found more traditional (commonly referred to as "3rd generation") nuclear power lower cost but they didn't want to reveal that as it would be counter to their anti-nuclear agenda. It appears to be working as people are misinterpreting the results, just as you have.

'The report, prepared by independent expert bodies CSIRO with the Australian Energy Market Operator.. finds firmed renewables, including transmission and storage costs, provide Australians the cheapest power, at between $83/MWh and $120/MWh in 2030, when they account for 80 per cent of variable generation"':

That report also limits the options for nuclear energy to SMR. Why are studies on nuclear energy limiting themselves to SMR, a new "4th generation" technology that hasn't been proven yet, when there's a perfectly viable "3rd generation" technology that's available today and shown to be profitable for something like 30 years? My guess is because that's the only way they can make nuclear energy look bad.

'The most significant environmental drawback of nuclear energy is the generation of high-level radioactive waste. This waste, comprising spent nuclear fuel and byproducts of reactor operation, remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. Currently, there is no universally accepted permanent solution for its disposal.':

Who are Institute for Environmental Research and Education? Good job on finding some obscure nonprofit to make a statement on radioactive waste. I don't know why I'd care what they say, anyone can get some buddies together to start a nonprofit, put up a website, and issue some "studies" for the press to pick up. On the other hand we have the US NRC that appears to have figured it out: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm...

'uncertainty around a disposal option for nuclear waste critically undermines its grand ambitions to deploy fleets of small modular reactors (SMRs)':

First, they are limiting their concern to SMR which is something of a flag that they are ignoring other options for nuclear energy. Second, the people opposing the use of nuclear energy appear to be a bunch of nonprofit organizations with a limited grasp on science and technology. They "feel" more than that "know" which tells me they will have limited impact on any UK government decisions on building nuclear power plants.

'One nuclear power plant takes on average about 14-1/2 years to build, from the planning phase all the way to operation. According to the World Health Organization, about 7.1 million people die from air pollution each year, with more than 90 percent of these deaths from energy-related combustion. So switching out our energy system to nuclear would result in about 93 million people dying, as we wait for all the new nuclear plants to be built in the all-nuclear scenario.

That's a straw man since I'm not seeing anyone call for an "all nuclear scenario" to resolve the energy problems in UK.

Utility-scale wind and solar farms, on the other hand, take on average only two to five years, from the planning phase to operation. Rooftop solar PV projects are down to only a 6-month timeline. So transitioning to 100% renewables as soon as possible would result in tens of millions fewer deaths.

A nonsense argument to make since I'm not seeing any opposition to rooftop solar if people want it. If there is any opposition then it is about government subsidies to pay people with enough money to own their own roof to put solar panels on them which costs money to those that rent and see no benefit, or the opposition lies with utilities being forced by government to buy the excess electricity produced by rooftop solar whether they need it or not which can lead to negative spot pricing and a higher average cost for electricity to make up for the negative pricing.

This illustrates a major problem with nuclear power and why renewable energy -- in particular Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS) -- avoids this problem. Conventional nuclear, though, doesnÃ(TM)t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with conventional nuclear energy':

That's the same anti-nuclear bullshit being repeated from the 1980s as if there's been no improvements in technology or government policy since. An army of straw men. Who listens to this bullshit any more?

'"the other problemà of nuclear energy: not only is it neither renewable nor clean, itÃ(TM)s very dangerous (there have been several hushed up incidents; while a single reactor creates up to 30 tons of high-intensity waste that nobody knows what to do with. And just as importantly, it distorts electricity markets.':

You gave links to opinion pieces that cite other opinion pieces as sources. Are you even trying? Is this the best you can find?

(youll love these links - from your favourite tree huggers!):

More opinion pieces than studies based in science and reality. You can't find a study from some government agency? A respected university? Someone that has an advanced degree in a STEM field?

- expensive, slow, waste, cost etc:

That looks like a reprint of something you linked to already. Repetition doesn't make something true.

- pre-existing waste problems:

Those problems are creations of government policy, we can resolve them by electing competent people to public office.

- future unsafety because of climate change:

Again, more an issue of policy than anything inherently wrong with nuclear energy. Now that we know of these issues do you really believe we'd repeat the same mistakes?

- corruption:

That's a bunch of nonsense that I can't follow your point. If you want to point to corruption then keep your sources to actual cases of corruption than mixing it in with lawful lobbying. Lots of people lobby for their cause, including people you and I agree with, so if lobbying is corruption then how are we to make our concerns known to the government without getting hit with corruption charges? You aren't really helping your case with this.

I am not claiming that renewable energy is not without problems, but I dont think people should claim that nuclear isnt either:

That's behind a paywall, so not helpful.

