ADVERTISEMENT

Dire 2050 high temperature predictions for Europe arriving in 2022

Most woke stances are without sound reasoning and purely based on emotion. While this is certainly true of MAGA, the media is much more likely to drive emotional environmental takes.

Molten Salt Reactors​

Update: See our full page on Molten Salt Reactors for more info.

One especially cool possibility suitable for the slow-neutron breeding capability of the Th-U fuel cycle is the molten salt reactor (MSR), or as one particular MSR is commonly known on the internet, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR). In these, fuel is not cast into pellets, but is rather dissolved in a vat of liquid salt. The chain reaction heats the salt, which naturally convects through a heat exchanger to bring the heat out to a turbine and make electricity. Online chemical processing removes fission product neutron poisons and allows online refueling (eliminating the need to shut down for fuel management, etc.). None of these reactors operate today, but Oak Ridge had a test reactor of this type in the 1960s called the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment [wikipedia] (MSRE). The MSRE successfully proved that the concept has merit and can be operated for extended amounts of time. It competed with the liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors (LMFBRs) for federal funding and lost out. Alvin Weinberg discusses the history of this project in much detail in his autobiography, The First Nuclear Era [amazon.com], and there is more info available all over the internet. These reactors could be extremely safe, proliferation resistant, resource efficient, environmentally superior (to traditional nukes, as well as to fossil fuel obviously), and maybe even cheap. Exotic, but successfully tested. Who’s going to start the startup on these? (Just kidding, there are already like 4 startups working on them, and China is developing them as well).


Many of possibilities with nukes. The science and engineering just doesn’t hold up for using solar and wind as a base load alternative. It never will.
 
You and others ignore the damage green energies do to the environment due to rare earths. Mining rare earths is bad for the environment and uses oil and gas along with destroying the environment where they are mining. Batteries for vehicles and solar panels that take up so much space, along with windmills that kill so many birds, the wealthy environmentalist don't want Windmills in their locale, all this damage the environment that more than you know that push this green issue. Drilling for oil doesn't do as much damage if done correctly. Check out the mining of rare earths and the impact - https://www.bing.com/search?q=rare+...9i59i450l8...8.107208j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=DCTS
There are a lot more things to include in the issue but you should get the point with this article from Harvard.
Many studies have been done in terms of energy accounting of fossil fuel based power production vs wind & solar. Wind & solar have only a slight advantage, but their negative impact on the environment is greater— extensive strip mining, heavy use of FF-based energy requirements, habitat destruction, land-fill requirements etc etc….One of the biggest problems in terms of energy requirements for production is that they last only 20-25 years before they need to be re-duplicated..There’s just not enough natural resources for them to completely replace Fos Fuels….Net Zero is a pipe dream
 
There are two problems with nuclear, NIMBY and cost. The first is hard to eliminate and happens with refineries and fracking (the CEO of Shell or some other oil company sued to stop fracking near his gated community in Texas).

Cost would be helped if we sat down with France, Germany, and Japan and all agreed to go to the same technology. Basically, make nuclear plants as cookie cutter as possible so GE or whoever could more mass produce the components.
Agreed. Need to figure out spent fuel storage/destruction too but I feel like that can be solved quickly given the right attention and funding.
 
Agreed. Need to figure out spent fuel storage/destruction too but I feel like that can be solved quickly given the right attention and funding.
I think it is solved from an engineering and science standpoint. It will never be solved politically. The nation’s politics is too invested in wind and solar.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
5-Bar-chart-%E2%80%93-What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-800x431.png
 
Air Conditioning technology is very old. Is there a reason large parts of Western Europe still don’t have it?
 
Air Conditioning technology is very old. Is there a reason large parts of Western Europe still don’t have it?
As far as London goes, it's on the same latitude as Alaska's Aleutian Islands and has a historical average July temperature of 66 degrees F, with an average afternoon high of 72 F.


July in London is similar to Indianapolis in September/October
 
Last edited:
As far as London goes, it's on the same latitude as Alaska's Aleutian Islands and has a historical average July temperature of 64 degrees F, with an average afternoon high of 73 F.
Nonono. I’m on ignore remember. You don’t get to talk to me anymore.
 
There are two problems with nuclear, NIMBY and cost. The first is hard to eliminate and happens with refineries and fracking (the CEO of Shell or some other oil company sued to stop fracking near his gated community in Texas).

Cost would be helped if we sat down with France, Germany, and Japan and all agreed to go to the same technology. Basically, make nuclear plants as cookie cutter as possible so GE or whoever could more mass produce the components.
Count me among the greens who think we need to do whatever it takes to get back on the nuclear track. It's a bridge technology, like most others, because the fuel is limited, but it's not limited by decades or centuries, like fossil fuels, but by millennia. It buys us insane amounts of time to develop other technologies, and even better, it pumps far less heat and pollution into the biosphere while we're doing it. We should have little mini reactors on every corner.
 
Who has been to the UK? Isn't AC relatively rare?

Used to live there.

They are supposed to have the Gulf Stream which moderates the climate. But that's not doing well:

The Gulf Stream continues to slow down, new data shows, with freshwater creating an imbalance in the current, pushing it closer to a Collapse point


Anyway, aircons' are not too common in houses except in the newer apartments. Most houses are heated by hot water radiators. The houses are made from bricks so if you heat them or chill them it's still like an ice box.

Aircon is more common in the houses in the suburbs. But even that's not that common.

Its a business opportunity for people there for sure. Even the fans have been sold out.

Having said that, was 40degrees yesterday but its back down to 20 degrees again today. Madness the temperature swing.
 
Last edited:
Air Conditioning technology is very old. Is there a reason large parts of Western Europe still don’t have it?
There are a variety of reasons why most don't have A/C, but the most common one is that it simply isn't needed. These old stone buildings don't get really hot or really cold. As I sit here now it is 34 C (about 94 for the metrically challenged) and I am completely comfortable with a fan on set to the lowest settings. In winter, we rarely need to turn the heat on as well. The building are designed to be very efficient and don't require much A/C or heating. (and I live in a 1960s commie built building)

The other reason is because A/C is bad for the environment and Europeans in general care a lot more about environmental and climate change issues compared to the US. Air conditioners (especially window units which is all you need to cool these small apartments) are readily available on not priced so high to be prohibitive. My wife's parents have a window unit mostly because they have a huge, hairy Newfoundland that suffers quite a lot in the summer.

It's the same with clothes dryers. They are readily available and reasonably cheap, but virtually nobody has one. They are not environmentally friendly and damage clothes over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCCHoosier
Can we just have Mayor Pete do the talking re climate change rather than Poopy Pants Biden and Bed Wetting Greta?

Jeebus.
 
Remember the 70s when...
- scientists identified a huge trend toward thinning of the ozone layer
- scientists proposed that chloroflurocarbons were partly or mostly responsible
- People and governments BELIEVED the scientists
- chloroflurocarbons were almost immediately banned, worldwide, cutting use 99.8%
- the ozone layer problem went away within a decade

It was a great example of global cooperation and public acceptance of science, of the type that is needed now
 
Last edited:
We know of the drought's impact on Powell and Meade look at the link below and the Rhine. Hard to believe we desperately needed the Ludendorff bridge in '45.

It is bad for Germany, the Rhine is a major shipping lane and hydroelectric provider.

Of course, no proving any one event is due to AGW, but massive drought's in multiple continents increases the odds.

 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT