ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , global warming , green energy issues

Reply
Old 12th February 2019, 06:03 AM   #441
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,860
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This is probably wrong. The problem with CO2 is that it persists in the atmosphere for a long time. Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere nearly as long, it decays into CO2 in about a decade or so. To a first approximation Methane in the atmosphere only increases when emissions of Methane are increasing. IOW "equivalent CO2" should only count increases in Methane production not total respiration.

Furthermore, baring some major unforeseen rapid emission of Methane from permafrost or thawing Methane hydrates, Methane itself is a nearly negligible fraction of total greenhouse forcing by the time we start to get into the really bad scenarios.

Energy used in agriculture and fertilizer production are a bigger problem in the long run than Methane because these represent the introduction new carbon into the carbon cycle, Methane does not.
Methane is already bubbling out of the ocean floor methane clathrates. In the Pacific, also Alaska lakes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxARROUvFAo
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 06:42 AM   #442
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Germany thought they had found a perfect salt mine, only to discover that water leaks in - it will take decades and billions to get the waste out again.
I can find examples of anything failing or being poorly planned. You said that permanent storage is not the solution, but isolated cases don't support that claim.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 06:50 AM   #443
Zambo
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I can find examples of anything failing or being poorly planned. You said that permanent storage is not the solution, but isolated cases don't support that claim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dounreay

Intetesting to read about the decommissioning here. As i've said before France or USA is not my worry but the whole world's power demands ned to be met and many countries worry me on safety during construction, operation and decommissioning.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 07:24 AM   #444
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dounreay

Intetesting to read about the decommissioning here. As i've said before France or USA is not my worry but the whole world's power demands ned to be met and many countries worry me on safety during construction, operation and decommissioning.
The true solution is blasting ourselves back to the stone age.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 10:04 AM   #445
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,020
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I can find examples of anything failing or being poorly planned. You said that permanent storage is not the solution, but isolated cases don't support that claim.
I think it is common sense: the timescale for keeping the waste safe is in the excess of 10,000 years. Assuming that humanity will survive that long, we can expect major political, social, economic and technological changes during that time.

It would be short-sighted to create facts today that cannot be undone by our ancestors to the nth generation.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 10:28 AM   #446
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,041
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The true solution is blasting ourselves back to the stone age.
You're not wrong.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 10:49 AM   #447
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Could you expand on this? I'm really interested.

Sorry for the late reply. I rarely post here because I am generally very busy, while at the same time, as I have said, I don't generally care about debating this topic because I feel that there is generally no sense in debating the views of the Greens which will continue to halt meaningful action against climate change for at least another decade or two.

The issue with the scarcity of some of the minerals and raw materials needed for wind and solar has been talked about a lot. I should say, that I don't think that this is actually going to be an issue that is going affect renewable energy because ways are found around these problems when they get bad enough, but while I don't think that there is a problem with the finiteness of essential materials for renewable energy, those who oppose nuclear energy are always harping about the finiteness of nuclear fuel which is orders of magnitude less of an issue than exists for renewables - which of course they ignore.

For me a much larger problem would be the obscene magnitude of the destructiveness caused by mining and processing for those essential materials.

And here are a couple more.

Mining for nuclear is far less destructive and has a much smaller footprint. That article also has good information about the environmental problems and dangerous child labor that are a part in the mining needed for the batteries that Greens think will allow wind and solar to become reliable sources of power. This is not creating a better world. This is ideologically blinkered people promoting a dystopia.

Now some people might say that these terrible consequences are justified because climate change is such a significant problem, but there are no real examples of renewable energy leading to a significant decrease in ghgs. People think there are, but there are not. Someone earlier in this thread said that conservatives should look at the industrious and technologically advanced Germans. But they have spent many billions over the last decade bringing a massive amount of renewable energy into their grid. It has increased the cost of electricity by a very substantial amount and their ghg emissions have dropped only a tiny percentage (much, much less than in the US over the same period of time - mostly accomplished by switching to natural gas). Germany has reduced ghgs by a pretty decent amount since 1990, but almost all of that was due to shutting done extremely dirty in East Germany after the merger. Despite very strong support from the population, and massive amounts of money, their renewable fantasies have been a complete failure. But they continue to double down on it.


And every time they double down. Every time they make a large public commitment for decades down the road, Greens swoon and say every other country should the same. They demand that every country should make the same commitment going forward, because they have no examples of actual success so far.

