molloyjh wrote: » Brienne, Grey Worm & Gendry
awec wrote: » Next week's episode is going to be pure balls to the wall action. Can't wait.
Deleted User wrote: » Really disappointed in the new season of thrones. Second episode is so bad I had I had to double check I hadn't downloaded some parody version of the episode.
Clegg wrote: » Yep. Huge death flags surrounding them after their scenes this week. I'm also going to add Theon and Davos to that list. Theon may not go next week, but he will before the end. His scenes with Yara capped off that story arc and the fact he's going to be guarding Bran all points to a gallant last stand where he finally feels like he's redeemed himself.
troyzer wrote: » Renewables are fundamentally not a viable solution. Nuclear is the only way forward.
Podge_irl wrote: » Nothing is the solution but renewables and nuclear should both be part of one.
stephen_n wrote: » Deck chairs on the Titanic, that sums up most of the thinking on climate change. There are far too many humans on the planet, till the conversation shifts to addressing that, everything else is just noise.
troyzer wrote: » France was almost entirely powered by nuclear energy. It started to introduce renewables and its emissions actually went up. Germany is rapidly increasing its renewable mix as well but because it's moving away from nuclear, its emissions are going up. Any move towards renewables and away from nuclear requires new carbon burning plants for baseload. A mix isn't necessary, ditch renewables and commit to nuclear.
Podge_irl wrote: » And Denmark produces most of its energy from renewable. It's utterly stupid to focus on any one replacement - where renewable is viable what on earth is the problem with it? Have nuclear for baseload but even as a big proponent of it, it is obviously not without its problems. I have no time for anti-nuclear greens, but I can't see why anyone would be against renewable energy generation.
b.gud wrote: » So what you're saying is we need a Thanos type character to sort things out?
stephen_n wrote: » Well now I wouldn’t be going as far as genocide, but mass sterilization maybe required on a global scale.
troyzer wrote: » I'm against it for the simple reason that it's ineffecient, wasteful and produces more emissions and costs more than if you just went all nuclear. Individual, small countries might be able to do a Denmark but they are not the model for all countries. It's also not a coincidence that Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe. Economically, Denmark is a bit of an outlier as well in how dominant its service sector is. Its agriculture is nominal and it has a very small manufacturing industry and despite all this, its carbon emissions per capita aren't particularly impressive. They're higher than both Italy and France, the two big nuclear energy powers in Europe. It's a lot lower than Germany, yes. But Germany makes everything and despite a lot of political will, it's really struggling to get its emissions down. Even if every country was like Denmark, we simply don't have the raw materials or manufacturing capacity to duplicate Denmark all over the world.
Its agriculture is nominal
Neil3030 wrote: » The point about different economies is a good one, and you're right to say that nuclear is needed. However, the biggest advantage nuclear has over renewable is its consistency. We simply don't have good enough batteries to store the intermittent production of renewables, i.e., at times when supply exceeds demand. And with things like solar, overproduction at peak times will actually f up your grid. If we got to the point where non-renewables could ramp up and down as efficiently as nuclear in accordance with demand, it's absolutely the way forward. Also worth noting that while nuclear is efficient, and consistent, it's also not a long-term solution because it remains non-renewable. Fuel will eventually run out if the entire world switched its entire energy production immediately to nuclear. And then what? So we need get more countries going nuclear in tandem with an effort to increase consistency and efficiency of renewable sources of energy. This is actually where we can make the most immediate impact. A hamburger creates approximately as much CO2 equivalent gas as burning half a gallon of gasoline. Another way to look at this - approximately six times as much energy goes into creating the hamburger as comes out of it (if you normalise everything in terms calories). For context, fish farms in Norway are getting their ratios down closer to 1:1. Also worth noting that over half of the CO2 equivalent gas created by cattle farming is from the animals burping and farting, so technologies could focus on some combination of capturing the methane, genetically modifying the animals' gut chemistry and using different feeds.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Why would I get two baskets when there's one PERFECTLY GOOD basket over there?
Synode wrote: » What do they do with the nuclear waste. Are they still storing it underground?
troyzer wrote: » Hmm. The average western human produces around 5kg of high level nuclear waste in their entire lifetime if 100% of their energy was generated by nuclear power. Much of that can be reprocessed and fast neutron reactors (the next generation of nuclear power) produces far less waste. To answer your question, yes. It's still stored underground and there are a few deep, geological reservoirs currently being built. Think of it another way, all forms of energy inherently consume mass to produce energy and waste. Solar and wind do this indirectly by the huge amount of rare materials required in their construction. Coal spits out CO2, Nitrous Oxide and heavy metals into the air and into our lungs. Nuclear waste spits out radioactive waste that we can put in a box and bury. I find it funny that a lot of people think CCS is the way forward which is basically trying to copy the nuclear strategy of burying waste.
troyzer wrote: » We don't mine uranium in Ireland but there are showings up in Donegal. It wouldn't matter, there really is no shortage of uranium.
irishbucsfan wrote: » There is no shortage in the current geopolitical climate. It would be incredibly short-sighted to assume that will always be the case
Neil3030 wrote: » If you're applying that cost to renewables then you have to do the same with the huge 'capital' outlay of emissions required to construct nuclear plants.
