Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-24-2018, 04:39 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Uh, last I checked many are not advocating to fall back on Nuclear power in Arizona. There is some grumbling about some possible environmental proposition that could come in November that was reported by some as a proposition to close the Palo Alto Nuclear plant, but that was shown to be yet again to be misguided propaganda.

As for your cite about 2017 increasing emissions in Germany:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news...emissions-2017


Other reports show that the energy from renewable sources is not a failure, but it is increasing and the problems found are not eternal as you are implying.

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-a8427356.html


BTW I do agree that Germany should not had dropped their nuclear plants, and there is still a lot to work to get rid of less environmentally friendly lignite. It would had been a more flexible environment for the continuation and deployment of renewables with Nuclear present.
Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I said. In fact, I gave them even more credit for the amount of renewable energy - 40%. The small differences between your numbers and mind probably have to do with the fact that my source was from 2015.

The point is that even with all that renewable power potential, it's not being realized because intermittent power is very hard to use efficiently. So while their theoretical peak renewable power is over 100%, their actual greenhouse gas emissions reductions are barely better than what the U.S. has managed over the same period without the massive expenditure, and with much cheaper energy costs.

And really, we should take hydro out of the mix, because hydro makes for good baseload power and in many countries the major exploitable hydro resources are already being tapped. I'm all for tapping as much hydro as we can. Canada has a major hydro project underway in BC - a province more committed to GHG reduction than any other. Guess who's opposing it? If you guessed "the greens", you'd be right. They're now miring the project in lawsuits in an attempt to kill it, even though it's more than 70% complete, and would be a major source of GHG-free energy.

In the meantime, there has been a revolution in safe nuclear power going almost unnoticed by the activists. Small Modular Reactors are amazing. You buy them complete, they ship them to the site on a truck, bury them in the ground, and by pumping water through them you get enough steam power to run perhaps 20,000 homes for 10 years. When the 10 years are up, the company comes in digs them up, trucks them out on a flatbed, and puts a new on in place. No local nuclear waste storage problems at all.

The SMR's go back to the factory for refurbishment and refueling, then go out again. The fuel can be recycled as well. They are very cost-effective, leave a tiny footprint on the land, cannot melt down, and are not risks for nuclear proliferation. We should be going gangbusters to prove out and install these things all over the place.
  #252  
Old 08-24-2018, 04:47 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I will give you creationism, although it's by no means a 'right wing' phenomenon. Plenty of Democrats are also creationist.

But the fact is, if you're going to be anti-science, creationism is probably the area where it does the least harm. The left's anti-science is much more dangerous, in that it involves things like evolutionary biology (the daft notion that there is absolutely no difference between men and women, for example), opposition to nuclear power, crazy nonsense about 'toxins' from factories and anti-vax positions (slightly more anti-vaxxers lean left than right, but it's close). And while AGW is opposed mostly by the right (because they don't trust the left's prescriptions for it, I'd say), opposition to fracking, which has proved to be perhaps the biggest contributer to GHG emissions reduction, has come mostly from the left.

And while more the right opposed using infant stem cells, more on the left oppose animal testing in science. The left is far more anti-GMO than the right, and is more anti-nuclear. Those two things alone could do more damage than all the anti-science foolishness on the right.
Uh, I did check a lot on previous discussions, and again: It is worst than the nuclear thing that I pointed out, when polls show more than 60% of Americans against new nuclear plants, last time I checked the numbers for people against GMOs are on the 70%s and higher. Again, since just about 25% of Americans are described as liberals, there is indeed a big mess of conservatives that also fall for ignorance. On a previous discussion I even found how some anti-GMO sites are proud of having conservatives favoring them.

BTW I do support GMO advances but: when advances on that issue show a lack of progress, many right wing sources use that delay to blame the extreme left as if they are behemoths or powerful forces against progress when many times they barely are interfering with the industry.