Of the two solutions I would rather go for the one that is ostensibly safer (as it is news for nerds - when it comes to the future of humanity - shouldnt we err on the side of the federation rather than the Ferengi? ie. play it safer rather than look for short term profit?). If we are to gain 'experience' in any field I would argue that it should be in renewable energy and eg. battery technology, grid infrastructure. I am not anti-technological solutions or nuclear per se, but I dont see it as the best/only option, all things considered.

I see, you are making a straw man argument then cite a series of opinion pieces from nonprofit organizations that have people with little knowledge of nuclear energy to make your point. On the other hand I link to pages that cite information from the IPCC, UK government, and a number of respected organizations with an actual background in science, to make my case. I went through your links thinking I'd find a gem with some actual studies and the best I got were studies that limited the options for nuclear energy to SMR, a technology still in development, which is then falsely used as an argument against all nuclear energy options. I can't be the only person that finds it odd that the studies on nuclear energy options were limited to SMR. I've come to believe that the studies put existing nuclear energy options in a pretty good light, but the people writing these reports don't want people to know that, a lie by omission.

What happens to your argument when people start asking why existing nuclear energy options were left out of the studies you cited? My guess is a big flip in favor of nuclear energy.

I am an unashamed globalist (a citizen of nowhere!) so at least I agree with you about not particularly caring about where solutions come from! There are problems IMHO that can only be solved at a global scale and with pooled expertise (and some others only at the local!)

You do realize that China is building a lot of nuclear power plants right now, don't you? I mean *A LOT* of them.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...

If you want to put China as a model to follow then you can't ignore their investment in nuclear energy.

I hope we can find some common ground (and avoid swearing at each other and calling each other names - I dont believe that most people have bad intentions around the subject? Good, clear and impartial data is most welcome in making the right decision). I appreciate you taking the time to reply and your efforts to provide facts to back up your arguments!

I appreciate the compliment but I would have preferred a reply with actual data than a bunch of opinion pieces and clearly biased "studies" to make your point. The argument against nuclear energy is the claim we can reach the goal of reduced carbon emissions sooner and with lower costs with renewable energy alone, and there's no study that proves that. The best the anti-nuclear people have are studies showing we can replace fossil fuels with renewable energy if we assume that the cost to get there isn't relevant. There's a cost to the renewable-only option, there's a cost to continuing to use fossil fuels, and there is a cost to including nuclear energy in our future energy plans. The lowest cost option includes nuclear energy. That is distinct from the higher cost option that is nuclear-only, and I'm not seeing anyone advocate for that. I've seen people use the nuclear-only option to prove how nuclear energy is cheaper than renewable-only but that's a thought experiment, not any real advocacy to take that path.

While the renewable-only option would give us some real gains on lower CO2 emissions in the short term that is not a sustainable plan. As the windmills and solar panels being built now reach end-of-life in 20 to 30 years they will need replacement. We can't sustain the growth we have now in wind and solar to replace nuclear and fossil fuels out that far. If we don't start building nuclear power plants now then we will simply be force to build them later, see energy shortages, or keep burning fossil fuels. Maybe there is a fourth option in the future but for right now those are our three options, fossil fuels, energy shortages, or nuclear fission. If you don't want to accept that then I'm fine with that. I'm seeing people in government ignoring people like yourself and proceeding with building nuclear power plants. They do this because people like yourself aren't bringing any real data to make your case, only opinions recycled from the 1980s.

Comment Why is China held as the model for renewables? (Score -1, Redundant) 69

China leads the world in building coal and nuclear power, how does this make them some model to follow on renewable energy?

If the intent is to make China the model for lowering CO2 emissions then there should be some mention of their large investments in nuclear fission for energy.

If people are looking for a model to follow on lowered CO2 emissions while maintaining a high standard of living then I'd suggest France as the model. But they have a large investment in nuclear fission so that's not quite the message that the powers-that-be want to send. But then a focus on China should also be a bad model to follow given their investment in nuclear power.

I'm confused on what message I'm supposed to take from seeing China as the model to follow on energy. If they are successful in making the deserts green with plant life from solar panels, plants that would presumably hold moisture in the soil once established, then would that not imply removing the solar panels to allow the plants to get more sun to thrive? That would make solar power a temporary energy solution than anything long term. Once there's plants growing then they will need sunlight that the solar panels will compete for. If the plants grow tall enough to shade the panels then are the plants to be cut down? Will the panels be put on higher stands to remain above the plants? How much would it cost to raise the solar panels higher? And how high can the panels be put before it is cost prohibitive given alternatives like nuclear fission?

