GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently June 18 19, 9:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 513 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: February 8 19, 10:50 am 
Offline
'Burb Boy
User avatar

Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
Posts: 19674
Location: Out of the Loop
pioneer98 wrote:
Our cell phones also contain metals that can be harmful, and those are literally everywhere. We do need a much more aggressive recycling program for solar panels and all kinds of electronics, really.


Yes! And make it affordable too. When I moved this summer, I had a TV I didn’t need anymore. Tried donating it to Goodwill, they said they don’t take TVs. Found out about a recycling program through Best Buy, they wanted to charge me $100 to recycle it. I don’t even think the TV was worth that much. I did find someone who could use it but if I couldn’t it was going to be much easier to illegally dump my tv than to do the right thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 11:23 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19298
Location: Low A Minors
MrCrowesGarden wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Our cell phones also contain metals that can be harmful, and those are literally everywhere. We do need a much more aggressive recycling program for solar panels and all kinds of electronics, really.


Yes! And make it affordable too. When I moved this summer, I had a TV I didn’t need anymore. Tried donating it to Goodwill, they said they don’t take TVs. Found out about a recycling program through Best Buy, they wanted to charge me $100 to recycle it. I don’t even think the TV was worth that much. I did find someone who could use it but if I couldn’t it was going to be much easier to illegally dump my tv than to do the right thing.


We have an electronics demanufacturing facility. I have not tried taking a TV there, but that is where I take old tablets and cell phones. They also take old fluorescent bulbs (which contain mercury). They supposedly "demanufacture" tablets and cell phones and other electronics and sell the base materials back to companies that can reuse them. I wonder what happens to the stuff they can't sell though. I'm guessing a lot of it still ends up in the landfill.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 11:35 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8178
Location: Indianapolis
heyzeus wrote:
Yeah I would like nuclear to be part of our energy mix going forward. And I also think the green new deal needs to go further in disincentivizing road/highway construction, and reforming local zoning laws to allow construction of dense, walkable urban living environments.

I think it will be; it's a real shame we haven't been investing more in to solar though. IANA Physicist but it seems like there should be ways to harness solar energy without harmful waste.

As for more dense, walkable, urban living...is that affordable? It's certainly greener and something I'd enjoy but aren't almost all urban centers at a higher COL than the surrounding areas? Even then, a lot of moderately sized cities don't have the infrastructure for effective, efficient mass transit that would be needed for moderate commutes. STL, Indy, Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus OH, Nashville TN even Austin TX (at least during my ACL visits) don't have a transit system in place to support a dense residential population. Tough to build without funds so you end up with a bit of a chicken and egg problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 1:18 pm 
Offline
gone fission
User avatar

Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Posts: 7876
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Schlich wrote:
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
Are you sure it will put you out of a job swirls? What I've read the bill is looking at a somewhat balanced approach that would include some nuclear. Did I read wrong?


no, you didn't read it wrong, people are just super quick to latch on to anything to discredit good ideas. (not your fault that you were misinformed, swirls).

The confusion arose from a tiny ambiguity in the English language on her website FAQ, or something. But of course it got blown out of proportion.

Her and Markey clarified the nuclear situation in the press conference, im pretty sure

edit: found an article. sounds like an honest mistake. Tweet from her chief of staff.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... ssil-fuels



Good to know her article had an error in it that was corrected. However, I believe her overall stance is still that against nuclear power - just like Bernie's stance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 1:22 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 20 06, 8:43 pm
Posts: 8440
Location: Please use blue font for the sarcasm impaired.
I know this doesn't help McCrowe's or Pioneer, but anyone in STL needing to recycle a TV can take it to EPC in St. Charles. They do charge a little. Maybe $20 or so. But that's much better than $100, or the guilt of just ditching it somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 2:13 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11370
Location: Austin
Swirls wrote:
AOC is great, except her Green New Deal would put me out of a job. Do people seriously not realize that solar power is actually more harmful to the environment than nuclear power is? Yes with nuclear power there will always be risks for an accident, no matter how unlikely. However, solar power has quantitative data attesting to its waste.

Solar panels are made up of toxic carcinogenic materials that, upon end of life, get thrown away - mostly into landfills. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of solar panel waste currently in landfills throughout the world, and as a reliance for solar ramps up in the future, that amount of waste will go up exponentially. Right now you can take the total amount of nuclear waste generated by every plant in the United States since the late-60s when commercial reactors began operating, and it will fit on a plot of land the size of a football field. That's it.

Yes, the electricity generated from solar panels is carbon-free. So is the electricity generated from nuclear power. What these lawmakers don't seem to understand is that solar (and wind) is not baseload power. If utilities have to purchase baseload power to supplement the peak power generated from solar or wind, it will wind up incredibly expensive. In fact, Vermont - the hippiest state in the union - has actually had their greenhouse gas emissions RISE almost 20% in the 6-7 years since they permanently shut down their nuclear plant in an effort to promote carbon reduction. This is because they have to get that baseload power from somewhere, and right now it's coming from natural gas.

More harmful to the environment is a stretch. You can plausibly argue that the waste problem is worse, but the context for that is that the nuclear waste issue is a pretty highly overrated concern. It’s nasty and stays that way a very long time, but there isn’t much of it. Solar waste, a subcategory of e waste in general is somewhat less nasty, but there’s a lot more of it. But waste is not the only concern obviously.

Anyway, I’m pleased the text does not actually condemn nuclear, and I take this a sign that whatever proponents’ feelings on the matter are, they are willing to background them to promote the larger goal. At minimum, existing plants are a key resource to deal with variable renewable production. Shutting plants down out of environmental concerns is a mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 2:44 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 23727
Location: St. Louis
If wondering what France with its 58 nuclear power plants (produces about 70% of its electricity) in a smaller space does with its nuclear waste. (US has 99, 20% per wiki)

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/

Sometimes necessity and limits of natural resources forces decisions, wrt to energy production/disposal. US way behind France in addressing disposal, from what I understand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 3:09 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11370
Location: Austin
Freed Roger wrote:
If wondering what France with its 58 nuclear power plants (produces about 70% of its electricity) in a smaller space does with its nuclear waste. (US has 99, 20% per wiki)

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/

Sometimes necessity and limits of natural resources forces decisions, wrt to energy production/disposal. US way behind France in addressing disposal, from what I understand

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/wang2/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 3:19 pm 
Offline
gone fission
User avatar

Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Posts: 7876
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Freed Roger wrote:
If wondering what France with its 58 nuclear power plants (produces about 70% of its electricity) in a smaller space does with its nuclear waste. (US has 99, 20% per wiki)

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-france-plans-to-do-with-its-nuclear-waste/

Sometimes necessity and limits of natural resources forces decisions, wrt to energy production/disposal. US way behind France in addressing disposal, from what I understand


France has passed legislation for their version of a Yucca Mountain, called Cigeo, which is expected to be operational by 2025. Until that facility is operational, they use "interim storage" at each nuclear facility like we do here in the US - these are traditionally referred to as Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI).

https://www.edf.fr/en/edf/radioactive-waste

https://www.andra.fr/cigeo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: February 8 19, 4:28 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11370
Location: Austin
Hmmm. I was under the impression that spent nuclear fuel reprocessing substantially decreased nuclear waste, but it sounds like even absent the fast breeder reactor problem, it's not really the case. Not all that much less high level waste and WAY more low level waste. Given the expense, proliferation worries, and with the easier course of just using low enriched uranium, why do this at all at this point?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 513 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Popeye_Card and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group