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/gen...ving-promises/
Quote:
Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises

GMO activists not to blame for scientific challenges slowing introduction, study finds
Quote:
GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.

In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises.
  #253  
Old 08-24-2018, 04:51 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I said.
Uh, you cited that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
But it might be worth it if it seriously improved Gernany's power grid or reduced its Greenhouse gas output. But did it? Not really.

Germany's energy use and emissions likely to rise yet again in 2017
Actually, it did not rise on the actual 2017.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-24-2018 at 04:52 PM.
  #254  
Old 08-24-2018, 04:55 PM
andros andros is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I will give you creationism, although it's by no means a 'right wing' phenomenon. Plenty of Democrats are also creationist.
Plenty of Republicans are anti-nuke. I'd start with Dauphin County, PA, which was reliably Republican prior to the mid 2000s, but had some very good reasons to be wary of nuclear power.

But I broadly agree with you on this one, Sam, but it's no longer the fringe left that are driving the conversation. NIMBYism has played a huge role in it as well--not to mention incidents like Fukushima Daiichi. Where once three quarters of Republicans supported nuclear power, it's now down to half. That's definitely due to fear--marketed in years past by the greenies, sure, but now wholly owned by the 24-hour news cycle and lack of any passionate counter-branding.

I feel the mission should be not to decry the "liberals" who oppose nuke plant development--that ship has sailed and that mixed-metaphor dog will no longer hunt--but to passionately and clearly communicate the need for clean nuclear as part of a systemic program of safe, clean energy generation. That is, as part of a holistic revamp away from dirty energy, alongside wind, solar, hydro, wave, and geo.

Nuclear power is not likely to be our sole savior. But if we ditch the right-left nonsense, we can work to make it part of the solution.
  #255  
Old 08-24-2018, 04:58 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In comparison, the U.S's GHG emissions have gone down from 5.7Gt in 2000 to 5.1 Gt in 2015 - 10.53% decrease. In the meantime, Germany's went from 1.043 Gt in 2000 to .902Gt - a 13.2% decrease. That's a hell of a lot of expense and effort for a very minor difference.

And yet, we're told that the answer to global warming is to attempt globally what Germany, Ontario, California, Australia and others have not managed to do locally to any degree that has any effect at all on global warming. It's insane.
Let's get a few things straight here. US emissions have dropped because the US has been pursuing fossil fuels and fracking like there's no tomorrow and by happy coincidence that's created a cheap supply of natural gas. And that's driven a cost-motivated switch of some former coal plants to gas, which is much cleaner but still a fossil fuel. It wasn't a result of any sensible policy initiatives. Germany made the terrible strategic mistake of abandoning nuclear and moving back to coal following the Fukushima events.

And why would following the lead of Ontario be problematic? Putting aside the recently elected conservative wingnut, Ontario in general has been moving rapidly to renewable clean energy in ways that the rest of the world would do well to follow. The majority of its electric power is nuclear. Much of the rest is hydro. The last of the coal-fired power plants was demolished several years ago culminating a decades-long program to get rid of the dangerous polluting behemoths. They were not converted, they were dynamited and bulldozed. There is now zero coal being burned for power. There have been major wind farm initiatives. There are smaller solar power initiatives. I see no problem with this picture -- there's been lots of mismanagement in Ontario Power Generation and elsewhere, but the strategic direction seems right to me.
  #256  
Old 08-24-2018, 05:00 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Nuclear power is not likely to be our sole savior. But if we ditch the right-left nonsense, we can work to make it part of the solution.
But to achieve a solution, we first need to have a broad consensus that there's actually a problem that needs solving. The resolute, deep-pocketed, anti-science conservative resistance to understanding and acknowledging the problem of climate change is a far greater barrier in that regard than liberal resistance to nuclear power.
  #257  
Old 08-24-2018, 05:01 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Citation needed. Where are you getting the idea that "the left" supports the position that "there is absolutely no difference between men and women" or anything else that contradicts evolutionary biology? This seems like an absurd strawman.
Washington Post - Liberals Deny Science Too

