|
|
| There is a story in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal today where their outdoor writer discusses one of the topics of the annual American Fisheries Society taking place this week. A big concern is the impact of climate change on species that need cooler water to thrive. Walleye and Brook trout are already feeling the impact. The Minocqua chain where there has been no harvest for five years and has had a lot of stocking is seeing no or little natural reproduction of walleye. And Wisconsin fisheries managers predict that by 2050 there will be no natural brook trout reproduction in the state. There have been other studies and stories about walleyes being impacted by warming waters but this was the first I saw that said muskies will also be impacted by climate change. I guess I thought they were more tolerant than walleyes and brook trout. Anyway, interesting and concerning to think about. Guess I should plan on teaching my grandson how to fish for bass. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
| The legacy media will use any excuse to hype climate change. IMO - If muskies can do OK in Kentucky they will be fine here even if the overall average summer temps are 2 to 3 degrees warmer. If any thing the prime fishery will move further north. I believe the real issue now is over fishing which is global but is readily apparent in walleye populations. Sidebar - I attribute the expanding smallmouth populations in Northern WI. to decreased competition As the adult walleyes are removed for the lakes it creates more space and forage for the smallmouth. |
|
| |
|
| This is hardly a media driven issue. The American Fisheries Society has been around for 150 years and is the largest group of fisheries scientists in the world. Includes federal and state fisheries scientists as well as university researchers.
As to over fishing, the Minocqua Chain has been closed to catch and keep for walleye for over 5 years now and there still is little or no natural reproduction according to WI DNR studies. They have stocked heavily and the fish they find are stocked.
Are the Kentucky fish natural or stocked? Many warmer water musky fisheries rely on stocking, not natural reproduction, which is the focus of the study. The stocked walleyes in Minocqua are surviving, but not reproducing.
As to bass, the biggest change is in large mouth bass, not small mouth. Lake Michigan has seen a rise in small mouth but in inland lakes in northern WI, large mouth bass have seen a big increase and they do put a hurt on walleye fry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20180
Location: oswego, il | It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 517
Location: WI | The media’s failure with climate change is the bias towards renewables. Expensive, low energy sources are not a solution to drastically reduce CO2 emissions unless we want a drastic change in quality of life and stop the progress of developing nations. Sounds great and may make you feel all warm and good inside but it costs a lot more, provides less energy, and takes up a lot more land. Nuclear is the only realistic option that would provide meaningful reductions relatively soon and there are some obvious risks with that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | There are more factors than climate change at play, in terms of Walleye natural reproduction in Wisconsin Lakes. Water levels on many lakes unrelated to climate change, but normal/historical eb/flow have made for difficult conditions for slightly over a decade. Water levels are back now, and documented reproduction of many species and reproductive habitat is back, on many waters, for now.
Shoreline/riparian destruction and unnatural spawning site degradation is a huge player and we only have ourselves to blame for that, and not just by building lake homes. Lake chains like Minoqua, Eagle River, Manitowish, Three Lakes, Waupaca, Couderay, even Winnebego to a degree, which are great places to navigate from lake to lake, are that way because they are unnatural flowages, and flowages get old. Historically those waters had creeks and small rivers connecting the lakes, which naturally cleaned inherent spawning beds, maintained cooler/adequate temps, and provided great spawning structure and habitat. It may have taken close to 100 years in some cases to happen, but these now sedentary flowages lost some of their spawning luster as a result. A prime example of what is now a flowage, and used to be a natural walleye factory, is Shawano Lake in Wisconsin. There was zero reproduction noted for several years, prior to several groups reinvesting in rockpiles, stocking the correct strain, and helping recreate what the fish need.
Lakefront propertys with their shoreline/aquatic veg/cover destruction have been covered ad nausium, yet it still occurs and contributes to reducing the size and number of already dwindling spawning sites.
At the end of the day, this isn't just about temperature. Is it related to what man has done? Yes, but on a much more direct and local account.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/17/2020 12:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Reef Hawg - 9/17/2020 11:56 AM
There are more factors than climate change at play, in terms of Walleye natural reproduction in Wisconsin Lakes. Water levels on many lakes unrelated to climate change, but normal/historical eb/flow have made for difficult conditions for slightly over a decade. Water levels are back now, and documented reproduction of many species and reproductive habitat is back, on many waters, for now.