You would think that would give them pause. You would think that should make them reassess why renewable builds have accomplished nothing in terms of ghg reductions, despite evidence that every nuclear build - which they 100% oppose - accomplished a lot in terms of ghg reductions. But ideologues don't care about reality. They care about their fantasy.

In Ontario we massively decreased ghg emissions during the 70s and 80s through a large nuclear build. Then in the 90s our emission went back up dramatically when we took a lot of nuclear offline. Then in the early 2000s we decided we were going to lower those emissions again by a large scale wind and solar build, but when the government realized that was doing nothing for emissions (but caused our electricity bills to skyrocket) they brought nuclear back online. But they continued to want to build more wind and solar despite their own research showing that doing so would not only increase electricity bills further, but also would increase our ghgs. And we really don't even use much of the wind and solar we produce. Because it is so unreliable we simply dump most of it into neighboring provinces and states for almost free - despite us paying a lot for it. But despite all that our previous government, in the name of fighting climate change they wanted to build more wind and solar despite knowing that would increase emissions. This is nothing but virtue signalling.

The same is likely the case in Sweden. Posters have said that they plan on being 100% renewable in 2040. But they are also building more nuclear reactors and have said that nuclear will still providing plenty of electricity in 2040. But you have to virtue signal. And what has the pretty substantial wind and solar build in Sweden accomplished so far? Probably nothing. Their imports and exports of electricity have both grown substantially during this time (the same thing happened in Ontario) - meaning that it is most likely that when wind and solar are creating a lot of electricity they are just dumping most of it into neighboring countries, but when it is not producing much they are importing.

Wind and solar, even if they are cheap, make electricity in the grid more expensive for obvious reasons.


And while wind and solar are worthwhile in a couple instances (such as powering isolated areas) it will continue to fail everywhere else it is tried because the problems with it are unlikely to be overcome except by making electricity much more expensive. And even then success is questionable. So why do it? Virtue signalling while the planet burns.

Last edited by Wayward son; 12th February 2019 at 10:51 AM.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 10:51 AM   #448
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
Sorry for the late reply. I rarely post here because I am generally very busy, while at the same time, as I have said, I don't generally care about debating this topic because I feel that there is generally no sense in debating the views of the Greens which will continue to halt meaningful action against climate change for at least another decade or two.

The issue with the scarcity of some of the minerals and raw materials needed for wind and solar has been talked about a lot. I should say, that I don't think that this is actually going to be an issue that is going affect renewable energy because ways are found around these problems when they get bad enough, but while I don't think that there is a problem with the finiteness of essential materials for renewable energy, those who oppose nuclear energy are always harping about the finiteness of nuclear fuel which is orders of magnitude less of an issue than exists for renewables - which of course they ignore.

For me a much larger problem would be the obscene magnitude of the [url="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth"]destructiveness caused by mining and processing for those essential materials.

And here are a couple more.

Mining for nuclear is far less destructive and has a much smaller footprint. That article also has good information about the environmental problems and dangerous child labor that are a part in the mining needed for the batteries that Greens think will allow wind and solar to become reliable sources of power. This is not creating a better world. This is ideologically blinkered people promoting a dystopia.

Now some people might say that these terrible consequences are justified because climate change is such a significant problem, but there are no real examples of renewable energy leading to a significant decrease in ghgs. People think there are, but there are not. Someone earlier in this thread said that conservatives should look at the industrious and technologically advanced Germans. But they have spent many billions over the last decade bringing a massive amount of renewable energy into their grid. It has increased the cost of electricity by a very substantial amount and their ghg emissions have dropped only a tiny percentage (much, much less than in the US over the same period of time - mostly accomplished by switching to natural gas). Germany has reduced ghgs by a pretty decent amount since 1990, but almost all of that was due to shutting done extremely dirty in East Germany after the merger. Despite very strong support from the population, and massive amounts of money, their renewable fantasies have been a complete failure. But they continue to double down on it.


And every time they double down. Every time they make a large public commitment for decades down the road, Greens swoon and say every other country should the same. They demand that every country should make the same commitment going forward, because they have no examples of actual success so far.

