Technology, Science and the Environment.

[WigstonWanderer]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's technically correct, so why not?

 

People have this incredibly fearful image of fission power when they use fossil fuel power sources that overall are so much deadlier than fission power is.

 

Until we get to the day that renewable sources and storage can power everything that we have (and I'm entirely unconvinced that day is anywhere close), if we're going to phase out fossil fuels for power generation quickly (and we need to), fission power needs to be part of the answer. We simply don't have time to argue the toss between renewables and nuclear power when the global average temperature is skyrocketing, with all that entails. Plan to use both depending on circumstance.

I am certainly not disputing that fossil fuels need to be phased out, but I believe the statement you quoted to be misleading. The problem with the current generation of nuclear power is that though nuclear incidents have a low probability, they have the potential to be hugely damaging. We appear to have pretty much got away with it so far, but by all accounts Chernobyl for example could have been a much bigger disaster were it not for some heroic efforts from those involved.

 

If nuclear plants were scaled up to replace existing power generation, the probability of such incidents would go up proportionately.

 

I do agree that nuclear fission could and should play a significant (perhaps even pivotal) role in the future, but not the pressurised water reactor. Future nuclear development must involve technology that is naturally fail safe. I believe that potentially molten salt reactors may eventually fit the bill along with nuclear fusion, though huge engineering challenges need to be addressed. In view of the urgency I’d suggest some sort of Manhattan style project is needed to fast track these technologies.

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I am certainly not disputing that fossil fuels need to be phased out, but I believe the statement you quoted to be misleading. The problem with the current generation of nuclear power is that though nuclear incidents have a low probability, they have the potential to be hugely damaging. We appear to have pretty much got away with it so far, but by all accounts Chernobyl for example could have been a much bigger disaster were it not for some heroic efforts from those involved.

 

If nuclear plants were scaled up to replace existing power generation, the probability of such incidents would go up proportionately.

 

I do agree that nuclear fission could and should play a significant (perhaps even pivotal) role in the future, but not the pressurised water reactor. Future nuclear development must involve technology that is naturally fail safe. I believe that potentially molten salt reactors may eventually fit the bill along with nuclear fusion, though huge engineering challenges need to be addressed. In view of the urgency I’d suggest some sort of Manhattan style project is needed to fast track these technologies.

Fair enough, though I think the proportionality argument in terms of casualties from nuclear incidents against casualties through consistent use of fossil fuels has been addressed already and nuclear power still comes in way ahead of fossil fuels there.

 

Totally agree with the last paragraph - the designs need to be as bulletproof as humanly possible. Personally, I think that Gen III and IV reactors are at that point in terms of safety as well as molten salt reactors,but as you say the logistical and engineering challenges are significant.

 

Fusion, of course, would be a game changer that would render every other form of generation, including fission, obsolete - if we can make it work.

[Jaspa]

Talking about planetary impacts, we're just about to be hit by a coronal mass ejection from an M-Class solar flare which popped at us on Saturday.

 

Don't know if it means to stay out of the sun but there could be grid disruption in some parts of the world. And we're facing it square on in the UK it seems! Yay

Edited 11 October 2021 by Jaspa

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I am certainly not disputing that fossil fuels need to be phased out, but I believe the statement you quoted to be misleading. The problem with the current generation of nuclear power is that though nuclear incidents have a low probability, they have the potential to be hugely damaging. We appear to have pretty much got away with it so far, but by all accounts Chernobyl for example could have been a much bigger disaster were it not for some heroic efforts from those involved.

 

If nuclear plants were scaled up to replace existing power generation, the probability of such incidents would go up proportionately.

 

I do agree that nuclear fission could and should play a significant (perhaps even pivotal) role in the future, but not the pressurised water reactor. Future nuclear development must involve technology that is naturally fail safe. I believe that potentially molten salt reactors may eventually fit the bill along with nuclear fusion, though huge engineering challenges need to be addressed. In view of the urgency I’d suggest some sort of Manhattan style project is needed to fast track these technologies.

They wouldn't as the BSL/BSO regulatory requirements (https://www.onr.org.uk/saps/numerical-targets-limits-explanatory-note.pdf) are much higher than for legacy plants.  In addition, the design of modern plants (AP-1000, EPR etc.) are literally orders of magnitude more reliable so you'd need to make thousands more of them for the overall risk to reduce if you replaced old for new.

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, though I think the proportionality argument in terms of casualties from nuclear incidents against casualties through consistent use of fossil fuels has been addressed already and nuclear power still comes in way ahead of fossil fuels there.

