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 18th February 2019, 12:00 PM   #681
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, definitely not, that's pretty clear now.

Since the overreaction was caused by the nuclear plant problems, I don't think it's unreasonable to put those deaths in the category of "nuclear". But that risk is still low, and we should keep in mind that it was from an overreaction, not from radiation, and hopefully we won't overreact again next time.
Zig, that's way too reasonable. Sounds like we're going to have to agree, here. That's just... weird!
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 12:04 PM   #682
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I could be on board with nuclear power but only if it was owned and operated by the public. The Navy has the safest and most reliable nuclear program out there and if nuclear power plants were run in the same way, I think it would be fine.

Physicist and science fiction writer Robert Forward once claimed that the key to developing new and better energy sources was to have the projects run by engineers who were specifically working to create power plants rather than scientists doing general research. As I recall, the essay in question was talking about antimatter production, and was phenomenally unrealistically optimistic about how close we are to the technology, but the idea seems sound in principle.
Armitage72 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 18th February 2019, 12:10 PM   #683
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It isnt city folk that did that. Unless you mean rich bankers and corporations. Them city folk?
Actually it started with the original "New Deal" by FDR as a way to drive black farmers off their land. Typical Democrat racist policy, pretend to "help" with welfare, and it actually is policy designed to destroy you. It was successful too, driving over 90% of the black farmers in the south off their land and into the ghettos where they were given even more welfare to make sure they never had a chance to improve themselves.

You can read up on it here: The Butz Stops Here: Why the Food Movement
Needs to Rethink Agricultural History


But the policy never really left and slowly over time it changed from a purposeful attempt to drive black farmers off the land and became a strategy to drive all small family farmers off their land. ESPECIALLY targeted were land owners attempting to manage the land using conservation. Hence the "get big or get out" campaigns from various political leaders after FDR.

A reflection on the lasting legacy of 1970s USDA Secretary Earl Butz

Those policies designed to drive farmers off their land by destabilizing them financially are still in effect today, but because they have become too effective at their designed purpose, there are new policies attempting to pay for new infrastructure for small local farmers. Most of it is gone. Driven out of business by pretty much every side of the political aisle in Washington.

Local Food Promotion Program

Really annoying to have the USDA both subsidizing and regulating the rebuilding of local infrastructure and also subsidizing and regulating the destruction of all local infrastructure by financially destabilizing it at the same time!

Probably too little too late anyway. Something about a house divided that can't stand? But at least they figured out the dynamic is destroying the country from the foundation up and something must be done to reverse the trend.

Meanwhile while the foundations of civilization crumble, we still have the biggest environmental crisis known to mankind to deal with, the Anthropocene. And as it turns out the only thing we humans do at anywhere near the scale required to fix that problem is agriculture! .... But right now agriculture is the second leading cause of AGW rather than the largest mitigation strategy for AGW.

We need to change that. We do it by paying for a service and letting conservative capitalism drive the agricultural changes required, rather than trying to continue this micromanaging and welfare programs from the USDA.

Oh and why is it relevant? Because it was the New Deal that caused all this in the first place and the Green New Deal will only make it worse!
__________________
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

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 18th February 2019 at 12:22 PM.
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 18th February 2019, 12:10 PM   #684
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,839
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What part of "quote the relevant parts" was unclear?
None. I quoted my first post to you which is the relevant part.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 18th February 2019, 12:22 PM   #685
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
None. I quoted my first post to you which is the relevant part.
And that first post to me doesn't quote any part of the link. So it seems that you have, in fact, quite a problem understanding my request.

Ziggurat and myself have addressed all this. Even if we accept your figures, with caveat, they are still very low, and don't change the fact that nuclear remains the safest form of mass electricity production. I don't really accept them anyway, however, because dying from running away in panic from something that you don't need to run away from doesn't count as being killed by that thing.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 12:32 PM   #686
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,839
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And that first post to me doesn't quote any part of the link. So it seems that you have, in fact, quite a problem understanding my request.
I'd be quoting one of the entire links. And the point is I told you that the question you are asking now was addressed in my very first post to you.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't really accept them anyway, however, because dying from running away in panic from something that you don't need to run away from doesn't count as being killed by that thing.
No. No. No. Much of the evacuation was necessary. In fact there is quite a large zone that is still evacuated. There is no doubt that some of the evacuation, maybe even all of it, was necessary or at least prudent.