You would think that would give them pause. You would think that should make them reassess why renewable builds have accomplished nothing in terms of ghg reductions, despite evidence that every nuclear build - which they 100% oppose - accomplished a lot in terms of ghg reductions. But ideologues don't care about reality. They care about their fantasy.

In Ontario we massively decreased ghg emissions during the 70s and 80s through a large nuclear build. Then in the 90s our emission went back up dramatically when we took a lot of nuclear offline. Then in the early 2000s we decided we were going to lower those emissions again by a large scale wind and solar build, but when the government realized that was doing nothing for emissions (but caused our electricity bills to skyrocket) they brought nuclear back online. But they continued to want to build more wind and solar despite their own research showing that doing so would not only increase electricity bills further, but also would increase our ghgs. And we really don't even use much of the wind and solar we produce. Because it is so unreliable we simply dump most of it into neighboring provinces and states for almost free - despite us paying a lot for it. But despite all that our previous government, in the name of fighting climate change they wanted to build more wind and solar despite knowing that would increase emissions. This is nothing but virtue signalling.

The same is likely the case in Sweden. Posters have said that they plan on being 100% renewable in 2040. But they are also building more nuclear reactors and have said that nuclear will still providing plenty of electricity in 2040. But you have to virtue signal. And what has the pretty substantial wind and solar build in Sweden accomplished so far? Probably nothing. Their imports and exports of electricity have both grown substantially during this time (the same thing happened in Ontario) - meaning that it is most likely that when wind and solar are creating a lot of electricity they are just dumping most of it into neighboring countries, but when it is not producing much they are importing.

Wind and solar, even if they are cheap, make electricity in the grid more expensive for obvious reasons.


And while wind and solar are worthwhile in a couple instances (such as powering isolated areas) it will continue to fail everywhere else it is tried because the problems with it are unlikely to be overcome except by making electricity much more expensive. And even then success is questionable. So why do it? Virtue signalling while the planet burns.

The planet is burning?
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:01 AM   #449
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I think it is common sense: the timescale for keeping the waste safe is in the excess of 10,000 years. Assuming that humanity will survive that long, we can expect major political, social, economic and technological changes during that time.

It would be short-sighted to create facts today that cannot be undone by our ancestors to the nth generation.
Maybe but how do you propose to proceed? I mean, everything that generates megawatts has waste, accidents, problems and risks. What you describe above is true for all of them.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:08 AM   #450
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,618
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
We can adapt but we can't prevent. How does that work?

Read my post again.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:13 AM   #451
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The planet is burning?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:16 AM   #452
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
The planet is burning?
The saying fiddling while Rome burns is a common figure of speach that expresses meaning - you shouldn't occupy yourself with unimportant things when more important action is required. The saying is not true in that that there were no fiddles at the time, and Nero probably did many things although he was ineffective at stopping the fire.

Virture signalling while the planet burns is a take on that saying.

There is a massive consensus that urgent action is needed, and even though we know of methods that have quickly decreased ghg emissions by a substantial margin, we not only refuse to implement those actions on a larger scale, but try to reverse what those actions have accomplished in past decades. While pushing a rather useless and expensive alternative for ideological purposes.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:19 AM   #453
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
Sorry for the late reply.
No problem, and thanks for the reply. I was aware of some of those issues, but it's nice to have additional information about it. It clarifies your earlier point.

Cheers,
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:39 AM   #454
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,020
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Maybe but how do you propose to proceed? I mean, everything that generates megawatts has waste, accidents, problems and risks. What you describe above is true for all of them.
Some currently proposed solutions are basically holes in the ground into which you lower the stuff until full, then pour concrete over it. This makes it nigh impossible to fix any problems that are detected later.

AFAIK, there are no good objections to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, which would allow for nuclear waste to be retrieved if deemed necessary.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:21 PM   #455
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,295
FYI Here is the original GND FAQ Blog that AOC posted.
It does indeed say 'Those unwilling to work'
Quote:
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
High-quality health care
Clean air and water
Healthy food
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
An economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work
The frontline communities that are already facing the ravages of climate change and pollution and working-class communities reliant on fossil fuel industries must be prioritized in any transformation of our society to a renewable energy economy. That’s why the Green New Deal lays out a comprehensive plan that ensures training, investment, and the economic and environmental benefits of the transition prioritize these communities that are most at risk.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...n-new-deal-faq
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:53 PM   #456
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,618
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Some currently proposed solutions are basically holes in the ground into which you lower the stuff until full, then pour concrete over it. This makes it nigh impossible to fix any problems that are detected later.
Agree. This one in the Marshall Island is leaking into the Pacific Ocean, and there does not appear to be any practical solution for fixing it.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ioactive-waste
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:20 PM   #457
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,456
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Read my post again.
I'm not addressing my remark to you but to the "adapters". Why are they so sure we can adapt but also so certain we can't prevent.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:26 PM   #458
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,456
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
The saying fiddling while Rome burns is a common figure of speach that expresses meaning - you shouldn't occupy yourself with unimportant things when more important action is required. The saying is not true in that that there were no fiddles at the time, and Nero probably did many things although he was ineffective at stopping the fire.

