Conquer Club

Rachel Maddow is the best person

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:58 pm

Dukasaur wrote:And that's precisely where you're wrong. China may in toto use less energy than the U.S. (although catching up fast) but it produces it in the cheapest ways imaginable, mostly in coal-fired plants with no emission controls whatsoever. Altogether Asia fires up 85% of the coal burned in the world, mostly in plants with little or no filtration or scrubbing, while North America burns less than 10%, all of it subject to strict sulfur standards that include mandatory scrubbing unless the targets can be met without it (which does sometimes happen) and a variety of other restrictions.


You're ignoring the interconnectedness of it all. The reason China is so rapidly doing what it does is precisely because of the large disparity between "developed" nations and "undeveloped" nations. We have created a global society where some countries have access to high standards of living, and created these high standards largely at the expense of other countries, who were left in the dust. As a result, those nations are rapidly industrializing so that they can be globally competitive, but are doing so at the cost of environmental friendliness. We are the problem precisely because everyone else wants to achieve the same standard of living that we have, and the world cannot support that.

At any rate, that argument has no bearing on the fact that China's pollution is not the cause of the world's energy problems, which is the argument I was actually making in the post you apparently didn't read carefully.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby thegreekdog on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:04 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:And that's precisely where you're wrong. China may in toto use less energy than the U.S. (although catching up fast) but it produces it in the cheapest ways imaginable, mostly in coal-fired plants with no emission controls whatsoever. Altogether Asia fires up 85% of the coal burned in the world, mostly in plants with little or no filtration or scrubbing, while North America burns less than 10%, all of it subject to strict sulfur standards that include mandatory scrubbing unless the targets can be met without it (which does sometimes happen) and a variety of other restrictions.


You're ignoring the interconnectedness of it all. The reason China is so rapidly doing what it does is precisely because of the large disparity between "developed" nations and "undeveloped" nations. We have created a global society where some countries have access to high standards of living, and created these high standards largely at the expense of other countries, who were left in the dust. As a result, those nations are rapidly industrializing so that they can be globally competitive, but are doing so at the cost of environmental friendliness. We are the problem precisely because everyone else wants to achieve the same standard of living that we have, and the world cannot support that.

At any rate, that argument has no bearing on the fact that China's pollution is not the cause of the world's energy problems, which is the argument I was actually making in the post you apparently didn't read carefully.


So what's your solution? Or solutions.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:05 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby thegreekdog on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:08 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.


Sorry, obviously I did not read all these various posts.

How do you propose to increase the production and consumption of nuclear energy?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:13 am

thegreekdog wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.


Sorry, obviously I did not read all these various posts.

How do you propose to increase the production and consumption of nuclear energy?


Well, the relevant technology already exists to use nuclear power on a large scale for general energy grid purposes. Nuclear cells in cars is still a way off, but it's not going to get significantly closer with time if we don't put funding into the science.

There are many promising nuclear power sources that will be explored in the next couple of decades, including thorium fission, and fusion. These two in particular have the ability to be expanded on much larger scales than uranium reactors, but they need to get some monetary backing if they are going to scale commercially.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby thegreekdog on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:24 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.


Sorry, obviously I did not read all these various posts.

How do you propose to increase the production and consumption of nuclear energy?


Well, the relevant technology already exists to use nuclear power on a large scale for general energy grid purposes. Nuclear cells in cars is still a way off, but it's not going to get significantly closer with time if we don't put funding into the science.

There are many promising nuclear power sources that will be explored in the next couple of decades, including thorium fission, and fusion. These two in particular have the ability to be expanded on much larger scales than uranium reactors, but they need to get some monetary backing if they are going to scale commercially.