You are really willfully ignorant here.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 18th February 2019, 12:38 PM   #687
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I'd be quoting one of the entire links. And the point is I told you that the question you are asking now was addressed in my very first post to you.
So nothing, then.

Quote:
No. No. No. Much of the evacuation was necessary. In fact there is quite a large zone that is still evacuated.
That's circular reasoning, though. How do we know it was necessary? Well, it was evacuated, wasn't it?

Do you have ANY actual argument to make that addresses what I've told you? Stop playing the learned and exasperated party. Your links have been addressed. What else have you got?
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 12:45 PM   #688
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,839
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's circular reasoning, though. How do we know it was necessary? Well, it was evacuated, wasn't it?
I'm not presenting you "reasoning", I'm presenting you with facts that are supported in the links I cited and are easily confirmed by google. They are facts that any honest person who wants to have an informed opinion should be familiar with before spouting off "no one was killed". The necessity of most, if not all, of the original evacuation and the current evacuation is not seriously in doubt. Only the duration is questioned.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 18th February 2019 at 12:50 PM.
RecoveringYuppy 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 18th February 2019, 12:55 PM   #689
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I'm not presenting you "reasoning", I'm presenting you with facts that are supported in the links I cited and are easily confirmed by google. They are facts that any honest person who wants to have an informed opinion should be familiar with before spouting off "no one was killed".
"It was necessary" is not a fact. It's a reasoning. One that depends on a demonstration you've not made. All of your argument depends on whether the evacuation was largely necessary. Only then can you reasonably claim that the deaths during evacuation can be counted as a result of the Fukushima disaster. So far you've not done so. Insisting that it's obvious doesn't cut it; it only highlights the possibility that you're simply arguing backwards from your conclusion.

The plant itself didn't kill anybody even when the worst case scenario actually happened. You have to add deaths from running away from it (again, which you've not established as necessary, only insisting that it was and that anybody who disagrees is dishonest) in order to make your case that someone died as a result of the incident.

And it STILL doesn't change the fact that nuclear is the safest mass electricity production technology.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 01:00 PM   #690
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,557
Well, Fukushima , like many parts of Europe to this day, have a problem with radioactive boars - because they are the land bio-accumulators on land from mushrooms, etc.
Boar meat is a traditional food stock that has become unavailable.
The question is: what kind of sea creatures are the bio-accumulators that will, in decades to come, become hazardous as a food source because of Fukushima ?

Because of these extremely long-term effects, nuclear power is just not something investors want to be burdened with.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
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 18th February 2019, 01:07 PM   #691
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Because of these extremely long-term effects, nuclear power is just not something investors want to be burdened with.
Then we're screwed, because there are no alternatives. Solar is not bad, but it isn't anywhere near what we need for our energy consumption, requires a **** load of rare earth, and is a pain to install and maintain, among other things. The other alternatives are worse, and batteries still don't cut it.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 01:12 PM   #692
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,839
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I could be on board with nuclear power but only if it was owned and operated by the public. The Navy has the safest and most reliable nuclear program out there and if nuclear power plants were run in the same way, I think it would be fine.
Interesting. I always assumed that comparing Navy reactors to commercial electrical reactors was a bad comparison because I assumed a single ship would be using a very small reactor not comparable to generating reactors. But I just looked a few up and find they can be 100MW plus which seems comparable to me. So I wonder if this is more practical than I thought.

How much do Navy reactors cost to operate?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 18th February 2019, 01:19 PM   #693
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Then we're screwed, because there are no alternatives. Solar is not bad, but it isn't anywhere near what we need for our energy consumption, requires a **** load of rare earth, and is a pain to install and maintain, among other things. The other alternatives are worse, and batteries still don't cut it.
No Belz, we are not screwed necessarily. I am actually in favor of Nuclear where appropriate. But it is not required to reverse AGW.

