Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On 2024-09-26, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

>
>
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

>

>

Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic
economic decline.  But even if we accept that this was possible then, it
isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.

>
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?

>
There is a lot of hype around the concept of Small Nuclear Reactors;
yet many of the regulatory issues that apply to large power stations
will continue to apply to small (soi disant portable) reactors as
well - including waste disposal, safety, proliferation and decomissioning.
>

I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefully
done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas.  Better than
coal, but not good enough).

Oh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!

>
Hydro has several fundamental limits.  Many of the places in the
world where hydro can be cost effective have already been developed. Like
all power sources, it also has downsides (silting, effects on migrating
fish populations (e.g. salmon) and ecosystem) along with the upsides (flood
control, agricultural irrigation, at. al).
>
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum.  Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.).  Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*].  Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
>
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
>
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
>

>
This has been discussed before, and I think you were proven wrong about
nuclear.

>
1) No, Chris asserted that "human ingenuity" is sufficient to
   provide effectively infinite power from nuclear reactors.

NO! This is an outright falsehood. Unhappy at losing arguments despite
his distorting my claims by selectively snipping my text (I've
complained to him close a dozen times about this), Scott now is
inventing my text.  I never said this.

How about this:
I hereby promise to donate $1000 to the charity of Scott's choice
if he can show that I said this.  Let's see it, Scott!

   He didn't prove anything other than wishful thinking.  The
   discussion was in the context of expanding the existing fleet
   using existing technology within the context of the current
   US legal regime which doesn't allow breeder reactors, which
   even Chris would admit have proliferation issues at scale.
   His dreams about infinite U from seawater are also wishful
   thinking until the first large-scale extraction plant is
   built and functioning economically.

Our argument sprang from Scott's (incorrect) claim that nuclear energy
could never replace gas and oil because there was not enough Uranium.
After I showed Scott's estimates of land based Uranium were ridiculous
and not supported by any science (they were commerce based), we turned
to sea-based Uranium. Scott continuously snipped my multiple
scientific citations as to costs of Uranium extraction, and how the
cost of Uranium is a comparatively small portion of the cost of
nuclear power.  He didn't present a single iota of evidence supporting
his case. Argument via snipping is not very convincing!

I didn't say that unlimited nuclear energy was possible; I only said
that the Uranium supply was not going to be the limiting factor to the use
of nuclear energy.  There is plenty of Uranium available at managable cost.

   I maintain that nuclear energy is a vital part of the energy
   mix.  I don't believe it can _replace_ all the other forms of
   energy in that mix.  Note that the world currently consumes
   18TW and only a miniscule portion of that is from nuclear.
>
2) You really need to do your own research rather than parroting
   right wing talking points without understanding the underlying
   physical priciples.

Scott, you clearly don't believe that.  How many citations did I give
in this argument? 8? 10? You completely ignored all of them; no signs
that you read them. You gave 2 citations as I remember.  One to your
cherished textbook (see below) which I believe you read, and one to an
estimate of confirmed Uranium reserves which it was obvious you didn't
read (it later went into great detail as to why the confirmed reserves
were much smaller than the actual minable Uranium out there.)  You
don't do your own research/reading, you've just been parroting the left wing
talking points of your textbook.

   Energy growth _cannot_ physically grow
   forever at the rate it has grown for the last century and a
   half, which is the point of that chapter in the textbook
   referenced above.  I challenge you to read it and then provide
   constructive criticism of the presented physics.

Scott, I've read substantial portions of your physics textbook. It's a
mess. It's a self-published screed that has never undergone the
critical review process of an academic publisher. It's meant to be
emotionally disturbing and convince its readers that they must reduce
their standard of living since no single alternative energy source can
replace fossil fuels(!).  It was reviewed by the official journal of
physics educators and completely panned; I've never seen a journal
review of a science book that was that negative. This is the quality
of science that you believe in, Scott?

Chris