Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Has Doubled the Frequency of Ocean Heatwaves (nature.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Nature: Scientists analyzed satellite-based measurements of sea surface temperature from 1982 to 2016 and found that the frequency of marine heatwaves had doubled. These extreme heat events in the ocean's surface waters can last from days to months and can occur across thousands of kilometers. If average global temperatures increase to 3.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as researchers currently project, the frequency of ocean heatwaves could increase by a factor of 41. In other words, a one-in-one-hundred-day event at pre-industrial levels of warming could become a one-in-three-day event. The study has been published in the journal Nature.
So much wrong in so short a post.
Lets start
1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.
2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.
3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available
4. Nuclear power current designs hit 45% efficiency https://energyeducation.ca/enc...
Thank you for being an example.
1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.
Agreed.
2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.
Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay. Then there is the National Geographic article which took an inventory of the world nuclear waste and found that there is enough to fill a freight train that goes 1 and a half times around the equator of the earth.
Since the nuclear industry do not have a solution to this issue Nuclear energy is not a viable solution to the worlds energy needs. All it means is we have two problems instead of one.
3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available
No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.
4. Nuclear power current designs hit 45% efficiency https://energyeducation.ca/enc...
Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel in the once through cycle. Now the wiki article is particularly generous saying that it is 5%, which I don't agree with however it makes my point adequately.
Second I read the page you sent, thank you. The 45% you are referring to are for reactors that are not deployed and not licensed to produce electricity. Any scaling of Gen IV reactor technology will be occurring very slowly *IF* and thats a big *IF* the materials technology come through to produce them (which I hope it does come through).
So much wrong in so short a post.
If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.
Thank you for being an example.
No, Thank you!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so.
No, as we came out of the last glaciation temperatures hit a peak about 8,000 years ago during the Holocene climatic optimum as you would expect from an examination of Milankovitch cycles. Since then temperatures were slowly cooling toward the next glacial maximum. They stopped cooling when human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) increased to the point of overriding the current cooling effects of Milankovitch cycles. The increase in ocean acidification shows that the oceans are still absorbing more CO2 than they release.
China and a handful of other nations have a near monopoly on the materials needed to make wind and solar power cheap
How do you come to that retarded idea?
Solar panels are made out of: sand!
Wind turbines from carbon fiber positioned on steel masts.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.