AGW is fundamentally a problem with the carbon cycle, and we have two sides to that cycle. Energy is important, but equally important is the sequestration back into the soil.

Once you realize we can actually change agricultural methods to sequester somewhere in the range of 7.5 - 30.0 billion tonnes of CO2e per year AND that's just arable cropland...not even counting the controversial rehabilitation of desertified land Allan Savory talked about in his famous TedTalk (which is even larger BTW), then you realize we don't need to eliminate all fossil fuels use immediately. We can balance the carbon cycle with far more moderate reductions in fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy is beneficial for many reasons, but it is no more a silver bullet than any other mitigation method. To make this work we need a balanced approach from all sides that balances the carbon cycle. That is the only thing that has any chances to work.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 01:21 PM   #694
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
No Belz, we are not screwed necessarily. I am actually in favor of Nuclear where appropriate. But it is not required to reverse AGW.
Of course not. We could, alternatively, kill 90% of all humans and largely solve the problem.

Quote:
AGW is fundamentally a problem with the carbon cycle, and we have two sides to that cycle. Energy is important, but equally important is the sequestration back into the soil.
Absolutely, we can do that too, but you still have to lower your carbon production at some point.

Quote:
Nuclear energy is beneficial for many reasons, but it is no more a silver bullet than any other mitigation method.
I'd never claim that it is. That it's our best bet doesn't mean it's flawless. Flawless would be a He3-He3 fusion reactor, but we're prety damned far away from that.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 01:24 PM   #695
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Absolutely, we can do that too, but you still have to lower your carbon production at some point.
Why? I mean why do we need to lower it beyond what we can already with other renewables and natural gas?
__________________
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

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 18th February 2019 at 01:25 PM.
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 18th February 2019, 01:59 PM   #696
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Why? I mean why do we need to lower it beyond what we can already with other renewables and natural gas?
Are you asking me why we should stop pumping poisonous greenhouse gases into our atmosphere? Because 1) if we lower the output, we don't need to constantly pull it back from the atmosphere and 2) these ressources that put out CO2 aren't renewable; in fact, they're not very plentiful at all.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 01:59 PM   #697
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,557
It took decades of government subsidized research and production to make wind and solar competitive.
It will take another one or three decades to design and build safer, cheaper and better nuclear reactors - and I'm all for spending billions on this project.
But what is currently fission technology isn't worth building.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
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 18th February 2019, 02:02 PM   #698
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It took decades of government subsidized research and production to make wind and solar competitive.
It will take another one or three decades to design and build safer, cheaper and better nuclear reactors - and I'm all for spending billions on this project.
But what is currently fission technology isn't worth building.
Could you expand on that rather than repeat it? By every metric that makes any sense, nuclear is still safer than the alternatives.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 02:05 PM   #699
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are you asking me why we should stop pumping poisonous greenhouse gases into our atmosphere? Because 1) if we lower the output, we don't need to constantly pull it back from the atmosphere and 2) these ressources that put out CO2 aren't renewable; in fact, they're not very plentiful at all.
But we do need to constantly pull it back from the atmosphere. And I am pretty sure we don't want to pull it all the way back to where it causes another glaciation event.

So why do we need to eliminate 100% fossil fuel emissions, when simply lowering emissions and increasing sequestration has the capability to balance the carbon cycle at this "sweet spot" of not too hot and not too cold? (about a degree lower than now)
__________________
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

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 18th February 2019 at 02:07 PM.
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 18th February 2019, 02:10 PM   #700
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
But we do need to constantly pull it back from the atmosphere.
Yes but only so much as we put out. As if, if we were in 1750, we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

Quote:
And I am pretty sure we don't want to pull it all the way back to where it causes another glaciation event.
Careful. You never know how silly we can get.