Shoreline/riparian destruction and unnatural spawning site degradation is a huge player and we only have ourselves to blame for that, and not just by building lake homes. Lake chains like Minoqua, Eagle River, Manitowish, Three Lakes, Waupaca, Couderay, even Winnebego to a degree, which are great places to navigate from lake to lake, are that way because they are unnatural flowages, and flowages get old. Historically those waters had creeks and small rivers connecting the lakes, which naturally cleaned inherent spawning beds, maintained cooler/adequate temps, and provided great spawning structure and habitat. It may have taken close to 100 years in some cases to happen, but these now sedentary flowages lost some of their spawning luster as a result. A prime example of what is now a flowage, and used to be a natural walleye factory, is Shawano Lake in Wisconsin. There was zero reproduction noted for several years, prior to several groups reinvesting in rockpiles, stocking the correct strain, and helping recreate what the fish need.
Lakefront propertys with their shoreline/aquatic veg/cover destruction have been covered ad nausium, yet it still occurs and contributes to reducing the size and number of already dwindling spawning sites.
At the end of the day, this isn't just about temperature. Is it related to what man has done? Yes, but on a much more direct and local account.
The riparian zone issue is one that as someone living on a lake I am aware of every day. Oneida County had pretty strict zoning to protect that area but our then state senator and now 7th district congressman, Tom Tiffany, came up with legislation that took away local control of water front development and said that what had been the minimum protection set by the state was now the law every where and stricter zoning like you saw in Oneida and Vilas counties had to be eliminated. Mr. Tiffany was well rewarded by real estate development PACs. Our lake association still tries to get the message out that leaving as much of the riparian zone in a natural state is critical to the health of the lakes and I think a lot of property owners understand, but the regulation is much laxer now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
What if the conspiracy media you listen tells you it is not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8719
| ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
Have been to Alaska three times in the last 4 years and was supposed to have gone back in early summer this year to help my brother in law with set net fishing for sockeye on a river off Bristol Bay (COVID 19 travel issues nixed that). Traveling around Alaska, didn't find anyone who doesn't think there is climate change (they do disagree on cause). Some of the northern areas have seen annual temps rise by an average of 8 degrees in the last 25 years. Outside of Fairbanks in summer of 2018, they had giant fans blowing against the concrete supporting an overpass of the railroad line we were on. Conductor said it was because the rising temps were causing the perma frost to melt and the footings were starting to sink. Also, the train had to go no more than 20 miles an hour because the high temps they were experiencing were causing the rails to expand beyond the expansion joints they had built in, not anticipating the kind of summer heat they have been experiencing recently.
The Bristol Bay fishery, the largest sockeye salmon run in the world, has been impacted as far as the river set nets like I was supposed to do. The fish won't run up the rivers if they are over a certain temperature and in 2019 and again this year they had to wait for a big rain event to cool them because the salmon wouldn't run in the warm water of the rivers. My sister and her husband live off grid across the inlet from Glacier Bay national park and the mountains across the water that used to stay snow capped until mid June were almost bare in early April of 2016 when I was there. Less snow and it is melting much earlier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 359
Location: SW Ohio | Yes, the Muskies in KY and OH are stocked because they don’t reproduce in the manmade reservoirs even though they were here prior to the impoundments. And they survive very well in the warmer water. The Muskies in NC and WV are naturally occurring but are augmented by stocking. Yet these places produce large and numerous fish every year. The fish adapt to their environment sometimes better than us.
Global warming has been debunked but there should be no argument about climate change. After all, the Earth’s climate has been changing since its birth and will continue to change long after us bipeds are gone. |
|
| |
|
Location: Neapolitan Chain Of Lakes | If the world and the heavens are to end by being dissolved in fire then perhaps global warming is just the beginning of a slow death. In my opinion humans can but will NOT stop global warming.
Edited by esox109 9/17/2020 6:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
Location: Twin Cities Metro | OH Musky - 9/17/2020 6:13 PM
Global warming has been debunked...
Riiiiight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20180
Location: oswego, il | 14ledo81 - 9/17/2020 1:53 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
What if the conspiracy media you listen tells you it is not?
We have affected most of this earth hard to believe we have not had an impact non the climate. Ever seen fire tornadoes or sorms brew up from the forest fires? I am supposed to believe we have not had an impact?