It seems that alternative energy is typically only viable when supported by government incentives (I don't believe that, but that seems to be what history has shown). So, we have tax credits, tax breaks, and incentives for things like ethanol, solar, wind, electric cars (which I think are hysterical*), etc. Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

* A few words on electric cars, for those who care. Electric cars are undoubtedly good for the environment. However, the way people go on about them cracks me up. One of my female friends, who is supposedly very environmentally friendly, has a Volt. She gets her electricity from coal. Just saying.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:31 am

thegreekdog wrote:It seems that alternative energy is typically only viable when supported by government incentives (I don't believe that, but that seems to be what history has shown). So, we have tax credits, tax breaks, and incentives for things like ethanol, solar, wind, electric cars (which I think are hysterical*), etc.


It's just like any other financial venture. You need some sort of initial investment so that the first ones can prove it's commercially viable.

Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?


People are generally worried about the idea of being principally reliant on nuclear energy, because of unwarranted beliefs about its dangers.

* A few words on electric cars, for those who care. Electric cars are undoubtedly good for the environment. However, the way people go on about them cracks me up. One of my female friends, who is supposedly very environmentally friendly, has a Volt. She gets her electricity from coal. Just saying.


Those individuals who use electric cars consume, on average, at most half as much of non-renewable resources like coal as those who use standard gasoline powered cars (at least, when it comes to the energy requirements of their cars). Electric cars are indeed environmentally friendly, compared to the status quo. You can't cause change all at one time. Individuals can only make incremental strides, after all.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:43 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:And that's precisely where you're wrong. China may in toto use less energy than the U.S. (although catching up fast) but it produces it in the cheapest ways imaginable, mostly in coal-fired plants with no emission controls whatsoever. Altogether Asia fires up 85% of the coal burned in the world, mostly in plants with little or no filtration or scrubbing, while North America burns less than 10%, all of it subject to strict sulfur standards that include mandatory scrubbing unless the targets can be met without it (which does sometimes happen) and a variety of other restrictions.


You're ignoring the interconnectedness of it all. The reason China is so rapidly doing what it does is precisely because of the large disparity between "developed" nations and "undeveloped" nations. We have created a global society where some countries have access to high standards of living, and created these high standards largely at the expense of other countries, who were left in the dust. As a result, those nations are rapidly industrializing so that they can be globally competitive, but are doing so at the cost of environmental friendliness. We are the problem precisely because everyone else wants to achieve the same standard of living that we have, and the world cannot support that.

At any rate, that argument has no bearing on the fact that China's pollution is not the cause of the world's energy problems, which is the argument I was actually making in the post you apparently didn't read carefully.

Well, I do have a habit of what some people would call "sniping" -- I rarely get interested in the central theme of a thread, but sometimes I get interested in peripheral issues that they generate. So, it's not so much that I don't know what you're saying, but that I wanted to reply only to one specific component. Perhaps because I find that discussions that are too broad in scope rarely produce a positive result, so I try to zero in on the fulcrum.

Anyway. A lot of what you say I won't disagree with. The new industrial powers are careless about stuff like environmental protection because they're trying to catch up to our standard of living. Yes. But I'll disagree with you when you say "we are the problem." A problem is something that, if removed, would resolve the situation. Ask yourself what would happen if all of us (the old-rich nations, the G7) were to drop dead tomorrow. Would everybody in Shanghai and Mumbai and Djakarta say, "Oh, good. Now we don't have to struggle to catch up any more!"?

Of course not. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once they know what standard of living is possible, they will strive for it, even if we were to vanish without a trace. We were all happy with black and white TVs and monaural radios, until the unfortunate day that we first heard a stereo or first saw a colour TV, and after that we were never happy again.

Making the old industrial world poor will not slake the new industrial world's hunger to be rich.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28173
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby rdsrds2120 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:46 am

thegreekdog wrote:
It seems that alternative energy is typically only viable when supported by government incentives (I don't believe that, but that seems to be what history has shown). So, we have tax credits, tax breaks, and incentives for things like ethanol, solar, wind, electric cars (which I think are hysterical*), etc. Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

* A few words on electric cars, for those who care. Electric cars are undoubtedly good for the environment. However, the way people go on about them cracks me up. One of my female friends, who is supposedly very environmentally friendly, has a Volt. She gets her electricity from coal. Just saying.