Quote:
The new study, by University of Texas-Brownville sociologist Mark Horowitz and two colleagues, surveyed 155 academic sociologists. 56.7 percent of the sample was liberal, another 28.6 percent was identified as radical, and only 4.8 percent were conservative. Horowitz, who describes himself as a politically radical, social-justice oriented researcher, said he wanted to probe their views of the possible evolutionary underpinnings of various human behaviors. "I wanted to get at the really ideological blank slate view, it’s sort of a preemptive assumption that everything is taught, everything is learned," he explained.

Sure enough, the study found that these liberal academics showed a pretty high level of resistance to evolutionary explanations for phenomena ranging from sexual jealousy to male promiscuity.
The article goes on to say that on certain subjects, the academics are willing to admist to evolutionary infuences. But when it comes to gender differences...

Quote:
Yet the study also found that these scholars were less willing to consider evolutionary explanations for other aspects of human behavior, especially those relating to male-female differences. Less than 50 percent considered it plausible that that "feelings of sexual jealousy have a significant evolutionary biological component," for instance, and just 36.4 percent considered it plausible that men "have a greater tendency towards promiscuity than women due to an evolved reproductive strategy.” While it is hard to be absolutely definitive on either of these issues (we weren't there to observe evolution happen), evolutionary psychologists have certainly argued in published studies that people exhibit jealousy in sexual relationships in order to ensure reproductive fidelity and preserve the resources that come from a partner, and that men are more promiscuous because they are not constrained in how often they can attempt to reproduce.
Here's the original (gated) paper referenced in the article:

Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evolutionary Biological Ideas among Sociological Theorists

Here's the abstract:
Quote:
Sociologists have drawn considerable criticism over the years for their failure to integrate evolutionary biological principles in their work. Critics such as Stephen Pinker have popularized the notion that sociologists adhere dogmatically to a “blank slate” or cultural determinist view of the human mind and social behavior. This report assesses whether sociologists indeed ascribe to such a blank slate view. Drawing from a survey of 155 sociological theorists, we find the field about evenly divided over the applicability of evolutionary reasoning to a range of human tendencies. Although there are signs of a shift toward greater openness to evolutionary biological ideas, sociologists are least receptive to evolutionary accounts of human sex differences. Echoing earlier research, we find political identity to be a significant predictor of sociologists' receptiveness. We close by cautioning our colleagues against sociological reductionism and we speculate about the blank slate's political-psychological appeal to liberal-minded social scientists.
This rejection of biology is even stronger in the various 'studies' faculties. The 'Tabula Rasa' theory is important to the left because they use it to claim that all the imbalances and wealth differences and power structures around us are socially constructed and can never have anything to do with innate differences between people, unless those differences come from differences in class or access to education. To the radical genderless left, the difference between men and women's thinking and predilections can be traced back to how boys and girls are raised, and have nothing to with sexual dimorphism inherent in our species. This is, to say the least, not an evidence-based belief.
  #258  
Old 08-24-2018, 05:12 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The 'Tabula Rasa' theory is important to the left because they use it to claim that all the imbalances and wealth differences and power structures around us are socially constructed and can never have anything to do with innate differences between people, unless those differences come from differences in class or access to education. To the radical genderless left, the difference between men and women's thinking and predilections can be traced back to how boys and girls are raised, and have nothing to with sexual dimorphism inherent in our species. This is, to say the least, not an evidence-based belief.
Your cites all seem to be talking about hypotheses of evolutionary psychology, not facts of evolutionary biology. And it is a ridiculous exaggeration to describe even the most extreme positions of the so-called "radical genderless left" as equivalent to the claim that "there is absolutely no difference between men and women".