Solar power is quite expensive and so rarely worth the cost. If it weren't for government subsidies then I'd expect solar power to be far less popular. if solar power needs subsidies to be considered an option then maybe it's not economically beneficial to use solar power. We should seek what is both economically viable and good for the environment. As I see it those options are hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear fission. Solar PV competes for sunlight with plants, and so the two can rarely coexist and see both thrive.

Comment Re:Irreversibly? (Score 1) 69

How do they know it's irreversible?

Likely because of experience with the badlands out in the Western USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

What was considered effectively arid desert when discovered by the American federal government has become grazing land for cattle as people have developed the land. Over time this land has been used for growing crops than just grazing. With more working of the land the badlands may disappear.

Maybe it isn't "irreversible" exactly but once there's plants growing in the area it gets to be difficult to see it revert to an arid desert again.

Comment Re:Similar in Arizona (Score 1) 69

At least humans eat the watermelons? Get a load of alfalfa growing nearby--food for cows and horses, mainly.

You mean cows and horses in Saudi Arabia, right?
https://tucson.com/news/state-...

The export of alfalfa to Middle East nations from Arizona has apparently been an issue for years, the article I linked to is merely one of the more recent articles.

Comment Re:steak, burger, and sausage are formats (Score 1) 188

Why are you against choice? If people want their vegetables to look like meat, that is their choice.

Do you want a rifle to look like a cane to be legal? That's their choice, right? It's deceptive and people could be harmed by this deception, such as in another comment about the poster's daughter having an severe allergic reaction because something was labeled as "yogurt" when it was some kind of artificial concoction that contained nuts. Granted, the product was labeled as containing nuts but this was in small print and easily missed.

Butter was recalled because the container didn't say it contained milk. Now, if we are to support this recall because of improper labeling then we should make it abundantly clear on what is in a "burger", "steak", or whatever by perhaps using words and labels that make it ABUNDANTLY clear that this is not meat in spite of having resemblance to meat.
https://nypost.com/2024/11/11/...

What confuses me is why people opposed to eating meat would want anything that resembles meat in any meaningful way.

From the standpoint of someone who cooks a lot, form factor plays a role in the ease of cooking.

Fine, but just don't call a vegetable patty a "burger" and I'm fine with that. I made that point in another post about fish patties and chicken patties, they weren't called "burgers" in spite of the resemblance. Labels mean things, don't abuse this to the point of deception and I'm fine with how you choose to prepare your vegetables. Again, if eating meat is an issue with people then I'm still confused on why they'd want to eat anything that resembled meat.

Have you had friends over to watch a game? Some of them are vegetarians. They get veggie burgers. Others get beef burgers. One person cannot handle red meat but isnâ(TM)t vegetarian. Chicken burger for them. The main difference in my preparation of the meal is which patty they get. Nothing else changes. But according to your world view, no one should get a choice and everyone including me should be inconvenienced because it seems to offend you even though it does not affect you.

I don't know any true vegetarians. I live in the Midwest USA where (if I recall correctly) the pigs outnumber the people. Without realizing I had visited a kosher sandwich shop and asked for a ham and swiss on rye only to be told they had no ham. As I recall a beef and cheddar sandwich wasn't on the menu either. I don't remember what I ate but whatever it was didn't land in my top five list of sandwiches I like. I learned to pay better attention to the sandwich shops I visit.

I grew up on a dairy farm in a largely Catholic community with many people that have ancestry from Ireland and Germany. We eat a lot of beef and cheese, with fish being the most popular option on Fridays though apparently that's a rule that's not followed as rigorously today as when I was a kid. So, if there's an objection to pork for maintaining kosher or halal then there's beef. If there's an objection to red meat because of Christian tradition then it's fish. While i was in the Army I noticed the dining facility kept peanut butter sandwiches on hand if there was some objection to whatever protein was offered, the staff got a bit annoyed at one recruit that kept asking for the peanut butter sandwich at a certain point in our training cycle but the Army rules on diet required them to comply with the request in spite of their annoyance.

I've been to gatherings to watch a game before and I don't recall anyone offering a vegetarian option. I'd guess that if someone was a vegetarian they'd fill up on cheesy chips. If they believed dairy was also something they'd rather not eat then maybe they'd eat only the chips? Not eat anything? Bring their own food? Ask for a peanut butter sandwich like that picky eater of a recruit I saw in Army training? I just don't run into that often. The "worst" I've run into are people that had an objection to pork and so would ask that their hamburger be grilled on a sheet of aluminum foil so as to not touch the grill grate where pork hotdogs were cooked previously, or they'd ask for a chicken breast than a hotdog. We don't have many strict vegetarians around here. There's people I know that prefer to not eat meat because they don't like the taste, or they believe that meat is unhealthy, but will still eat meat if that's the only food options offered. What they don't do is seek out vegetables that taste like meat. That's where my confusion lies. If there's a problem with eating meat then why seek out food that tastes like meat?