That's not really a fair standard of being environmentally friendly since coal produces the largest percentage of energy for us currently, and there isn't a choice on different powers produced by different means. However, it's good to note that power plants use a variety of sources for electricity, but the consumer doesn't get to really say. For example, mine and anybody else with Consumer's Energy has the following composition:

Image

So, your friend may be getting 48.7% of her electricity from coal -- less than half.

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:55 am

Dukasaur wrote:Anyway. A lot of what you say I won't disagree with. The new industrial powers are careless about stuff like environmental protection because they're trying to catch up to our standard of living. Yes. But I'll disagree with you when you say "we are the problem." A problem is something that, if removed, would resolve the situation. Ask yourself what would happen if all of us (the old-rich nations, the G7) were to drop dead tomorrow. Would everybody in Shanghai and Mumbai and Djakarta say, "Oh, good. Now we don't have to struggle to catch up any more!"?


No, but if that were the case, there would be a lot less competition for the existing natural resources, and that would give the world a lot more time to develop the technology it needs to sustain itself. A major population drop is a possible solution to our current problem (and unless we develop nuclear and solar energy on large scales, it probably will be, one way or the other). And if you're going to choose which part of the population to neutralize, the most energy-demanding (per capita) part is the logical choice.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby patches70 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:35 am

Metsfanmax wrote: And if you're going to choose which part of the population to neutralize, the most energy-demanding (per capita) part is the logical choice.


LOL

You don't think those people who you'd decide to "neutralize" might just have a tad bit of a problem with that?

Metsfamax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.


Yes, it's done wonders for Japan.

And of course, nuclear energy is only allowed for certain people. Iran, for one, are a people that apparently aren't supposed to be able to use nuclear energy.*


*Of course, it's perfectly legal under international law for them to develop and use nuclear energy. If they wanna use it, more power to em I suppose. But the US is making a pretty big deal about it all, all this talk about taking out their nuclear reactors. That might have a bit of an impact on the region I'd think, if we or others went through with that ill advised course of action. I wonder, could Iran ever be able to prove that they only want nuclear power for energy reasons? I have my doubts that would be acceptable to TPTB.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby MeDeFe on Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:01 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

People are generally worried about the idea of being principally reliant on nuclear energy, because of unwarranted beliefs about its dangers.

So you have found a safe way of storing radioactive materials for potentially several million years?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:50 am

MeDeFe wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

People are generally worried about the idea of being principally reliant on nuclear energy, because of unwarranted beliefs about its dangers.

So you have found a safe way of storing radioactive materials for potentially several million years?

That part's easy -- put it back in the mines where it came from.

The earth's crust is full of radioactive materials, and most of them are in hard igneous rock which prevents any kind of leeching. We mine the uranium and leave mine shafts. There's no reason it can't go back into those same shafts and be covered up again (with high grade concrete.)

The whole "problem" of nuclear waste storage is just another imaginary boogeyman the politicians dream up to frighten us.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28173
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:21 am

patches70 wrote:LOL

You don't think those people who you'd decide to "neutralize" might just have a tad bit of a problem with that?


All I'm saying is that people will die over resource competition one way or the other unless we get our act together.

Yes, it's done wonders for Japan.


First of all, Japan sits pretty much right on top of a fault, whereas a major earthquake of the magnitude that hit Fukushima is only a possible problem for any of our nuclear reactors if they are in, say, California. Second, there have been numerous reasons documented why what happened there was preventable. Third, blaming an earthquake for nuclear energy problems proves how reliable it actually is; the whole system was working fine until the tectonic plate beneath it physically shifted.

Seriously, if you don't understand how safe modern reactors actually are, don't post about them.

And of course, nuclear energy is only allowed for certain people. Iran, for one, are a people that apparently aren't supposed to be able to use nuclear energy.*


I am sure that we would have much less of a problem with Iran developing nuclear energy if its leader hadn't, for example, claimed that it wanted Israel to be wiped off the map.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby patches70 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:08 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Seriously, if you don't understand how safe modern reactors actually are, don't post about them.



By what criteria are you judging how safe modern reactors are?

