The Nuclear Option

[puppet]

Somewhere in the mists of my science education the only living things which absorb CO2 are plants. Never mind the 8 billion humans who exhale CO2, my cows and sheep are the main problem so we all need to eat less meat to save the planet. After all it is a ( slow-burning) emergency!
Meanwhile various food processors are carbon neutral, we can ship wood chips thousands of miles and get paid millions to burn it, the new Cumbrian coal mine ticks all the boxes and nuclear power has just been classified as eco-friendly.
Yep, you read that correctly. Nuclear is green.
Well, try telling that to Chernobyl residents or the huge leak in Japan. Apparently generating electricity from nuclear produces no CO2 so is just fine.
You couldn't make it up. Can I get one of their advisors to do my carbon audit?

 

[Still Farming]

No Co2 but everything else possibly???

 

[milkloss]

I don't know why farmers haven't got together (a Union would have been good for this) and thrown equal and opposite amounts of bullshite around that was from dubious sources. We need to remember that the truth doesn't really matter if you shout it enough times......

 

[Norfolk Hill Farmer]

As long as your store the waste for 50000 years it’s all fine

 

[som farmer]

Somewhere in the mists of my science education the only living things which absorb CO2 are plants. Never mind the 8 billion humans who exhale CO2, my cows and sheep are the main problem so we all need to eat less meat to save the planet. After all it is a ( slow-burning) emergency!
Meanwhile various food processors are carbon neutral, we can ship wood chips thousands of miles and get paid millions to burn it, the new Cumbrian coal mine ticks all the boxes and nuclear power has just been classified as eco-friendly.
Yep, you read that correctly. Nuclear is green.
Well, try telling that to Chernobyl residents or the huge leak in Japan. Apparently generating electricity from nuclear produces no CO2 so is just fine.
You couldn't make it up. Can I get one of their advisors to do my carbon audit?

only bit that's wrong with the above
cattle methane has a 12 life, before disappearing, as cattle no's are going down globally, so is their methane production.

the rest is 150% correct.

politically, it's impossible to fully address the problem, until a clean alternative to fossil fuels is found. Populations wouldn't stand for it.

so until then, it's lie's, more lie's, twisted statistics, red herrings etc.

 

[JockCroft]

only bit that's wrong with the above
cattle methane has a 12 life, before disappearing, as cattle no's are going down globally, so is their methane production.

the rest is 150% correct.

politically, it's impossible to fully address the problem, until a clean alternative to fossil fuels is found. Populations wouldn't stand for it.

so until then, it's lie's, more lie's, twisted statistics, red herrings etc.

hydrogen! The new answer to liquid power.

 

[davidroberts30]

hydrogen! The new answer to liquid power.

nah, takes too much energy to get it compared to the returns
ammonia has more energy, comparing liquids (nh3 v h)

 

[Mark727]

As far as energy sources go nuclear is actually a pretty clean and efficient method.

You'll get different figures wherever you look but agriculture only produces about 15% of CO2 emissions with transport, industry and energy production producing almost all the rest.

Should we cut down on meat? Maybe. But producing nothing but grain or plants does nothing but take from the land and gives nothing in return.

Agriculture gets all the blame but little thanks or appreciation nowadays

 

[DaveGrohl]

only bit that's wrong with the above
cattle methane has a 12 life, before disappearing, as cattle no's are going down globally, so is their methane production.

the rest is 150% correct.

politically, it's impossible to fully address the problem, until a clean alternative to fossil fuels is found. Populations wouldn't stand for it.

so until then, it's lie's, more lie's, twisted statistics, red herrings etc.

150%?

Are you a carbon trader?

 

[som farmer]

150%?

Are you a carbon trader?

dead on, absolute certainty, must be local expression.

would be interested in carbon trading, but have they got a standard agreed measurement yet ?

 

[DaveGrohl]

dead on, absolute certainty, must be local expression.

would be interested in carbon trading, but have they got a standard agreed measurement yet ?

I was alluding to the fact that these carbon companies are adept at corruptly overselling the alleged "benefits".

 

[ollie989898]

dead on, absolute certainty, must be local expression.

would be interested in carbon trading, but have they got a standard agreed measurement yet ?

I don't believe this for a second. 150% cannot be a local expression in your neck of the woods. The average resident of Wincanton can't count anything like that high as they don't have enough fingers.

 

[ollie989898]

Somewhere in the mists of my science education the only living things which absorb CO2 are plants. Never mind the 8 billion humans who exhale CO2, my cows and sheep are the main problem so we all need to eat less meat to save the planet. After all it is a ( slow-burning) emergency!
Meanwhile various food processors are carbon neutral, we can ship wood chips thousands of miles and get paid millions to burn it, the new Cumbrian coal mine ticks all the boxes and nuclear power has just been classified as eco-friendly.
Yep, you read that correctly. Nuclear is green.
Well, try telling that to Chernobyl residents or the huge leak in Japan. Apparently generating electricity from nuclear produces no CO2 so is just fine.
You couldn't make it up. Can I get one of their advisors to do my carbon audit?

Nuclear is green. Just don't fudge about with it. The Japanese were warned repeatedly about their sea defences and their defence in depth in their reactors but they ignored the warnings.

Chernobyl was only achieved by people basically ignoring all advice in the operating manual and doing their own thing. The number of controls and safeguards they had to circumvent to get that result was lengthy.

Coal, gas and fossil fuels being produced and burned all release sheds loads of radioactivity (NORM) which apparently ends up in the environment and no one gives a hoot about it. In fact, the Earth is already radioactive as are the oceans- radioactive decay in the Earth's core keeps this little world of ours operational in fact. The sun is also a huge nuclear fusion reactor. So nature has been playing with nuclear energy long before man has.

