climate change

[Budgie]

Everyone is entitled to opinions about everything, especially on a footy forum, but for anyone interested in the science here's a (mostly) easy-to-read Q & A on climate change by the Science Academy

The science of climate change | Australian Academy of Science

Information on climate change This publication from the Australian Academy of Science aims to address confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain. It sets out to explain the current situation* in climate science, including where there is consensus in the scientific...

www.science.org.au

Science? What? What's science got to do with it ? You people with your fancy science words. You just have to shut up and find the right people to tell you what to think. Jesus Mary and Joseph!

 

[Dion Johnson]

Hi Dion and thanks for your post - hard to comment with regard to The Caspian data you speak of without seeing it but you do mention the a rainfall cycling period of 30 years 1950 - 1980, an incredibly small cycling period when looking at natural cooling and warming of the planet the Glacial Periods (between Ice ages), being roughly every 100,000 years and during those 100,000 year cycles over the past 250million years, there has been an average of 5 Interglacials or shorter warm periods usually lasting an average of 11,500 years.
However without going into very lengthy exlanations & discussions over the myriad of current and recent scientifically, agreed on, studies and findings. It is agreed by an extremely high proportion of the scientific community - and as a minor player and because of 'early' onset I don't include myself in that community, that we should be in a cooling period but because of the human impact on green house gas emissions, and the reulting impacts outside of the Milankovitch Cycles, we are in an extended and elevating warming period. What that means and what to do about it, is what is causing most of the polarising arguments.
If interested there are many great scientific websites that provide current study info and explanations, mostly they are a laborious read, however this is a reasonably entertaining and informative page for anyone interested (How We Know Today’s Climate Change Is Not Natural) I only select this as one of many and I'm in no way connected to it or any of its contributors - merely as educational entertainment.
I have not read or seen The Grab but thank you I will, - I bought my property over 40 years ago largely because it contains a bountiful life giving spring - I couldn't agree more the true liquid gold is H20.

Thanks @nightster i will have a read, always interested in learning more.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Long flight day and I left my book in the lounge, this thread I have found interesting with the diversity of views.

There is no wrong or right here, I personally sit on the fence as I do work for the renewable sector and the carbon sector in the energy industry.

I have recently seen some very good data put together from Geophysicists and Seismic engineers from the oil and gas industry, from what I have seen of the report and this is based around the Caspian, is the historical data proving that the weather and climate has cycled going back past the ice age and up mid to 2024.

Though this was put together by oil and gas industry professionals there was no biased view it was strictly done for seismic reasons.

@nightster woukd like to hear your professional perspective on this, the data I have I can’t share as it’s classified confidential.

I found @Mark from Brisbane post on the collection of data on rainfall interesting, is there any repeated patterns that highlight that the weather has cycled say in January 1950 that is similar to January 1980 as an example? The other information that would be helpful is the nutrients in the soil to see if anything has changed over this period.

In terms of energy the one that is the top shelf of them all is nuclear, yes it’s expensive and whatever cost you hear it’s worth double and put 20% on that as a realistic outlay.

As an example of nuclear power, it is positioned as the cornerstone of Britain’s energy security and climate goals, the financial numbers on Hinkley Point and Sizewell C projects are very similar with the cost, the reason of cost blow out is mainly down to the early stages of the project where the total cost is not true, if it was these projects would never get financial backing.

For 40 billion pounds, this is what you would get with nuclear.

View attachment 29327

⚡ 3,200 MWp capacity.
⚡ 6 million homes powered.
🌍 A pivotal role in net-zero commitments.
🔗 A long-term energy security buffer.

I am not sure if any of you have seen the documentary called The Grab, highly recommend this to give greater understanding on the topic of this thread and a greater understanding of current world demographics.

@Wombat64 there are heat maps that support your study on rising temperatures, the heat maps show temperatures are increasing everywhere globally, and the real liquid gold of the world is water not oil, who would have ever thought, but there are many countries now struggling for water.

Some different views from posters on Australian energy (Gas & Coal), I won’t go into details but consider what Norway have done with building their national trust from the natural resources and compare that to what Australia have done and look at their values in dollars, mind blowing.

Watch The Grab it will be worth your time.

Yes the details of all that rainfall / temperatures over nearly 150 years ( in the one spot ) shows cycles much like waves ( of course very slow waves ). Some very dry times , some very very dry times always followed by floods and wet years until the next change.

Of course the El Nina / La Niña cycles weren’t a thing 100 years ago but it’s clear that this is what drives the climate where I used to live.

As to changes , not really , the rainfall in the dry times very similar regardless of being 1910 or 2010, ditto in the wet. Temperatures really haven’t changed too much in that time either , the long hot western summers were much the same in 1870 as 1970 or 2020.

One small change has occurred in the last decade and that is storms are seemingly more fierce , although the records for storms weren’t started until about the 1970’s , my great grandfather , & grandfather only recorded daily temperatures ( min & max ) and rainfall, there’s no dialogue otherwise.

 

[manlyfan76]

Does anyone have the costings to store the waste and to dismantle a reactor at the end of its life?

A lot said about dealing with old solar panels so I'm interested to see if decommissioning is part of the overall cost consideration

 

[Dion Johnson]

From what I have been involved with, I can share my thoughts on this.

At the end of a nuclear reactor's life cycle, the decommissioning of the facility can commence, which involves safely dismantling the plant and managing the radioactive materials.

This process typically occurs in several stages, starting with the removal of nuclear fuel, which is the most hazardous material due to its high radioactivity.

The next steps involve decontaminating and disassembling equipment and structures that have come into contact with radioactive substances, ensuring that all materials are handled and disposed of according to strict safety regulations.

Decommissioning can take decades to complete, allowing for the natural decay of radioactivity and the development of effective waste management and disposal technologies.

The costs associated with decommissioning a nuclear reactor can be substantial, having to put a figure, best educated guess would be 8 - 10 billion dollars over an extended period.

These expenses include labor, technology, waste storage, and management, as well as site restoration to meet environmental standards.

Waste management is a significant component of decommissioning, where used nuclear fuel is typically stored in secure on-site facilities initially, such as spent fuel pools or dry cask storage systems, until a long-term disposal solution is available.

High-level radioactive waste is eventually intended for deep geological repositories, constructed to isolate the waste from the biosphere for thousands of years, although establishing such sites poses technical, political, and social challenges.

Intermediate and low-level waste may be sent to facilities designed for less hazardous materials, where they can safely remain until their radioactivity diminishes to safe levels.

Very hard to put a dollar price on the decommissioning, it’s definitely been thought of and discussed, though the duration is the unknown.

 

[manlyfan76]

Thanks @Dion Johnson
Very helpful summary. Would you say 40 years was a good lifespan for a reactor?

 

[Dion Johnson]

Thanks @Dion Johnson
Very helpful summary. Would you say 40 years was a good lifespan for a reactor?

Typically when you are doing the basis of design now it’s based on a 50 year life expectancy.

Though reactors have had their operational licenses extended to 60 or even 80 years with upgrades and stricter safety regulations. This has happened in Spain recently.

The main focus is material selection, key components such as the reactor vessel, steam generators, and cooling systems.

Over time, with advancements in technology lessons learned from ongoing projects and engineering practices, the life cycle will increase dramatically.