In terms of people dying from accidents, nuclear energy is quite safe. However, in terms of property damage (i.e. environmental damage included), nuclear energy is the #1 in most damage caused throughout history.

More property damage has occurred from nuclear accidents than any other form of energy.

Here, do you know what this is a picture of?-

Image

Totally no big deal, right?

Of course, it doesn't happen very often, so it's "safe". If it does happen, stuff like this happens-

Image

Not just to animals, but to people as well.

When a reactor does go, and no matter how safe or modern one is it's always a possible event that a meltdown can happen, the contamination is staggering. Just ask Europe-

Image

If Chernobyl had been a coal plant, you think it would have spread deadly substances throughout the entire European continent?



Sure, build nuclear reactors. It's all good. But they can and do have accidents. And when those accidents happen, best not to be anywhere near them, like on the other side of the planet away. Though even that's not much of a defense when these accidents happen as the Japanese meltdown is due to start affecting the US west coast fairly soon.


metsfanmax wrote: is only a possible problem for any of our nuclear reactors if they are in, say, California.


What do you mean "if"?
There are six nuclear reactors in California.

Modern reactors at that. The one in Diablo canyon was built in 1988 or so. In fact, all the reactors in California were built in the 1980's. Real modern, eh?

Fukishima was even older.

Now, I'm sure many if not all of these plants have been upgraded, but they are all old. When was the last nuclear reactor built in the US anyway? They are all old, and part of the reason we don't build them so much anymore is because in the beginning it was said "Oh, there's no worries, the chances of something going wrong as almost zero. It's the safest form of energy."


Now, overall I've got no real problems with nuclear power. Build plants, but if you think that's what'll solve our problems then your out of your mind. It's tradeoffs, it's always about trade offs, there are no solutions and never will be. To solve one problem merely creates whole new problems and it's always going to be like that, at least in our lifetimes and most likely our children's and their children's lifetimes as well.

That's a truth the progressive, liberal intellectual elite never seem to consider, the trade offs. Or if they do, then the poor saps who buy into that BS never consider them.
Do you ever consider the trade offs?
By your posts you don't seem to.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:14 pm

patches70 wrote:Do you ever consider the trade offs?
By your posts you don't seem to.


This entire post is filled with myopia because all you can look at is the past in nuclear technology and assume it will always be this way. But it will not. The future of nuclear reactors will not be anything like the ones we have today. It will not be physically possible to have a meltdown (and this is obvious in the case of fusion energy), and reactor technology continues to get better and better. We have old reactors in California, for example, precisely because people aren't willing to recognize that the technology does get better, and you're inevitably going to have a few accidents along the way if you're going to realize what the problems are with the science and the engineering. Is nuclear energy perfectly safe? Of course not. But the trade off that you're talking about is unacceptable. If we are going to continue our current standard of living, we need a next generation energy source.

By the way, I don't see you insisting that we should stop using coal for energy when there's an explosion in a coal mine.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby MeDeFe on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:16 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

People are generally worried about the idea of being principally reliant on nuclear energy, because of unwarranted beliefs about its dangers.

So you have found a safe way of storing radioactive materials for potentially several million years?

That part's easy -- put it back in the mines where it came from.

The earth's crust is full of radioactive materials, and most of them are in hard igneous rock which prevents any kind of leeching. We mine the uranium and leave mine shafts. There's no reason it can't go back into those same shafts and be covered up again (with high grade concrete.)

The whole "problem" of nuclear waste storage is just another imaginary boogeyman the politicians dream up to frighten us.

Well, German politicians spent 20 years hiding the problems with putting some 126000 barrels of nuclear waste in an old mine. Now it's gotten to the point where many of the barrels are leaking and they can no longer be safely stored in said mine because water is leaking into it despite the makeup of the ground "preventing any kind of leakage". Unfortunately there may not be a way to remove the waste safely, or at all for that matter, so it's entirely possible that Germany will end up with an irradiated area smack in the middle.

So forgive me if I'm somewhat sceptical of your claims that it's oh-so-safe and that "the politicians" are telling us the opposite.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:20 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

People are generally worried about the idea of being principally reliant on nuclear energy, because of unwarranted beliefs about its dangers.

So you have found a safe way of storing radioactive materials for potentially several million years?

That part's easy -- put it back in the mines where it came from.

The earth's crust is full of radioactive materials, and most of them are in hard igneous rock which prevents any kind of leeching. We mine the uranium and leave mine shafts. There's no reason it can't go back into those same shafts and be covered up again (with high grade concrete.)

The whole "problem" of nuclear waste storage is just another imaginary boogeyman the politicians dream up to frighten us.

Well, German politicians spent 20 years hiding the problems with putting some 126000 barrels of nuclear waste in an old mine. Now it's gotten to the point where many of the barrels are leaking and they can no longer be safely stored in said mine because water is leaking into it despite the makeup of the ground "preventing any kind of leakage". Unfortunately there may not be a way to remove the waste safely, or at all for that matter, so it's entirely possible that Germany will end up with an irradiated area smack in the middle.

So forgive me if I'm somewhat sceptical of your claims that it's oh-so-safe and that "the politicians" are telling us the opposite.


The problem of storage of radioactive material is a temporary one. Eventually we will transition to nuclear energy sources that do not produce radioactive byproducts. The worst possible situation is what we have now, where we're generating all these radioactive materials but aren't putting all of our cards on the table when it comes to nuclear energy.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby MeDeFe on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:30 pm

We were also supposed to have personal hovercrafts and no poverty by now. "Eventually this thing is going to be awesome" is not a slogan I'm buying if the thing in question has demonstrated having such serious issues already.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:38 pm

MeDeFe wrote:We were also supposed to have personal hovercrafts and no poverty by now. "Eventually this thing is going to be awesome" is not a slogan I'm buying if the thing in question has demonstrated having such serious issues already.


That's not even an argument. Fusion energy is of a totally different character from fission energy. Discarding the former because of problems with the latter represents a misunderstanding of the scientific difference between the two.

Additionally, the media does, in general, not do a good job actually informing the general public on the actual harms of nuclear (fission) energy.

For example, the storage problem you reference in Germany is from barrels of waste that were generated over 30 years ago, and are not an example of proper storage. As Dukasaur properly points out, we do know how to safely store nuclear waste; all of these half measures we're talking about are the result of the public not willing to shell out enough tax dollars to properly store waste from the plants that generate their electricity.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:13 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Why are there no tax credits, breaks, or incentives for nuclear production?

People are generally worried about the idea of being principally reliant on nuclear energy, because of unwarranted beliefs about its dangers.

So you have found a safe way of storing radioactive materials for potentially several million years?

That part's easy -- put it back in the mines where it came from.

The earth's crust is full of radioactive materials, and most of them are in hard igneous rock which prevents any kind of leeching. We mine the uranium and leave mine shafts. There's no reason it can't go back into those same shafts and be covered up again (with high grade concrete.)

The whole "problem" of nuclear waste storage is just another imaginary boogeyman the politicians dream up to frighten us.

Well, German politicians spent 20 years hiding the problems with putting some 126000 barrels of nuclear waste in an old mine. Now it's gotten to the point where many of the barrels are leaking and they can no longer be safely stored in said mine because water is leaking into it despite the makeup of the ground "preventing any kind of leakage". Unfortunately there may not be a way to remove the waste safely, or at all for that matter, so it's entirely possible that Germany will end up with an irradiated area smack in the middle.

So forgive me if I'm somewhat sceptical of your claims that it's oh-so-safe and that "the politicians" are telling us the opposite.

I searched the story you're mentioning and was unable to find much detail. However, based on the very limited information available, I'll make the following comments:

  1. The Nazi nuclear waste was apparantly dumped in an old salt mine. Salt implies sedimentary rock. Note that I was very specific that the waste should go into mines that are in igneous rock. For sure, sedimentary rock formations are a bad choice.
  2. The barrels were described as "leaky" and "rusty" which obviously implies that water got to them. Not surprising, in a salt mine, but even so they might have been safe if they had been properly encased in concrete. But the Reich suffered critical shortages of concrete throughout the war. Three quarters of the bunkers scheduled for the Atlantic Wall were never built for that reason. Between fortifications, AA emplacements, airfields, replacing bridges blown up by the Allies, etc., there was a lot of need for concrete and simply not enough supply. Not surprising then that they wouldn't have "wasted" any on the nuclear waste dump, which was probably something that was rationalized away as being low priority.
  3. Besides shortages of concrete, they had shortages of everything else, so a lot of things were done with very little safety margin.
  4. The Nazis never built a commercially-viable reactor or a functioning nuclear weapon. They were definitely still in the trial-and-error stage of the nuclear age, and had a lot to learn. We know a lot more now.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Rachel Maddox. Some discussion mod should probably have split the thread a while back...:)
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28173
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby patches70 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:02 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
patches70 wrote:Do you ever consider the trade offs?
By your posts you don't seem to.


This entire post is filled with myopia because all you can look at is the past in nuclear technology and assume it will always be this way. But it will not. The future of nuclear reactors will not be anything like the ones we have today. It will not be physically possible to have a meltdown (and this is obvious in the case of fusion energy), and reactor technology continues to get better and better. We have old reactors in California, for example, precisely because people aren't willing to recognize that the technology does get better, and you're inevitably going to have a few accidents along the way if you're going to realize what the problems are with the science and the engineering. Is nuclear energy perfectly safe? Of course not. But the trade off that you're talking about is unacceptable. If we are going to continue our current standard of living, we need a next generation energy source.


You know that having an actual working fusion reactor for power generation is 100 years away, right?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... amble.html

metsfanmax wrote:By the way, I don't see you insisting that we should stop using coal for energy when there's an explosion in a coal mine.


Because at the moment there is no other alternative. Everything has risks, coal mining is no exception. You know, with the best thing you can think of not being viable for another 100 years, there's not much choice in the matter.

And you don't see me insisting we don't use nuclear energy. You seem to have missed the point entirely, there is no perfect solution.
You said-
metfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.


Perfectly, eh?

Really?

LOL.

Sorry, there is no perfect solutions. If thousands of years of destroyed environment, birth defects and death are your idea of "perfect", I'd hate to see your worse case scenarios....

This unwavering belief that technology is going to solve all our problems borders on religious fanaticism. Technology is good in many ways, but it's not the end all solution to humanity's problems. Your insistence that nuclear energy is completely safe is absolutely untrue as history has shown. It has risks. Ain't nothing perfectly safe, including fusion energy. How you can't admit that is very strange. Not that such things should not be pursued, but come on, get real at least and see that there are inherent risks that cannot be escaped and technology isn't going to fix that. That's just how it is, there are good sides and bad sides to everything.


Black Swan events can't be predicted or planned for, and such conditions apply with virtually every great human endeavor. The sooner you accept that the sooner you won't seem to be a quasi religious fanatic towards technology. Technology isn't going to keep you from dying, from struggling through life at times, or end misery completely. Happily ever after is how fairy tales end, not real life.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:06 pm

PROGRESS!!!!
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:43 pm

patches70 wrote:You know that having an actual working fusion reactor for power generation is 100 years away, right?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... amble.html


We have "actual working" fusion reactors now. 100 years is just a timetable for when they'll become commercially viable (and a rather pessimistic estimate, at that). And do you know why it's taking so long? Because governments aren't putting much money into it. I'm well aware of the current issues with fusion reactors. That's why we need to continue using nuclear fission reactors until fusion can take over.

Because at the moment there is no other alternative. Everything has risks, coal mining is no exception. You know, with the best thing you can think of not being viable for another 100 years, there's not much choice in the matter.


You seem to be ignorant of the fact that fission energy provides a significant fraction of the world's power needs. The reason why that fraction isn't close to 1 is not because we can't do it. It's because we don't want to (mostly for poor reasons).

metfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is perfectly capable of powering our energy needs.


Perfectly, eh?

Really?

LOL.

Sorry, there is no perfect solutions. If thousands of years of destroyed environment, birth defects and death are your idea of "perfect", I'd hate to see your worse case scenarios....


You're playing semantical games to try and win a pointless argument. The adverb "perfectly" in that sentence implied that it could provide fully 100% of our power needs, not that it would lead to some sort of utopian society and would never have instances of failure.

This unwavering belief that technology is going to solve all our problems borders on religious fanaticism. Technology is good in many ways, but it's not the end all solution to humanity's problems. Your insistence that nuclear energy is completely safe is absolutely untrue as history has shown. It has risks. Ain't nothing perfectly safe, including fusion energy. How you can't admit that is very strange. Not that such things should not be pursued, but come on, get real at least and see that there are inherent risks that cannot be escaped and technology isn't going to fix that. That's just how it is, there are good sides and bad sides to everything.


This optimism I have is bred by a much more insidious pessimism; I fear that we will leave our planet in ruin at the current rate at which we consume natural resources. Technology may not solve the problem, but it's the only solution we do have that doesn't involve a massive die-off of our population. If you aren't convinced of this fact, then I don't think the extent to which we depend on non-renewable resources has sunk in for you.

And as a scientist, I have good reason to be faithful in what we can achieve. Humanity has shown time and time again that when we put our best minds on a problem, we get a solution. Sometimes adopting that solution is challenging and dangerous when it first comes into existence. Electrifying the nation led to some accidents too, and people still get electrocuted to this day (far more people than die from radiation). That's the nature of new technology. It will fail sometimes. But we get better and better at managing the risks as time goes on, and the benefits always far outweigh the risks. As a wonderful article I read once pointed out, if you lived near Three Mile Island when its 1979 accident occurred, the chances of you getting cancer and dying from radiation were smaller than the chances of you dying in a car accident while you packed up your things and drove away from the reactor.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Rachel Maddow is the best person

Postby patches70 on Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:40 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:

. 100 years is just a timetable for when they'll become commercially viable (and a rather pessimistic estimate, at that). And do you know why it's taking so long? Because governments aren't putting much money into it. I'm well aware of the current issues with fusion reactors. That's why we need to continue using nuclear fission reactors until fusion can take over.


And why aren't they commercially viable? Economics. Something you completely dismiss and seem completely ignorant of. It's not because governments aren't putting much money into it, it's because governments don't have the money to put into it.

At least not to the levels you seem to think are needed.

To develop things we have to expend resources, resources that must be diverted from other areas. People want free health care, free housing, free food, free everything, but nothing is free, even the development of technology. Well, what's to be sacrificed? Something has to be sacrificed if you want to develop said project.

But nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Including yourself I'd imagine. At least nothing important (by your own reasoning) that is.



metsfanmax wrote:You seem to be ignorant of the fact that fission energy provides a significant fraction of the world's power needs. The reason why that fraction isn't close to 1 is not because we can't do it. It's because we don't want to (mostly for poor reasons).


You seem to be contradicting yourself. "fact that fission energy provides a significant fraction of the world's power needs." and then "that fraction isn't close to 1".
LOL

And it's not because we don't want to, it's because the economic cost doesn't justify it. Conditions may/will change one day, but until then, you think we are going to transition from coal, which powers 1/3 of the US's electricity (hey! That's substantial, LOL) with fusion which provides, how much did you say? "The reason why that fraction isn't close to 1".

And that's only talking about the US, other places in the world use even more coal.

Good luck with that. You know, if you just turn off the coal, outlaw it and make fusion the only legally available power source, I bet we'd go pretty quick to said power source. Oh, wait, no we wouldn't, because people would riot and hang you from a tree before that would be accepted. And with good reason.





metsfanmax wrote:You're playing semantical games to try and win a pointless argument. The adverb "perfectly" in that sentence implied that it could provide fully 100% of our power needs, not that it would lead to some sort of utopian society and would never have instances of failure.


And you just keep ignoring that the cost to go to 100% power is a more daunting task than even developing truly safe power supplies. You don't seem to appreciate nor understand the cost. How quickly do you think humanity could actually convert?

Lemme give you a hint, you'll be long dead and gone before it ever happens.



metsfanmax wrote:This optimism I have is bred by a much more insidious pessimism;


More like indoctrination I'd suspect the reason for your reverence and religious fanaticism toward technology.

metsfanmax wrote: I fear that we will leave our planet in ruin at the current rate at which we consume natural resources.


It's lucky for you that's your fear. If left to your ideal way then most people would be fearing how they'd find their next meal or keep from freezing to death come winter time.

It's nice to worry about things that you have absolutely no control over. Why don't you do the right thing and consume less resources? I mean that's all you really have the power to do in life, to live as you see fit.
Don't try and justify taking such a thing away from other people. Like your idea of if you were in charge to set mandatory limits to child bearing as if you've even considered the impacts of such a line to take. Which you haven't nor have any idea of.

metsfanmax wrote: Technology may not solve the problem, but it's the only solution we do have that doesn't involve a massive die-off of our population. If you aren't convinced of this fact, then I don't think the extent to which we depend on non-renewable resources has sunk in for you.


You think there's never been a massive die off of the human populations before?
Don't you realize that such die offs are a natural phenomenon? Every species is subject to this truth and human beings are no exception. Should such a thing keep you awake at night?
I should hope not, 'cause you won't ever get much sleep...

metsfanmax wrote:And as a scientist, I have good reason to be faithful in what we can achieve. Humanity has shown time and time again that when we put our best minds on a problem, we get a solution.


Which leads to more problems which leads to more solutions which leads to more problems. It's called life. The things you wish for will come to pass one day, but you won't be able to rush it. You can't legislate it into being as you seem to think. We can't just wave a magic wand and it all comes into existence, into being.
It's a process, you'd rush that process if you could. Which would lead to unimaginably horrible consequences and would not result in the desired outcome. Take some economic classes and consider the allocation of resources and better ways to allocate said resources.
That's the real key, the core issue to our problems (IMO) and until that gets taken care of all the fairy tale stuff you dream of and your Disney lens view of technology will only take that much longer to achieve.

metsfanmax wrote: Sometimes adopting that solution is challenging and dangerous when it first comes into existence. Electrifying the nation led to some accidents too, and people still get electrocuted to this day (far more people than die from radiation). That's the nature of new technology. It will fail sometimes. But we get better and better at managing the risks as time goes on, and the benefits always far outweigh the risks. As a wonderful article I read once pointed out, if you lived near Three Mile Island when its 1979 accident occurred, the chances of you getting cancer and dying from radiation were smaller than the chances of you dying in a car accident while you packed up your things and drove away from the reactor.


Your strawmen dribble still shows a lack of understanding.

You want renewable resources to become economically viable sooner?
Start with the debt based money system the entire world uses. Talk about a challenging and dangerous proposition in enacting, something you probably can't even imagine. Except, there have been times in our history, that is the US's history, when we didn't have a debt based monetary system and guess what it was like?
The Wild West of innovation, new ideas and experimentation.
Ethics were probably a bit lacking, as was safety, but lemme tell ya, people were finally free to pursue ideas and dreams without the massive costs of today.

You wanna fix the rotted house? Start with the foundation. Economics: the production, distribution and allocation of resources. Until you tackle that dog, any idea you have better not only provide a service to humanity, but more importantly, it better show a profit or it ain't ever going to see the light of day. And none of your praying to the Technological Gods will change that until you change the core system of how human beings produce and distribute resources.

Something the Progressive, the liberal, Politicians and general population haven't ever seemed to grasp.

But, in closing, I'm reminded of what Master Chief constantly tells Cortana over and over again-

"It'll be all right"

Good words to remember. Stress away your life if you must, but it's gonna be all right. Just concentrate on doing what's right for your life and leave others to do the same.
Gardens grow better when neighbors stay out of each other's gardens.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users