Quote:
So why do we need to eliminate 100% fossil fuel emissions, when simply lowering emissions and increasing sequestration has the capability to balance the carbon cycle at this "sweet spot" of not too hot and not too cold? (about a degree lower than now)
Who said anything about eliminating 100% of CO2 emissions? I only talked about reducing it by a large amount.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 02:12 PM   #701
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Who said anything about eliminating 100% of CO2 emissions? I only talked about reducing it by a large amount.
Specifically how large? And net or gross?
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 02:15 PM   #702
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,655
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Specifically how large? And net or gross?
You don't ask exactly to the percentage point how much black tar heroin you can mainline before you OD. You just stop shooting up heroin.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 18th February 2019, 02:19 PM   #703
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You don't ask exactly to the percentage point how much black tar heroin you can mainline before you OD. You just stop shooting up heroin.
Black tar heroin is always poison to an addict. But carbon dioxide is a necessary component of all life on the planet. It only becomes a pollutant when we produce more than the environment can cycle back and we get too much building up in the atmosphere.
__________________
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

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 18th February 2019 at 02:20 PM.
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 18th February 2019, 02:19 PM   #704
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Specifically how large? And net or gross?
81.095166%, exactly.

Seriously, I'm not a climate scientist. But removing motor vehicles from the roads and replacing coal plants with something else would be sufficient, in my opinion.

However, the question of the number of humans would remain.

Quote:
black tar heroin is always poison to an addict. But carbon dioxide is a necessary component of all life on the planet.
There's CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of how much we put out.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 02:19 PM   #705
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,529
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Interesting. I always assumed that comparing Navy reactors to commercial electrical reactors was a bad comparison because I assumed a single ship would be using a very small reactor not comparable to generating reactors. But I just looked a few up and find they can be 100MW plus which seems comparable to me. So I wonder if this is more practical than I thought.

How much do Navy reactors cost to operate?
Navy reactors use highly enriched uranium. This allows a more compact design and longer periods between refueling. Those are especially useful features for ships, but the use of highly enriched uranium is... less than ideal for civilian use.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 18th February 2019, 02:31 PM   #706
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Navy reactors use highly enriched uranium. This allows a more compact design and longer periods between refueling. Those are especially useful features for ships, but the use of highly enriched uranium is... less than ideal for civilian use.
Well, this again highlights a problem that most people don't want to face: there is no perfect solution. Coal pumps enormous amounts of poison in the atmosphere, contributes to massive climate change, puts out loads of toxic and radioactive waste out into the environment, and relies on finite ressources. Wind puts out pitiful amounts of electricity and is unreliable, and solar, though theoretically better, only works during part of the day and year, and results in massive mining of rare earth that can destroy local ecosystems. Both of those require some sort of storage system in batteries that can then produce the power we need during downtime, which we don't quite have yet, and which raises the problem of disposal and toxic waste again. Hydro can't be used everywhere and floods large areas, resulting in vegetal decomposition that threatens the underwater ecosystem. Geothermal is not very useful, either, and I don't know enough about natural gas to comment. Many of those technologies can also fail spectacularily, namely nuclear, hydro and coal, but even the other ones can cause quite a bit of damage or disruption if they fail, and can be more vulnerable to vandalism. Fusion, of course, is still in the realm of sci-fi, and other fission technologies are not yet developed because of the lack of interest or military application.

If you produce megawatts, you WILL pollute and damage the environment, and you WILL get people killed. There's no way around it. The question is: what are your criteria for what counts as a better solution, and which combination of technologies is the best bet? If we're talking about safety and quality of life, I think that bet is a nuclear bedrock with a solar periphery. Hydro and others where you can, but coal has got to go.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 02:37 PM   #707
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,655
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If we're talking about safety and quality of life, I think that bet is a nuclear bedrock with a solar periphery. Hydro and others where you can, but coal has got to go.
Agreed.

"The Grid" needs to be nuclear, maybe with some hydro and wind farms and tidal generators here and there as practical. This would power the infrastructure; utilities, public services, hospitals, military bases, schools, designated emergency shelters, porno theaters, ya know the essentials.

Private homes and businesses should run on solar where possible, with the grid as a backup/supplement.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 18th February 2019, 02:44 PM   #708
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Seriously, I'm not a climate scientist. But removing motor vehicles from the roads and replacing coal plants with something else would be sufficient, in my opinion.