 

Totally agree with the last paragraph - the designs need to be as bulletproof as humanly possible. Personally, I think that Gen III and IV reactors are at that point in terms of safety as well as molten salt reactors,but as you say the logistical and engineering challenges are significant.

 

Fusion, of course, would be a game changer that would render every other form of generation, including fission, obsolete - if we can make it work.

As someone who's spent their entire professional and post-grad career in engineering reliability, that highlighted point is neither practicable or desirable.  The only way to make the risks as low as possible is to never operate them and to fully mitigate against foreseeable risk would mean designs so complex and expensive they'd never be economical (e.g protection against meteorite strike (which is considered in hazard assessments).  I appreciate you'll know this, but terminology is key with these things! If you're a hyper nerd, then the Technical Assessment Guide from the ONR on this is a good read (https://www.onr.org.uk/operational/tech_asst_guides/ns-tast-gd-005.pdf) for understanding "what is tolerable"?

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Jaspa said:

Talking about planetary impacts, we're just about to be hit by a coronal mass ejection from an M-Class solar flare which popped at us on Saturday.

 

Don't know if it means to stay out of the sun but there could be grid disruption in some parts of the world. And we're facing it square on in the UK it seems! Yay

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g2-moderate-geomagnetic-storm-watch-issued-11-october-2021

 

More on this.

 

Overall it isn't really a bad one in terms of consequences, but in the UK you might see the Aurora outside tonight!

[leicsmac]

Just now, Zear0 said:

 

As someone who's spent their entire professional and post-grad career in engineering reliability, that highlighted point is neither practicable or desirable.  The only way to make the risks as low as possible is to never operate them and to fully mitigate against foreseeable risk would mean designs so complex and expensive they'd never be economical (e.g protection against meteorite strike (which is considered in hazard assessments).  I appreciate you'll know this, but terminology is key with these things! If you're a hyper nerd, then the Technical Assessment Guide from the ONR on this is a good read (https://www.onr.org.uk/operational/tech_asst_guides/ns-tast-gd-005.pdf) for understanding "what is tolerable"?

You're correct of course and I should have been more precise in my use of language. A design striking a balance between ease of building and use and safety, then.

 

However, as an addendum, the appearance of safety will have to be readily apparent if such projects are to get public and therefore policy-based approval. As I have been learning, scientific evidence by itself isn't the only compelling factor when it comes to policy on such matters.

[Zear0]

Just now, leicsmac said:

You're correct of course and I should have been more precise in my use of language. A design striking a balance between ease of building and use and safety, then.

 

However, as an addendum, the appearance of safety will have to be readily apparent if such projects are to get public and therefore policy-based approval. As I have been learning, scientific evidence by itself isn't the only compelling factor when it comes to policy on such matters.

Yup, discussing target reliability, ALARP in design and probabilistic safety assessments like BSL and BSO are an extremely effective way to put the public to sleep.  I appreciate it's a tangent, but it reminded me of something I heard from a lecturer in mechanical design many years ago.  Paraphrasing extensively...gearboxes are meant to go "clunk", but it is worrying to drivers, so we overfill them with oil making them quiet but less efficient.  Sometimes we have to make things worse to keep people happy, let's hope that doesn't make it into nuclear policy.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Yup, discussing target reliability, ALARP in design and probabilistic safety assessments like BSL and BSO are an extremely effective way to put the public to sleep.  I appreciate it's a tangent, but it reminded me of something I heard from a lecturer in mechanical design many years ago.  Paraphrasing extensively...gearboxes are meant to go "clunk", but it is worrying to drivers, so we overfill them with oil making them quiet but less efficient.  Sometimes we have to make things worse to keep people happy, let's hope that doesn't make it into nuclear policy.

 

I'm sure other examples of similar exist, too.

[Free Falling Foxes]

Getting worse

We've been in a ' race to the bottom' for many years. Looks like we'll manage it pretty soon.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

They wouldn't as the BSL/BSO regulatory requirements (https://www.onr.org.uk/saps/numerical-targets-limits-explanatory-note.pdf) are much higher than for legacy plants.  In addition, the design of modern plants (AP-1000, EPR etc.) are literally orders of magnitude more reliable so you'd need to make thousands more of them for the overall risk to reduce if you replaced old for new.

As someone who's spent their entire professional and post-grad career in engineering reliability, that highlighted point is neither practicable or desirable.  The only way to make the risks as low as possible is to never operate them and to fully mitigate against foreseeable risk would mean designs so complex and expensive they'd never be economical (e.g protection against meteorite strike (which is considered in hazard assessments).  I appreciate you'll know this, but terminology is key with these things! If you're a hyper nerd, then the Technical Assessment Guide from the ONR on this is a good read (https://www.onr.org.uk/operational/tech_asst_guides/ns-tast-gd-005.pdf) for understanding "what is tolerable"?

Well, I bow to you superior knowledge and expertise, of course, however I still think there is a tendency for the pro nuclear lobby to downplay low probability, high impact possibilities, by some sort of “on average it isn’t an issue” thinking. A single city rendered uninhabitable for a century is not acceptable, and as clever as engineers are, they are not infallible. An unlikely sequence of unfortunate events can still evade the best made plans as Fukashima testifies. The technology needs to be fail safe, as in a failure renders it useless but harmless, otherwise those living nearby will not sleep easy.

Edited 11 October 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58883234

 

And if anything, the effects described here for the UK would be relatively mild compared to other parts of the world. At first, anyway.

[leicsmac]

A Space Race factoid I came across today:

 

If Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, it's highly likely Khrushchev would have accepted his offer of a dual-nation lunar mission that he'd floated a while before, and the first steps on the Moon would have been both American and Soviet.

Imagine how different the history of space exploration might have been if that had happened.

[Buce]

 

This is worth five minutes of anyone's time - a thoroughly fascinating read:

 

Was our universe created in a laboratory?

[Pliskin]

On 11/10/2021 at 12:10, Free Falling Foxes said:

Getting worse

We've been in a ' race to the bottom' for many years. Looks like we'll manage it pretty soon.

It’s why I have no faith we will turn the tide on global warming, we can’t bring ourselves as a race to take the financial hit…..

 

If you put a group of humans in a hot room, and put £1m at one end, and a ladder to escape at the other and gave them the choice a couple would chose to escape when the rest will fight to the death over the money. 
 

Is there a better place to be than in nature? Peaceful, stress free with nothing to think about other than your surroundings…..

 

I certainly hope COP26 can deliver to harrowing statistics that will force the hand of those most responsible. We simply have to change, and change right now. 

[Pliskin]

On 13/10/2021 at 05:46, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58883234

 

And if anything, the effects described here for the UK would be relatively mild compared to other parts of the world. At first, anyway.

I think it pretty much sums up that we’re doomed doesn’t it? I genuinely fear for the future, I really do…. COVID-19 should have acted as a stark reality check as to how vulnerable we are as a race of people…. And the increasing regularity of natural disasters how vulnerable the planet it…. But no, we will just permit another oil monster to buy a PL football club, and brush it under the carpet for a bit. 
 

What was it Arnie said on the Terminator? “It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves” how true. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Pliskin said:

I think it pretty much sums up that we’re doomed doesn’t it? I genuinely fear for the future, I really do…. COVID-19 should have acted as a stark reality check as to how vulnerable we are as a race of people…. And the increasing regularity of natural disasters how vulnerable the planet it…. But no, we will just permit another oil monster to buy a PL football club, and brush it under the carpet for a bit. 
 

What was it Arnie said on the Terminator? “It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves” how true. 

I fear for the future too, but I'm not going to accept that nihilist screeds about humanity and where it will go are an inevitability either - partly because that in itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if enough people believe it and act (or not) on it. It's far too much generic doomsday villain chitchat for me.

 

We can solve the manifold problems that the Earth throws at us, as well as the ones created by ourselves. Whether we will or not only time will tell, but the potential is there.

[fuchsntf]

Whats the opposite to the big bang...

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

Whats the opposite to the big bang...

The Big Crunch. (Lacks a little originality, but there you go.)

 

However, from what we know about the expansion of the Universe thus far, it's not a thing that is remotely likely to happen.

[fuchsntf]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The Big Crunch. (Lacks a little originality, but there you go.)

 

However, from what we know about the expansion of the Universe thus far, it's not a thing that is remotely likely to happen.

Unless.........

[Sly]

I think Carbon tax needs to be significantly heavy to force change. 
 

It would then force people to review how they operate. 
 

If it pushes the price of certain goods up, then so be it. The issue we have is that people are all for change but don’t want to pay for it. 
 

I’ve noticed more recently that quite a few companies are now opting for carbon offsetting measures and spinning it as carbon neutral PR exercises. This is all great, however they’re capitalising on it by charging a premium as well. Green washing is the sort of behaviour that needs to stop. 

[Pliskin]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I fear for the future too, but I'm not going to accept that nihilist screeds about humanity and where it will go are an inevitability either - partly because that in itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if enough people believe it and act (or not) on it. It's far too much generic doomsday villain chitchat for me.

 

We can solve the manifold problems that the Earth throws at us, as well as the ones created by ourselves. Whether we will or not only time will tell, but the potential is there.

You’re not wrong. 
 

Humans have a knack for survival, and we do seem to be able to pull ourselves out of the most ridiculous of situations. Our hope is that this determination and willingness to survive helps us reverse the damages done to the planet.

 

Ideally what’s needs to happen is, the governments need to restructure the way we live in terms of financially, and forcibly change anything that is guilty of contributing to greenhouse gas omissions the most. 
 

It’s got to the stage where drastic action is needed, hopefully we see it.

 

The first step for me would be to introduce recycling incentive for petrol or diesel cars, but a good one, and set up a new financial loaning system that allows anyone to have access to an electric vehicle, at a price they can afford it’s becoming a necessity now, not so much a luxury. 

[Buce]

Earth’s demise could rid galaxy of meaning, warns Brian Cox ahead of Cop26

Unique events that led to civilisation mean its demise could ‘eliminate meaning in galaxy for ever’

 

Humans might be the only intelligent beings in our galaxy, so destroying our civilisation could be a galactic disaster, Prof Brian Cox has warned leaders in the run-up to Cop26.

Speaking at the launch of his new BBC Two series Universe, the physicist and presenter said that having spoken to the scientists around the world advising the show, he thought that humans and sentient life on Earth “might be a remarkable, naturally occurring phenomenon” and that was something that “world leaders might need to know”.

 

In Universe, Cox explores the idea of the so-called “Goldilocks” theory, which suggests that our planet’s location in relation to the Sun and the unique events over billions of years that created Earth made it “just right” for meaningful life to bloom and evolve.

“What we’ve discovered – I think it’s a reasonable working assumption – is that there are very few civilisations per galaxy,” said Cox.

When asked how important that discovery was for politicians dealing with the climate crisis, Cox said: “I think sometimes that perspective is necessary.

“I would say if our civilisation doesn’t persist, for whatever reason, and it might be an external event or it might be our own action, nuclear war, whatever it is we decide to inflict on ourselves, it is possible that whoever presses that button eliminates meaning in a galaxy for ever.

“And I think that’s something I would think world leaders might need to know. It might actually be quite an important act.”

He went on: “The more I learn about biology … the more astonished I am we exist at all”, adding that while astronomers said there were about 20bn Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy, “so we might expect life to be everywhere”, “almost every biologist I speak to says, ‘Yes, but all it will be is slime at best.’ We live in a violent universe and the idea you can have planets which are stable enough to have an unbroken chain of life might be quite restrictive.”

Cox said there were very few places “where atoms can think … Meaning exists in our minds”, so the demise of Earth could wipe out meaning.

“If you accept that meaning is something that emerges from sufficiently complex biological machines, then the only place those machines might exist is here; then it’s correct to say that if this planet weren’t here, we’d live in a meaningless galaxy. That’s different to life. There’s a difference between life and intelligent life.”

He also said there was an idea called the “great filter”, which suggested that “civilisations don’t have a long life. It could be that the challenges of industrialising a civilisation are too great and actually our wisdom lags behind our knowledge or capability, and we’re not able to handle this transition to a space-going civilisation.

“Climate is [also] a challenge … there are many challenges that civilisations face as they acquire knowledge and capability and it might just be that there’s a natural lifetime for civilisations.”

In Universe, Cox – who was part of the band D:Ream, which created the optimistic anthem Things Can Only Get Better – explains how stars are not immortal and one day the universe will return to darkness.

He said some of his ad-libs during Universe were more philosophical and “religious than I intended” than in his previous series, and that was because he wanted to explore why we cared about stars and the part they played in creating life.

In the first episode he calls the stars “mortal gods” and, watching a sunrise, says: “If you’re looking for gods, you don’t need to look any further, because these are the real things.”

About 1 billion people globally have seen The Planets, and Universe will also be shown around the world. Most of this series was shot in the UK due to lockdown, which Cox said gave it a different character from his previous shows.

[ozleicester]

On 18/10/2021 at 04:17, Buce said:

 

This is worth five minutes of anyone's time - a thoroughly fascinating read:

 

Was our universe created in a laboratory?

Nah... 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Buce said:

Earth’s demise could rid galaxy of meaning, warns Brian Cox ahead of Cop26

Unique events that led to civilisation mean its demise could ‘eliminate meaning in galaxy for ever’

 

Humans might be the only intelligent beings in our galaxy, so destroying our civilisation could be a galactic disaster, Prof Brian Cox has warned leaders in the run-up to Cop26.