The latest designs of power plant produce waste that is only dangerous for about 300 years- a timeframe well within our current technological state when it comes to designing and building structures to store these things.

Spent nuclear fuels isn't even a waste. It is in fact a valuable resource.

 

[Jerry]

Am not out there to say any ruminate that’s ever walk this planet has never added carbon to the system?

After all it’s a cycle….

 

[som farmer]

I don't believe this for a second. 150% cannot be a local expression in your neck of the woods. The average resident of Wincanton can't count anything like that high as they don't have enough fingers.

good job we don't live under a wincanton address then.

 

[som farmer]

Nuclear is green. Just don't fudge about with it. The Japanese were warned repeatedly about their sea defences and their defence in depth in their reactors but they ignored the warnings.

Chernobyl was only achieved by people basically ignoring all advice in the operating manual and doing their own thing. The number of controls and safeguards they had to circumvent to get that result was lengthy.

Coal, gas and fossil fuels being produced and burned all release sheds loads of radioactivity (NORM) which apparently ends up in the environment and no one gives a hoot about it. In fact, the Earth is already radioactive as are the oceans- radioactive decay in the Earth's core keeps this little world of ours operational in fact. The sun is also a huge nuclear fusion reactor. So nature has been playing with nuclear energy long before man has.

The latest designs of power plant produce waste that is only dangerous for about 300 years- a timeframe well within our current technological state when it comes to designing and building structures to store these things.

Spent nuclear fuels isn't even a waste. It is in fact a valuable resource.

there are theories, that we are not the first civilisation to inhabit earth, some pointing to finds, in S Africa, of molten sand/rock, from 100,000's years ago, that the only ''''logical''' conclusion, with the radioactivity readings, that must have been caused by a nuclear explosion. A massive amount of archaeology, is now being found, that is pushing back the accepted 'theory' of this present civilisation's time frame.

Just like today's theories about nuclear explosions/war, the lasting effects of an explosion, time wise, are basically guess work. Interesting to know, large underground, cities, with quite complex infrastructure. Have been discovered, across the globe, again with excepted dates of construction, being pushed further back, all the time. Suggesting the planets atmosphere was not conductive to above ground dwelling.

So, if true, this shows the world can withstand a nuclear war, and survive, with survivors, that can restart civilisation. There are countless anomalies in archaeology, that make a mockery, of 'accepted' time lines.

 

[BRB John]

Somewhere in the mists of my science education the only living things which absorb CO2 are plants. Never mind the 8 billion humans who exhale CO2, my cows and sheep are the main problem so we all need to eat less meat to save the planet. After all it is a ( slow-burning) emergency!
Meanwhile various food processors are carbon neutral, we can ship wood chips thousands of miles and get paid millions to burn it, the new Cumbrian coal mine ticks all the boxes and nuclear power has just been classified as eco-friendly.
Yep, you read that correctly. Nuclear is green.
Well, try telling that to Chernobyl residents or the huge leak in Japan. Apparently generating electricity from nuclear produces no CO2 so is just fine.
You couldn't make it up. Can I get one of their advisors to do my carbon audit?

I think you'll find modern Chernobyl is very green indeed in fact it's a perfect nature reserve.
I thought that's where this topic was going to go.... Nothing is more green than all our nuclear war. Not only would it solve our warming climate it would also free up all that land for nature as most humans would be dead..
Win win

there are theories, that we are not the first civilisation to inhabit earth, some pointing to finds, in S Africa, of molten sand/rock, from 100,000's years ago, that the only ''''logical''' conclusion, with the radioactivity readings, that must have been caused by a nuclear explosion. A massive amount of archaeology, is now being found, that is pushing back the accepted 'theory' of this present civilisation's time frame.

Just like today's theories about nuclear explosions/war, the lasting effects of an explosion, time wise, are basically guess work. Interesting to know, large underground, cities, with quite complex infrastructure. Have been discovered, across the globe, again with excepted dates of construction, being pushed further back, all the time. Suggesting the planets atmosphere was not conductive to above ground dwelling.

So, if true, this shows the world can withstand a nuclear war, and survive, with survivors, that can restart civilisation. There are countless anomalies in archaeology, that make a mockery, of 'accepted' time lines.

Are you including Atlantis in this wild eye conspiracy of yours?
Atlantis being the eye of the Sahara 10,000 years ago...
And what is stopping uranium going nuclear in the ground in high enough concentrations?

 

[digger64]

only bit that's wrong with the above
cattle methane has a 12 life, before disappearing, as cattle no's are going down globally, so is their methane production.

the rest is 150% correct.

politically, it's impossible to fully address the problem, until a clean alternative to fossil fuels is found. Populations wouldn't stand for it.

so until then, it's lie's, more lie's, twisted statistics, red herrings etc.

If you put some green vegetation in a heap -say like lawn cuttings or leaves , what gases etc are created as it naturally decomposes ?

 

[JockCroft]

nah, takes too much energy to get it compared to the returns
ammonia has more energy, comparing liquids (nh3 v h)

Have you got an engin e running on ammonia?

 

[livestock 1]

If you put some green vegetation in a heap -say like lawn cuttings or leaves , what gases etc are created as it naturally decomposes ?

And that’s the whole point exactly. Putting that grass through cattle or sheep or letting it decompose only cycles existing carbon the only difference between the two is if it goes into cattle or sheep you grow the animal which provides meat and by products and the muck is better fertiliser that dead grass