There's CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of how much we put out.
Sarcasm and population comment aside, I am seriously asking an electrical engineering question that hopefully you can answer.

Given the issues surrounding base load needs for maintaining a sufficiently robust electrical grid, how much can we reduce the fossil fuel side and replace it with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc.. Before we start requiring more dependable base load sources? Then translate that into reductions in fossil fuel CO2 we can make right now at current technology.

Ill get you started. Right now we can drop in natural gas everywhere coal is used and Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less CO2 when burned in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. [1]

[1] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2010. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants, Volume 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. Revision 2. November. DOE/NETL-2010/1397. United States Department of Energy.

That was 9 years ago. I am certain by now we almost could have replaced every coal plant on the planet by now and the power grids' emissions would be reduced 50%. We could drop it even further by using more solar hydro and wind, but it is my understanding costs skyrocket if too much of the grid is by types of renewables that are not always reliable and fail because of the weather or time of day etc.

So how much more can we lower it before we need run into those problems? And how much fossil fuel CO2 will that save us?
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 02:47 PM   #709
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,839
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Navy reactors use highly enriched uranium. This allows a more compact design and longer periods between refueling. Those are especially useful features for ships, but the use of highly enriched uranium is... less than ideal for civilian use.

To be clear when I said smaller I was referring to power output only. I'm aware they achieve their compact design and other aspects by using HEU but didn't have the compactness in mind. The cost of HEU fuel could be prohibitive though. Cost seems an appropriate topic for this thread. Other aspects of HEU may need a separate thread, separate forum even.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 18th February 2019, 02:49 PM   #710
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,934
If 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from "agriculture", then better management of our food production systems is an important area of emphasis for trying to stem the most dangerous levels of warming we will otherwise experience over the next several decades. But it's no panacea; we need re-thinking of the carbon footprint of our homes and businesses (11%), industry (22%), electricity generation (28%), and transportation (28%).

So sure, let's pull down the fences, move the cattle off the feedlots, let them graze native grasses, quit eating them and let their nutrients really return to the soil, and focus on human protein from lab-grown meats and crickets raised in repurposed skyscrapers that become towers of hydoponic goodness.

Let's also . . .

Deploy solar desalination units. Cut WAY back on flying and driving everywhere. Switch to distributed renewable/nuclear electricity generation, with the renewable almost exclusively installed within the built environment. Grow food where our lawns used to be. Retrofit our homes for increased efficiency. Wear heavier sweaters and stop refrigerating our homes and businesses in the heat of summer. Start making out with random people in huge crowds during flu season. (Gross, but probably effective.)

We need to do all of the above, people. A 100% effort aimed at 10% of the problem can only be a 10% solution.

People who talk about addressing AGW without an emphasis on a nuclear power generation revolution are not actually addressing AGW.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 3.28.06 PM.jpg (22.1 KB, 1 views)
The Shrike 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 18th February 2019, 03:09 PM   #711
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Given the issues surrounding base load needs for maintaining a sufficiently robust electrical grid, how much can we reduce the fossil fuel side and replace it with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc.. Before we start requiring more dependable base load sources? Then translate that into reductions in fossil fuel CO2 we can make right now at current technology.

Ill get you started. Right now we can drop in natural gas everywhere coal is used and Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less CO2 when burned in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. [1]

[1] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2010. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants, Volume 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. Revision 2. November. DOE/NETL-2010/1397. United States Department of Energy.

That was 9 years ago. I am certain by now we almost could have replaced every coal plant on the planet by now and the power grids' emissions would be reduced 50%. We could drop it even further by using more solar hydro and wind, but it is my understanding costs skyrocket if too much of the grid is by types of renewables that are not always reliable and fail because of the weather or time of day etc.