Virture signalling while the planet burns is a take on that saying.

There is a massive consensus that urgent action is needed, and even though we know of methods that have quickly decreased ghg emissions by a substantial margin, we not only refuse to implement those actions on a larger scale, but try to reverse what those actions have accomplished in past decades. While pushing a rather useless and expensive alternative for ideological purposes.
Where are you going to place all those nuclear plants and waste dumps? Rightly or wrongly no one wants them near them, they want them somewhere else.
Conservatives may not be as vocal about new nuclear plants now as "greens" but the NIMBY is still strong in them. You are never going to be able to roll out new nuclear plants now at the rate required. Solar cells and batteries are rolling out of the factories now like jelly beans.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

Last edited by a_unique_person; 12th February 2019 at 01:43 PM.
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 02:13 PM   #459
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Where are you going to place all those nuclear plants and waste dumps? Rightly or wrongly no one wants them near them, they want them somewhere else.
Conservatives may not be as vocal about new nuclear plants now as "greens" but the NIMBY is still strong in them. You are never going to be able to roll out new nuclear plants now at the rate required. Solar cells and batteries are rolling out of the factories now like jelly beans.
It's a question I don't need to answer. First of all, I know plenty of people who happily live very close to nuclear plants - like 1000 - 2000 feet from Pickering nuclear.

But the main thing, as I have said repeatedly is that the rapid nuclear build is only going to happen after the solar/wind/battery build fails spectacularly for the umpteenth time. And that will only be if civilization has sufficient time and resources left after they finally shed themselves of their current ideology.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 02:27 PM   #460
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,020
More energy will solve most problems: power electric cars, desalinated water, capture carbon.
There is space for Renewables and Nuclear.
__________________
ETTD
Everything Trump Touches Dies
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:10 PM   #461
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Jesus, is English not your first language?

If I told you I wanted to get rid of polluting cars, does that mean I want to get rid of ALL cars?
No, it would mean that you only want to get rid of the cars that pollute.

Quote:
Getting rid of farting cows DOES NOT MEAN EXTERMINATING ALL COWS. One have to be either trolling, or literally being intentionally stupid if one really thinks that's what it means.
Okay, got it. You only mean to get rid of cows that fart.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:11 PM   #462
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
More energy will solve most problems: power electric cars, desalinated water, capture carbon.
There is space for Renewables and Nuclear.
Probably 99.9% of nuclear advocates believe that there is a space is for both (I am one of the few who disagrees. I believes that renewables are almost completely worthless outside of a couple exceptions).

The vast majority of renewables advocates believe that there is no space for nuclear. The vast majority of renewables advocates do not believe that more energy is the solution, but less.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:15 PM   #463
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
I'm not addressing my remark to you but to the "adapters". Why are they so sure we can adapt but also so certain we can't prevent.
Because both require very little effort?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:17 PM   #464
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
Probably 99.9% of nuclear advocates believe that there is a space is for both (I am one of the few who disagrees. I believes that renewables are almost completely worthless outside of a couple exceptions).

The vast majority of renewables advocates believe that there is no space for nuclear. The vast majority of renewables advocates do not believe that more energy is the solution, but less.
They're going to hit a wall. Humans generally don't vote for projects that reduce their quality of life.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:31 PM   #465
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,976
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They're going to hit a wall. Humans generally don't vote for projects that reduce their quality of life.
Been to Cali lately?

- duped into voting against repealing a gas tax that was forced onto us by the state. Yes we want to pay even more for gas!
- we love voting for higher sales taxes for (insert virtually any reason)
- people love sanctuary cities and state
- highest rate of homelessness and poverty, one of the lowest in education, corrupt water management, bad water. We elect these people over and over.
- electing Jerry Brown again after his previous disaster 30 years ago
- Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are still around.
- the current state of San Francisco

Wrap it up in the right package and people will vote their freedoms away.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:41 PM   #466
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,618
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
It's a question I don't need to answer. First of all, I know plenty of people who happily live very close to nuclear plants - like 1000 - 2000 feet from Pickering nuclear.
I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.

If I am living next to a nuclear power plant, my chances of being harmed by a nuclear accident, or being irradiated by its everyday operations statistically very close to zero, certainly microscopically small.

If I am living next to a coal power plant, I am 100% certain to be ingesting pollutants and harmful particulates every day I am living there.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 12th February 2019 at 03:44 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:57 PM   #467
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,456
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Because both require very little effort?
Preventing is going to take a lot of effort. Done rationally over multiple decades it should be relatively painless. We can't go back in time and take that rational approach. Adaptation, who knows. It will magically happen because engineers and scientists can solve any problem we ask of them.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:58 PM   #468
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,281
McConnell is going to hold a vote for it, because he's a ****:

Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate would vote on the Green New Deal introduced last week by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate to give everybody an opportunity to go on record," McConnell told reporters.

The bill, which is not expected to pass the Republican-dominated upper chamber, could force some Democrats to make a politically awkward calculation.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:58 PM   #469
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Been to Cali lately?
Calimaaaaa!!!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:58 PM   #470
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,456
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
It's a question I don't need to answer. First of all, I know plenty of people who happily live very close to nuclear plants - like 1000 - 2000 feet from Pickering nuclear.



But the main thing, as I have said repeatedly is that the rapid nuclear build is only going to happen after the solar/wind/battery build fails spectacularly for the umpteenth time. And that will only be if civilization has sufficient time and resources left after they finally shed themselves of their current ideology.
People are saying that, are they?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 03:59 PM   #471
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,639
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Preventing is going to take a lot of effort. Done rationally over multiple decades it should be relatively painless. We can't go back in time and take that rational approach. Adaptation, who knows. It will magically happen because engineers and scientists can solve any problem we ask of them.
Yeah that was my point: they just want to sit on their thumbs and hope for the best.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
McConnell is going to hold a vote for it, because he's a ****:

Linky.
Wouldn't pass anyway. It doesn't sound like a very good deal.

McConnell is still a ****, though.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 04:43 PM   #472
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,618
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Been to Cali lately?
You live in Colombia?

(OK, just kidding)

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
- duped into voting against repealing a gas tax that was forced onto us by the state. Yes we want to pay even more for gas!
- we love voting for higher sales taxes for (insert virtually any reason)
Sometimes, people unselfishly vote for stuff that they think will make everyone's lives better. Its why countries like Norway consistently vote for higher taxes, they do not have the American "What's in it for me?" mentality.

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
- people love sanctuary cities and state
Most Californians I have met seem to be proud of their status as a state of sanctuary cities.

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
- highest rate of homelessness...
False.

California has the third highest rate of homelessness with 34 in every 10,000 people. Two states are worse off: New York and Hawaii.

New York ranks second with 45 homeless people per 10,000. Hawaii, meanwhile, ranks first with 51 per 10,000.

https://www.politifact.com/californi...kyrocketed-an/

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
... and poverty
False

California does not feature in the worst 10 US states for poverty. These are, in order, worst at the top

1. Mississippi
2=New Mexico.
2=Louisiana.
4. West Virginia.
5. Kentucky.
6. Alabama.
7. Arkansas
8. Oklahoma
9. South Carolina
10. Tennessee

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...the-us?onepage

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
one of the lowest in education

False


The worst educated states in the USA are, with the worst at the top

1. Mississippi
2. West Virginia
3. Louisiana
4. Arkansas
5. Alabama
6. Kentucky
7. Nevada
8. Tennessee
9. Oklahoma
10. New Mexico

California is right in the middle ranked at# 25

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/the-...s-in-2018.html

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
corrupt water management, bad water. We elect these people over and over.
- electing Jerry Brown again after his previous disaster 30 years ago
I know nothing about this so I can't comment

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
- Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are still around.
I am envious.

You are indeed fortunate to have such honest, principled and dedicated politicians representing you. Some poor saps are saddled with criminals like Trump & McConnell as well as Senators like Lindsay "which way's the wind blowin' today" Graham.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 12th February 2019 at 05:09 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:10 PM   #473
Zambo
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.

If I am living next to a nuclear power plant, my chances of being harmed by a nuclear accident, or being irradiated by its everyday operations statistically very close to zero, certainly microscopically small.

If I am living next to a coal power plant, I am 100% certain to be ingesting pollutants and harmful particulates every day I am living there.
I do agree with that.To reduce objections in the local community for new build coal plants the EIA will result in a stack somewhere around 100m to 250m high to disperse the more harmful emissions over a wider area and some dilution in the air is achieved, but that is not 100% effective. There is also coal dust released locally during tramsport.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:26 PM   #474
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
People are saying that, are they?
People are saying what? That they are happy to live close to a nuclear plant?

Yes - those who are close to Pickering and Bruce are generally happy with it, despite the barrage of lies they receive from Green groups about nuclear. They wouldn't live there otherwise. Those who are a bit farther away are more susceptible to the fearmongering.

My in-laws live very close to Bruce. They love living near and supporting the largest operating plant of completely clean power in the world.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:41 PM   #475
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,725
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Okay, got it. You only mean to get rid of cows that fart.
Pretty much, and the best way to do that is to find a way to stop them producing the gases in the first place. Solve the gas production in the stomachs, and solve your burping cow problem, and thus you have gotten rid of your burping cows.

Same thing works for polluting cars. If you want to keep the car, but it's polluting, you figure out why it's creating pollution and solve the problem, for instance installing a catalytic converter, and thus turn it into a non-polluting car.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 05:49 PM   #476
Zambo
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
Sorry for the late reply. I rarely post here because I am generally very busy, while at the same time, as I have said, I don't generally care about debating this topic because I feel that there is generally no sense in debating the views of the Greens which will continue to halt meaningful action against climate change for at least another decade or two.

The issue with the scarcity of some of the minerals and raw materials needed for wind and solar has been talked about a lot. I should say, that I don't think that this is actually going to be an issue that is going affect renewable energy because ways are found around these problems when they get bad enough, but while I don't think that there is a problem with the finiteness of essential materials for renewable energy, those who oppose nuclear energy are always harping about the finiteness of nuclear fuel which is orders of magnitude less of an issue than exists for renewables - which of course they ignore.

For me a much larger problem would be the obscene magnitude of the destructiveness caused by mining and processing for those essential materials.

And here are a couple more.

Mining for nuclear is far less destructive and has a much smaller footprint. That article also has good information about the environmental problems and dangerous child labor that are a part in the mining needed for the batteries that Greens think will allow wind and solar to become reliable sources of power. This is not creating a better world. This is ideologically blinkered people promoting a dystopia.

Now some people might say that these terrible consequences are justified because climate change is such a significant problem, but there are no real examples of renewable energy leading to a significant decrease in ghgs. People think there are, but there are not. Someone earlier in this thread said that conservatives should look at the industrious and technologically advanced Germans. But they have spent many billions over the last decade bringing a massive amount of renewable energy into their grid. It has increased the cost of electricity by a very substantial amount and their ghg emissions have dropped only a tiny percentage (much, much less than in the US over the same period of time - mostly accomplished by switching to natural gas). Germany has reduced ghgs by a pretty decent amount since 1990, but almost all of that was due to shutting done extremely dirty in East Germany after the merger. Despite very strong support from the population, and massive amounts of money, their renewable fantasies have been a complete failure. But they continue to double down on it.


And every time they double down. Every time they make a large public commitment for decades down the road, Greens swoon and say every other country should the same. They demand that every country should make the same commitment going forward, because they have no examples of actual success so far.

You would think that would give them pause. You would think that should make them reassess why renewable builds have accomplished nothing in terms of ghg reductions, despite evidence that every nuclear build - which they 100% oppose - accomplished a lot in terms of ghg reductions. But ideologues don't care about reality. They care about their fantasy.

In Ontario we massively decreased ghg emissions during the 70s and 80s through a large nuclear build. Then in the 90s our emission went back up dramatically when we took a lot of nuclear offline. Then in the early 2000s we decided we were going to lower those emissions again by a large scale wind and solar build, but when the government realized that was doing nothing for emissions (but caused our electricity bills to skyrocket) they brought nuclear back online. But they continued to want to build more wind and solar despite their own research showing that doing so would not only increase electricity bills further, but also would increase our ghgs. And we really don't even use much of the wind and solar we produce. Because it is so unreliable we simply dump most of it into neighboring provinces and states for almost free - despite us paying a lot for it. But despite all that our previous government, in the name of fighting climate change they wanted to build more wind and solar despite knowing that would increase emissions. This is nothing but virtue signalling.

The same is likely the case in Sweden. Posters have said that they plan on being 100% renewable in 2040. But they are also building more nuclear reactors and have said that nuclear will still providing plenty of electricity in 2040. But you have to virtue signal. And what has the pretty substantial wind and solar build in Sweden accomplished so far? Probably nothing. Their imports and exports of electricity have both grown substantially during this time (the same thing happened in Ontario) - meaning that it is most likely that when wind and solar are creating a lot of electricity they are just dumping most of it into neighboring countries, but when it is not producing much they are importing.

Wind and solar, even if they are cheap, make electricity in the grid more expensive for obvious reasons.


And while wind and solar are worthwhile in a couple instances (such as powering isolated areas) it will continue to fail everywhere else it is tried because the problems with it are unlikely to be overcome except by making electricity much more expensive. And even then success is questionable. So why do it? Virtue signalling while the planet burns.
I can see you feel strongly about this and probably feel frustrated by those not fully converted to the nuclear power option. But i will make a couple of points:

1. I don't find the mention of child labor for solar power materials extraction to be useful. The same states that allow that will also use child labor at some point in the nuclear power plant construction and decommissioning processes.

2. Ontario, and Canada in general has a good GHG emissions record. But is it correct to summarise that for Ontario the removal of the 20% CFPP share of the power generation mix was achieved due to a 50/50 split of increased share of nuclear and solar/wind.

3. Wind rather than solar seems more likely the way forward for recyclable energy in Canada (you record this is due to the "greens" for pricing nuclear out of the market). Considering that Canada has such a high level of nuclear and hydro power plants doesn't wind seem a good option for replacing the remaining CFPP, as you mention nuclear power costs seem unlikely to reduce sufficiently in the short to mid term.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 06:36 PM   #477
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,456
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
People are saying what? That they are happy to live close to a nuclear plant?



Yes - those who are close to Pickering and Bruce are generally happy with it, despite the barrage of lies they receive from Green groups about nuclear. They wouldn't live there otherwise. Those who are a bit farther away are more susceptible to the fearmongering.



My in-laws live very close to Bruce. They love living near and supporting the largest operating plant of completely clean power in the world.
I don't doubt it. Try and build a new one somewhere and see what the reaction is.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 07:01 PM   #478
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,618
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
No, it would mean that you only want to get rid of the cars that pollute.



Okay, got it. You only mean to get rid of cows that fart.
Love your uncritical thinking techniques.

You snip out the parts of my post that explain the parts you cherrypicked so that you can win the interwebs

True conspiricraft!
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 08:24 PM   #479
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,070
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Love your uncritical thinking techniques.

You snip out the parts of my post that explain the parts you cherrypicked so that you can win the interwebs

True conwspiricraft!
ftfy
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 08:57 PM   #480
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,673
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well duh! That means it ADDS CO2 on top of the CO2 we are already pumping into the atmosphere.
One of the many climate denier arguments goes roughly like this: "Because CO2 emitted by respiration and decay of organic matter is dwarfs CO2 released from burning fossil fuels, fossil fuels must not be a problem"

The problem with that is that these process don't increase atmospheric CO2. They can't because all the CO2 released this way was pulled out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis in the first place. An analogy would be suggesting rainfall can cause sea level rise, this obviously can't happen because all the rain water came from the oceans in the fist place.


Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The 100-year global warming potential of methane is 28, which means that over a 100 year period, it traps 28 times more heat/mass unit than carbon dioxide and 32 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions.
Sort of. This only holds are their current relative atmospheric concentrations, but "strength" scales inversely with concentrations

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

I have some news for you. Methane levels in the atmosphere ARE increasing, and rapidly. Global concentrations have risen from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1800 ppb by 2011, 2.5 fold increase, and it is currently at its highest value in at least 800,000 years
from Realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ve-pie-charts/
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.