I also agree with RH there are other issues with development and impoundment aging. Some believe that's the reason for lake shelbyville here in fibland for it's collapse despite the same stocking efforts.
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
Edited by ToddM 9/17/2020 8:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 479
Location: Northern Illinois | I agree with Reef Hawg on the original OP. Many factors can impact spawning and recruitment. As for climate change, some people will continue to believe that human produced CO2 levels are not accelerating climate change (warming) until Earth becomes Venus 2.0. The overwhelming evidence tells us that the RATE of climate warming without catastrophic event is unprecedented. This is not "legacy media hype." Read the research. If then you don't believe that humans are the main contributors to the rapidly increasing CO2 in our atmosphere and the resulting effects, it's because you don't want to.
Edited by RLSea 9/17/2020 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| RLSea - 9/17/2020 9:20 PM
I agree with Reef Hawg on the original OP. Many factors can impact spawning and recruitment. As for climate change, some people will continue to believe that human produced CO2 levels are not accelerating climate change (warming) until Earth becomes Venus 2.0. The overwhelming evidence tells us that the RATE of climate warming without catastrophic event is unprecedented. This is not "legacy media hype." Read the research. If then you don't believe that humans are the main contributors to the rapidly increasing CO2 in our atmosphere and the resulting effects, it's because you don't want to.
For me one of the things that convinced me was the studies they have done on ice cores taken from the poles, going back tens of thousands of years, where they can measure CO2 and other elements that were in the air at different times. At times in the past where there was dramatic change in climate, it can be traced to things like a volcanic eruption.
The first time I saw the Mendenhall glacier outside Juneau was in 2010. I was surprised how far it had retreated when I was there in 2016 but even more surprised at the apparent retreat when visiting again in 2018. Truly dramatic.
Edited by North of 8 9/17/2020 10:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 517
Location: WI |
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 517
Location: WI | 14ledo81 - 9/17/2020 1:53 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
What if the conspiracy media you listen tells you it is not?
I think conspiracy media’s support of the nuclear option was for eliminating the filibuster to get a conservative judge on SCOTUS. |
|
| |
|
| raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 357
| Its amazing to me how things quickly turn to the "political" version of climate change. Fact is the climate has been changing well since whenever the beginning was. Do we all wish it was still cold as hell and fighting off cave bears and woolly rhinos?
I watched ABC news for 5 minutes to get some updates on the Hurricane stuff before finding out every hurricane is now fueled by global warming. Seems to me there has always been hurricanes.
Fact is the climate is going to be in a continuous state of change way past our lifetimes.
Investment in renewable resources is generally a prudent thing. In the event the world runs out of oil it'd be nice to have some alternatives. Wind energy may not be feasible now...but it looks a lot better when the lights go out.
Want to reduce CO2...stop buying stuff from China and India, they are the two largest polluters in the world. Go there and have a look if you have not, you will see how they can produce cheap trade goods.
As for the fish...its been a constant evolution. All the same fish the were once swimming in Lake Agassiz are no longer with us. Think how great some of the Canadian Sheild lakes will be when they get a faster growth rate!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 517
Location: WI | North of 8 - 9/18/2020 6:44 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio?
Sun and wind do represent energy but at a much lower density than fossil fuels or nuclear. If I’m flipping for bass in thick cover do I use a tungsten weight or a steel weight? I would say tungsten since it’s denser material and I need a lot less of it. If I used steel I would need more of it. In comparison to non renewables, sun and wind are poor sources of energy because they just don’t have as much of it and u can’t make up for it by creating more energy out of nothing. We put our eggs in the wrong basket. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
What if you were old enough to remember the heat waves (in Chicago) of the 40's and 50's? Practically an ice age today...
Attachments
----------------
 Capture.JPG (113KB - 340 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| raftman - 9/18/2020 7:37 AM
North of 8 - 9/18/2020 6:44 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.[/QUOT
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio?
Sun and wind do represent energy but at a much lower density than fossil fuels or nuclear. If I’m flipping for bass in thick cover do I use a tungsten weight or a steel weight? I would say tungsten since it’s denser material and I need a lot less of it. If I used steel I would need more of it. In comparison to non renewables, sun and wind are poor sources of energy because they just don’t have as much of it and u can’t make up for it by creating more energy out of nothing. We put our eggs in the wrong basket.
Your calcualtion of energy does not take into account cost in energy to extract fossil fuels, transport them and then to deal with the residual pollution from fossil fuels. Coal in particular causes damage at the mine site, and leaves a nasty pile of waste with heavy metals in it once burned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 517
Location: WI | North of 8 - 9/18/2020 7:51 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 7:37 AM
North of 8 - 9/18/2020 6:44 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.[/QUOT
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio?
Sun and wind do represent energy but at a much lower density than fossil fuels or nuclear. If I’m flipping for bass in thick cover do I use a tungsten weight or a steel weight? I would say tungsten since it’s denser material and I need a lot less of it. If I used steel I would need more of it. In comparison to non renewables, sun and wind are poor sources of energy because they just don’t have as much of it and u can’t make up for it by creating more energy out of nothing. We put our eggs in the wrong basket.
Your calcualtion of energy does not take into account cost in energy to extract fossil fuels, transport them and then to deal with the residual pollution from fossil fuels. Coal in particular causes damage at the mine site, and leaves a nasty pile of waste with heavy metals in it once burned.
So there’s no environmental impact to putting a sea of windmills and solar panels outside of large urban areas? I would argue the energy expended for extraction and transport is negligible to what we get out of it. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t be so hard to replace despite whatever lobbying occurs by big oil. And developing countries looking to better their lives with cheap energy available to them. Do we tell them they should use more expensive sources because polar bears will go extinct or there’s fewer walleyes in the Minocqua chain? Making renewables a viable alternative has been a very steep mountain to climb. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | By and large, cheap (relatively) fossil fuel energy sources have done far more good (to the average standard of living) than bad.
Many people want to ignore that for some reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
| 14ledo81 - 9/18/2020 7:45 AM
esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
What if you were old enough to remember the heat waves (in Chicago ) of the 40's and 50's? Practically an ice age today...
It is important to understand that climate is not individual weather events based upon a certain number of elevated temperatures. Rather it is the increase in the average temperature over 30 year intervals. There may have been a whole lot of days in the 40's and 50's that were up in the 90s and 100s, but you need to look at the average temperature over the whole year, and how its changed over longer time spans. If every day is only 1-2 degrees warmer then that will have a much greater effect on the average yearly temperature than 11 days of super hot weather. Not only that, but Chicago is one location. To make a proper comparison you need to look at a much larger regions.
The science behind how CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is very well developed. The way those molecules are held together make them absorb more heat. If more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere they hold onto more heat for longer periods of time.
Those of us here in the United States and southern Canada may not see too much of a temperature change, but those further north (like in the story about Alaska) will definitely see a difference.
Earth's climate has had incredible climactic swings over its 4.5 billion year existence. From being much hotter (palm trees in the arctic kind of warm), to being so darn cold the Earth was literally a giant ice ball. The concerning fact about what we see in our current warming is more than just seeing the temperatures rise, but also how fast they are rising. No organism can keep up with these temperature increases. The cause of those previous climate changes have been due to variance in Earth's orbit and tilt or some kind of catastrophic, long lasting volcanic eruption. Both of these take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and we do not see any evidence of them occurring now, or in the very recent past (relevant time scales we are concerned with).
That's my 2 cents on the issue.
We are running out of economically viable fossil fuel sources as well. So from an economics standpoint nuclear should be used as an interim energy option until fully renewable resources are able to be deployed effectively at massive scale.
I guess you got 4 cents out of me in this post 
Edited by Rob C 9/18/2020 10:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Rob C - 9/18/2020 10:31 AM
14ledo81 - 9/18/2020 7:45 AM
esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
What if you were old enough to remember the heat waves (in Chicago ) of the 40's and 50's? Practically an ice age today...
It is important to understand that climate is not individual weather events based upon a certain number of elevated temperatures. Rather it is the increase in the average temperature over 30 year intervals. There may have been a whole lot of days in the 40's and 50's that were up in the 90s and 100s, but you need to look at the average temperature over the whole year, and how its changed over longer time spans. If every day is only 1-2 degrees warmer then that will have a much greater effect on the average yearly temperature than 11 days of super hot weather. Not only that, but Chicago is one location. To make a proper comparison you need to look at a much larger regions.
The science behind how CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is very well developed. The way those molecules are held together make them absorb more heat. If more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere they hold onto more heat for longer periods of time.
Those of us here in the United States and southern Canada may not see too much of a temperature change, but those further north (like in the story about Alaska ) will definitely see a difference.
Earth's climate has had incredible climactic swings over its 4.5 billion year existence. From being much hotter (palm trees in the arctic kind of warm ), to being so darn cold the Earth was literally a giant ice ball. The concerning fact about what we see in our current warming is more than just seeing the temperatures rise, but also how fast they are rising. No organism can keep up with these temperature increases. The cause of those previous climate changes have been due to variance in Earth's tilt or some kind of catastrophic, long lasting volcanic eruption. Both of these take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and we do not see any evidence of them occurring now, or in the very recent past (relevant time scales we are concerned with ).
That's my 2 cents on the issue.
We are running out of economically viable fossil fuel sources as well. So from an economics standpoint nuclear should be used as an interim energy option until fully renewable resources are able to be deployed effectively at massive scale.
I guess you got 4 cents out of me in this post :- )
During the recession I had the opportunity to ask congressman Tom Petri about the government getting behind some sort of nuclear energy plan to focused on a basic model that could be replicated, greatly reducing the cost of nuclear. He said he liked the concept but said there was absolutely no appetite to support nuclear on either side of the aisle. (Not my idea by the way, guy that I had hired as summer help went on to get his PhD in nuclear engineering had told me that the problem in the USA was that our plants were all "snowflakes", i.e., each was unique, adding greatly to cost and complexity) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
|
"During the recession I had the opportunity to ask congressman Tom Petri about the government getting behind some sort of nuclear energy plan to focused on a basic model that could be replicated, greatly reducing the cost of nuclear. He said he liked the concept but said there was absolutely no appetite to support nuclear on either side of the aisle. (Not my idea by the way, guy that I had hired as summer help went on to get his PhD in nuclear engineering had told me that the problem in the USA was that our plants were all "snowflakes", i.e., each was unique, adding greatly to cost and complexity)"
I have heard the same thing about our nuclear plants as well. Its unfortunate that we don't have a standardized plant for this. Modern nuclear technology has advanced, and thoughtful planning (put them in geologically and meteorologicaly stable environments, away from population centers etc) will prevent disasters from occurring. Standardization would also make maintenance and monitoring much easier. I am sure if given the opportunity to demonstrate the new tech etc. more people would be willing to support nuclear. Nuclear fusion is also on the "near" horizon. Once that becomes widely available even solar and wind power will no longer be a necessary transition.
Edited by Rob C 9/18/2020 11:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| Rob C
Thank you for your 4 cents worth because that is what I wanted to write. No where in time as the temperatures changed so quickly. What took thousands of years is taking tens of years. |
|
| |
|
| Rob C - 9/18/2020 11:06 AM
"During the recession I had the opportunity to ask congressman Tom Petri about the government getting behind some sort of nuclear energy plan to focused on a basic model that could be replicated, greatly reducing the cost of nuclear. He said he liked the concept but said there was absolutely no appetite to support nuclear on either side of the aisle. (Not my idea by the way, guy that I had hired as summer help went on to get his PhD in nuclear engineering had told me that the problem in the USA was that our plants were all "snowflakes", i.e., each was unique, adding greatly to cost and complexity)"
I have heard the same thing about our nuclear plants as well. Its unfortunate that we don't have a standardized plant for this. Modern nuclear technology has advanced, and thoughtful planning (put them in geologically and meteorologicaly stable environments, away from population centers etc) will prevent disasters from occurring. Standardization would also make maintenance and monitoring much easier. I am sure if given the opportunity to demonstrate the new tech etc. more people would be willing to support nuclear. Nuclear fusion is also on the "near" horizon. Once that becomes widely available even solar and wind power will no longer be a necessary transition.
The objection most have is the nuclear waste. However, they refuse to acknowledge that coal fired plants create tons of toxic waste on a daily basis. The residue left after burning coal contains heavy metals and other toxins that don't go away. One of the largest coal fired plants in the midwest was right on the shores of Lake Superior in Marquette. For decades they simply dumped the "cinders" on the ground on a large plot of land the plant owed a mile or so away. But, tests showed that the waste was leaching toxins into the Dead River and that traveled directly into Lake Superior a short distance down stream. The plant had to truck the waste to another area, lined with clay and cover it every day. That stuff will be toxic almost as long as nuclear waste. Solar is making strides in both efficiency and cost per watt on an almost monthly basis. China is leading the way on that. |
|
| |