So how much more can we lower it before we need run into those problems? And how much fossil fuel CO2 will that save us?
You can't seriously expect me to have those numbers. You should ask experts in those fields.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial: reduce our CO2 emissions as much as possible, and sequester the excess we put into the atmosphere. Then level it off.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 03:14 PM   #712
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

How are they "good" alternatives? It's absolutely not "in evidence" that batteries can supply half the world in electricity during the night, especially during very hot or cold days, or during weeks where one barely sees the sun through the clouds. It's fantasy. You need a type of power generation that does _not_ rely on the weather.
Electricity usage is not steady during a 24hr period. Let's say the base load is 20 to 25% of the total and that is what is needed at night. Day time adds another 55 to 60% and then the remaining is a peak of around 20% between around 4pm and 7pm (details depending on the country and whether rural or city).

Wind power does generate at night.

So you need a mix of power sources, wind and solar together with storage can provide most of the requirement. To that you can add hydro (including pump storage), geothermal and nuclear (except for safety reasons I doubt this will be an alternative in the short term for developing countries - and is an expensive power source)

As a first step solar and wind can be used to replace coal while gas is still in use to bridge the gap as countries build up their renewable power grid.
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 18th February 2019, 03:34 PM   #713
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Of course not. We could, alternatively, kill 90% of all humans and largely solve the problem.
The easiest method for which would also involve nuclear technology!

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Given the issues surrounding base load needs for maintaining a sufficiently robust electrical grid, how much can we reduce the fossil fuel side and replace it with solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc.. Before we start requiring more dependable base load sources?
There's no particular answer because it depends on storage and distribution, and we could go to 100% with enough storage and/or distribution. A solar station with a bunch of batteries/supercapacitors can maintain constant output by charging the storage system in mid-day and letting energy out from it at night. A network of interconnected power plants can distribute power to where the windmills are standing still from where they're spinning and adjust that flow an hour later when both air masses move on. Postulate different levels of storage & distribution abilities, and you get different answers for your question, but there's nothing in particular to stop it from going all the way.

Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
If 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from "agriculture", then better management of our food production systems is an important area of emphasis for trying to stem the most dangerous levels of warming we will otherwise experience over the next several decades... So sure, let's pull down the fences, move the cattle off the feedlots, let them graze native grasses, quit eating them and let their nutrients really return to the soil, and focus on human protein from lab-grown meats...
Once we can make good enough meat without the whole animal, the land we're using on them now can be allowed to return to a natural state, which in some cases would also "sequester" more carbon.

Last edited by Delvo; 18th February 2019 at 03:35 PM.
Delvo 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 18th February 2019, 03:41 PM   #714
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
The easiest method for which would also involve nuclear technology!
You mean use nuclear technology AND eliminate 90% of humanity?
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 03:50 PM   #715
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,692
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
Electricity usage is not steady during a 24hr period. Let's say the base load is 20 to 25% of the total and that is what is needed at night. Day time adds another 55 to 60% and then the remaining is a peak of around 20% between around 4pm and 7pm (details depending on the country and whether rural or city).
Yeah, but that's it: the peak of usage is just past the peak light. I'm not sure you can store really that much, and in the hotter or colder days, you need quite a bit of electricity during the night too.

Quote:
Wind power does generate at night.
Yes but not when the wind is too weak or too strong.

Quote:
So you need a mix of power sources, wind and solar together with storage can provide most of the requirement. To that you can add hydro (including pump storage), geothermal and nuclear (except for safety reasons I doubt this will be an alternative in the short term for developing countries - and is an expensive power source)
Doesn't sound bad to me.
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 04:37 PM   #716
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
The easiest method for which would also involve nuclear technology!

There's no particular answer because it depends on storage and distribution, and we could go to 100% with enough storage and/or distribution. A solar station with a bunch of batteries/supercapacitors can maintain constant output by charging the storage system in mid-day and letting energy out from it at night. A network of interconnected power plants can distribute power to where the windmills are standing still from where they're spinning and adjust that flow an hour later when both air masses move on. Postulate different levels of storage & distribution abilities, and you get different answers for your question, but there's nothing in particular to stop it from going all the way.
Yes I have heard this too, but also heard there are some constraints due to cost and manufacturing capacity of unproven storage systems. What I mean is right now at current technology wind is cheaper than coal, and in some circumstances solar too, and hydro always was. So given we could just grab the low fruit where available, and also replace any extra beyond that with natural gas plants replacing coal....how much would that save us here in the US?

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post

Once we can make good enough meat without the whole animal, the land we're using on them now can be allowed to return to a natural state, which in some cases would also "sequester" more carbon.
The natural state of the vast majority of the agricultural land in the US is prairie with even more animals than now! Including but not limited to vast numbers of large herbivores. And that natural biome is a vast carbon sink..even counting the animals.

There is absolutely no reason we must raise our domestic animals in a lab. It is counter-productive. The exact opposite of what is needed.
__________________
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

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 18th February 2019 at 04:47 PM.
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 18th February 2019, 04:41 PM   #717
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

Yes but not when the wind is too weak or too strong.

You already have CFPP with generation units of 600MW or 1000MW. For maintenance they can shutdown for 2 weeks, a power grid can manage.

I see also a solar plant that is heating salt as a storage, someone else here mentioned fly wheels. Just extending solar by these methods by 3 hours a day helps with the peak load.
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 18th February 2019, 04:45 PM   #718
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
If 9% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from "agriculture", then better management of our food production systems is an important area of emphasis for trying to stem the most dangerous levels of warming we will otherwise experience over the next several decades. But it's no panacea; we need re-thinking of the carbon footprint of our homes and businesses (11%), industry (22%), electricity generation (28%), and transportation (28%).

So sure, let's pull down the fences, move the cattle off the feedlots, let them graze native grasses, quit eating them and let their nutrients really return to the soil, and focus on human protein from lab-grown meats and crickets raised in repurposed skyscrapers that become towers of hydoponic goodness.

Let's also . . .

Deploy solar desalination units. Cut WAY back on flying and driving everywhere. Switch to distributed renewable/nuclear electricity generation, with the renewable almost exclusively installed within the built environment. Grow food where our lawns used to be. Retrofit our homes for increased efficiency. Wear heavier sweaters and stop refrigerating our homes and businesses in the heat of summer. Start making out with random people in huge crowds during flu season. (Gross, but probably effective.)

We need to do all of the above, people. A 100% effort aimed at 10% of the problem can only be a 10% solution.

People who talk about addressing AGW without an emphasis on a nuclear power generation revolution are not actually addressing AGW.
Pretty much agree with everything here except the large crowd makeout sessions and the lab grown meat. That's not a fetish I can get behind at all....so to speak. And lab grown meat is the opposite of whats needed.

Just remember though, 9-10% on the emissions side is meaningless to calculating the sequestration rate. Those two are entirely unrelated things biophysically. The sequestration of carbon in the soil is by no means limited to only 9% of emissions. Instead if agriculture were to sequester 20% of emissions while also reducing agricultural emissions 50 % then the net would be 24.5% reduction in annual CO2 emissions. We could even get over 100% with the right balance.
__________________
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

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 18th February 2019 at 05:13 PM.
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 18th February 2019, 04:53 PM   #719
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You can't seriously expect me to have those numbers. You should ask experts in those fields.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial: reduce our CO2 emissions as much as possible, and sequester the excess we put into the atmosphere. Then level it off.
We are both saying that, but you are willing to kill off 90% of the human population and can't even be expected to have any numbers and yet you want to be taken seriously? You just said earlier without nuclear we are screwed, what do you base that on?
__________________
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 18th February 2019, 05:16 PM   #720
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,801
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Someone should tell the insurance companies this. Maybe then, they would actually insure a nuclear power plant. Instead, these plants are insured by the government because no insurance company will entertain the idea.
From what I'm reading the estimated cleanup is now in the $250 billion range. Even if they were to underwrite it, the likely result is that the company would be pushed into bankruptcy and the bill would fall to the public anyway.


Chernobyl is worse because no one even knows how to clean it up. A newer larger containment facility completely covering the first one was just finished, but building ever larger containment facilities ever 50 years for the 10 000 years isn't exactly a viable plan.
__________________
"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 11:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.