Speaking at the launch of his new BBC Two series Universe, the physicist and presenter said that having spoken to the scientists around the world advising the show, he thought that humans and sentient life on Earth “might be a remarkable, naturally occurring phenomenon” and that was something that “world leaders might need to know”.

 

In Universe, Cox explores the idea of the so-called “Goldilocks” theory, which suggests that our planet’s location in relation to the Sun and the unique events over billions of years that created Earth made it “just right” for meaningful life to bloom and evolve.

“What we’ve discovered – I think it’s a reasonable working assumption – is that there are very few civilisations per galaxy,” said Cox.

When asked how important that discovery was for politicians dealing with the climate crisis, Cox said: “I think sometimes that perspective is necessary.

“I would say if our civilisation doesn’t persist, for whatever reason, and it might be an external event or it might be our own action, nuclear war, whatever it is we decide to inflict on ourselves, it is possible that whoever presses that button eliminates meaning in a galaxy for ever.

“And I think that’s something I would think world leaders might need to know. It might actually be quite an important act.”

He went on: “The more I learn about biology … the more astonished I am we exist at all”, adding that while astronomers said there were about 20bn Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy, “so we might expect life to be everywhere”, “almost every biologist I speak to says, ‘Yes, but all it will be is slime at best.’ We live in a violent universe and the idea you can have planets which are stable enough to have an unbroken chain of life might be quite restrictive.”

Cox said there were very few places “where atoms can think … Meaning exists in our minds”, so the demise of Earth could wipe out meaning.

“If you accept that meaning is something that emerges from sufficiently complex biological machines, then the only place those machines might exist is here; then it’s correct to say that if this planet weren’t here, we’d live in a meaningless galaxy. That’s different to life. There’s a difference between life and intelligent life.”

He also said there was an idea called the “great filter”, which suggested that “civilisations don’t have a long life. It could be that the challenges of industrialising a civilisation are too great and actually our wisdom lags behind our knowledge or capability, and we’re not able to handle this transition to a space-going civilisation.

“Climate is [also] a challenge … there are many challenges that civilisations face as they acquire knowledge and capability and it might just be that there’s a natural lifetime for civilisations.”

In Universe, Cox – who was part of the band D:Ream, which created the optimistic anthem Things Can Only Get Better – explains how stars are not immortal and one day the universe will return to darkness.

He said some of his ad-libs during Universe were more philosophical and “religious than I intended” than in his previous series, and that was because he wanted to explore why we cared about stars and the part they played in creating life.

In the first episode he calls the stars “mortal gods” and, watching a sunrise, says: “If you’re looking for gods, you don’t need to look any further, because these are the real things.”

About 1 billion people globally have seen The Planets, and Universe will also be shown around the world. Most of this series was shot in the UK due to lockdown, which Cox said gave it a different character from his previous shows.

Interesting. I'd like to see what hard evidence, if any,  Professor Cox has for buying into the Rare Earth Hypothesis as much as this.

 

It's certainly possible,  but i also certainly wouldn't take spacefaring life only on earth as a given.

[Dunge]

I’ve thought for a while there could be something in the “Rare Earth” hypothesis, albeit without any hard evidence. It’s interesting to see a respected personality giving it his backing.**

 

The suggestion that civilisations don’t have a long shelf life is perhaps more worrying for us as a species. Personally, I think a big issue facing the human race in the future - assuming that everything goes well - is how it manages in centuries’ time. Humans have made so much progress in the last two hundred years, and indeed earlier, through exploration, hunger for knowledge, driving on to the next big thing. Right now we need sustainability*, both for this planet and for space exploration. After that, we’re looking at returning to the moon and visiting Mars. Beyond that, colonising Mars and creating a little system of human endeavour and population. But the fact is, without some new science (eg wormholes), that’s as far as the vast majority of humans on this planet can go. Transporting us to another star system, even a neighbouring one, is a practically impossible ask. It may be possible to get human life started in other star systems, but very unlikely that we can transport billions of us there to do it. Essentially, even with a fair wind taking us to that point, I think we’ll reach the limits of where most humans of Earth can reach.

 

At that point, we’d need to live lives bereft of progress, where we can no longer leave our mark on the universe except through breeding. The meaning that Brian Cox rightly talks about would get diminished. And I don’t know whether civilisation can cope with that, or whether that’s what inevitably eats itself in search of a new challenge.

 

 

*Granted, let’s get climate change sorted first or all of this becomes a null issue anyway.

**If he starts backing the Gaia hypothesis I’m going to do a backflip in excitement.