Why make a vegetable option look and taste like meat other than to deceive? It can be to deceive someone eating something to believe they are eating meat but that can have health consequences if done long term or there is an allergy involved, or potentially be an insult to their religious or other beliefs as they can be eating something that offends them in some way. It can be people trying to deceive themselves. I believe our tastes and cravings have been "trained" by evolution and/or what we've eaten as a child, which means if there is a craving for a hamburger then there can be a deficiency in some vitamin or mineral that a vegetable patty that tastes like beef will not satisfy. By "tricking" the brain in this way there can be continued cravings, people eating more of these vegetable patties, then ending up in an emergency room because of a cholesterol deficiency or something. It's happened. The human body can produce cholesterol but it would need precursors. I'm not sure what those precursors are but a quick look at Wikipedia implies that citrus and alcohol can provide them. So, if these people crave a hamburger then maybe they can "retrain" their cravings by eating oranges with breakfast, and/or mixing a bourbon mule with lime to have with supper.

If people crave meat then I'd say they need to eat meat, because otherwise they could experience health problems. I'm not about to make beef taste like broccoli. I like broccoli, perhaps because my cravings were "trained" on it with my habit for eating Panda Express beef and broccoli while at university. If I'm craving broccoli then I'll eat broccoli, not some meat product made to taste like broccoli.

If after switching to a vegetarian diet people crave meat then that is their body telling them something. It's telling them that meat will satisfy their cravings, not something that isn't meat but tastes like it. In that case they need to eat meat or "retrain" their cravings with vegetable products that satisfy the cravings in different ways, such as eating more oranges, broccoli, or whatever.

While at university there was a fellow student that lived down the hall from me in the dormitory that had a severe allergy to anything dairy. I asked what he did about any craving for calcium. He said he'd seek out green leafy vegetables like spinach. I'm fine with spinach but it's not something I crave, I guess I must eat enough dairy to not have built a craving for spinach.

This is like the fourth time I'm making this point now in my post, if you crave meat then that is your body telling you something and it is not good for you to eat what tastes like meat but is not meat. If you crave meat then eat meat, or find some other food that satisfies your cravings. Deceiving yourself on eating meat is not healthy, and there's a lot of evidence for this. I support rules on labeling to remove this deception as it is another kind of "training" on the brain on satisfying the cravings we have. If you crave cheese then that can be an indication of a calcium deficiency, cholesterol deficiency, salt deficiency, some combination, or maybe something else is missing. Getting cheese flavored corn chips might satisfy that craving in the moment but it will return once the body figures out that some deficiency remains.

Don't muddy the waters with deceptive labels, that's not helping anyone.

Comment Re:steak, burger, and sausage are formats (Score 1) 188

... and a burger you can go with patty.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not the only one that was served "chicken patties" as a child, am I? The frozen chicken patty seemed like a popular item for feeding large families or a cafeteria full of schoolchildren on the cheap. As I recall they weren't that bad if baked in an oven than warmed up in a microwave or deep fried. Then there's "fish patties" too, which were popular fare on Fridays for us Catholics. If people need a slab of vegetable material to put in a hamburger roll then call it a "veggie patty" or whatever kind of patty.

But what the heck do you call ground stuff stuffed in a thin casing other than a sausage ? i guess they call them "links" sometimes for breakfast sausage.

Sausage could imply an animal based casing, and I would believe that the typical sausage casing is not something that would be used for people seeking a vegetarian alternative to the typical animal based sausage fillings. Maybe "hot dog"? Or "submarine", "sailor sandwich", or whatever to imply something to be eaten on a hot dog style roll?

Here's a better idea, how about stop trying to make vegetables look and taste like meat? If people seek the taste and texture of meat then they should eat meat. If eating meat somehow upsets them then they should understand that losing that taste and texture comes with it.

It appears to me that the point of making vegetables look, taste, and feel like meat is so vegetarian wives, mothers, and girlfriends can convince the men and children in their lives to try not eating meat. Or it is to intentionally deceive them into not eating meat. If there is deception involved then there could be cases of medical conditions because of an unknown allergy, special dietary needs, or whatever and someone is not told that a "burger" has nuts in it or something. I realize that such issues could be quite rare but it would be nonexistent if we stopped trying to mimic meat products with plant material.

Isn't "steak" a kind of cut of meat? If so then "veggie steak" is a nonsense term. Call that a "patty" or something too.

Slashdot Top Deals

(null cookie; hope that's ok)

Working...