So yup, absurd strawman sighting confirmed. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of conservative anti-science obstructionism on climate change.
  #259  
Old 08-24-2018, 06:15 PM
andros andros is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
But to achieve a solution, we first need to have a broad consensus that there's actually a problem that needs solving. The resolute, deep-pocketed, anti-science conservative resistance to understanding and acknowledging the problem of climate change is a far greater barrier in that regard than liberal resistance to nuclear power.
Wholly endorsed. +1. "Like." QFT. And all those other things.
  #260  
Old 08-24-2018, 06:44 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Washington Post - Liberals Deny Science Too
The article goes on to say that on certain subjects, the academics are willing to admist to evolutionary infuences. But when it comes to gender differences...

Here's the original (gated) paper referenced in the article:

Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evolutionary Biological Ideas among Sociological Theorists

This rejection of biology is even stronger in the various 'studies' faculties. The 'Tabula Rasa' theory is important to the left because they use it to claim that all the imbalances and wealth differences and power structures around us are socially constructed and can never have anything to do with innate differences between people, unless those differences come from differences in class or access to education. To the radical genderless left, the difference between men and women's thinking and predilections can be traced back to how boys and girls are raised, and have nothing to with sexual dimorphism inherent in our species. This is, to say the least, not an evidence-based belief.
I've seen criticism of evolutionary psychology as being a lot of just so stories. In any case, it is far from settled science at this point.
And disbelief in evolutionary psychology is far from disbelief in evolution, which is anti-science. Now given the number of creationists in the US, I'm sure you are right that there are lots of Democrat creationists. But the example you were given were not random Republicans, but Republicans running for President - credibly enough to be included in debates. How many Democrats running for President (since Williams Jennings Bryan, at least) are creationists?
Lots of anti-science positions are non-sectarian - like anti-vax, for instance. We need to look at the position of leaders. Trump, not Clinton, is an anti-vaxxer - in the "oh let's not do what it is medically advised in terms of schedule" at least.
  #261  
Old 08-24-2018, 06:49 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else.

Regards,
Shodan
How many nuclear power plants are being built in Oklahoma.
None since the early '80s, it seems. This from a state where it took more earthquakes than we have in California to convince them that something was wrong with the way they were doing fracking.
The problem is that the nuclear industry is in such sorry shape that they don't have enough money to pay off the right politicians, if you ask me.
  #262  
Old 08-24-2018, 07:04 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
The problem is that the nuclear industry is in such sorry shape that they don't have enough money to pay off the right politicians, if you ask me.
It's politics, not technology.
  #263  
Old 08-24-2018, 09:58 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Nuclear though can scale up that quickly. It doesn't mean that you aren't scaling up renewables at the same time, but if you want to cap emissions on anything resembling a reasonable scale, it's pretty much nuclear or nothing.
I'm not asking you to defend your point of view, I'm trying to explain to you why this is all a deflection.
Frankly, it's annoying to me that many in this thread are taking the bait, and discussing nuclear power.

This is a thread about conservatives denying climate change

And all the problems that go with that -- spreading of misinformation, shutting down any discussion of solutions (let alone any implementations) are a huge problem.

Now, I haven't heard many Conservatives bring up nuclear power as being an influential factor on whether they believe in climate change, or trust Liberals' motives. But even if they had, it's still not good grounds for focusing our blame on the side that at least acknowledges that there's a problem. We should still be saying to Conservatives "Hey, that's no excuse for still denying the problem exists at all. Once you accept AGW and are willing to have a discussion then we can consider whether blocking nuclear power is then the #1 problem stopping us from addressing AGW".

In the meantime, focusing on the Left in a thread about climate change denial is disingenuous.
  #264  
Old 08-24-2018, 11:14 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I'm sure they are doing better in Canada. I ran into some engineers from the nuclear power industry a while back on a trip - they had to share a hotel room, like grad students.
  #265  
Old 08-25-2018, 06:28 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I'm not asking you to defend your point of view, I'm trying to explain to you why this is all a deflection.
Frankly, it's annoying to me that many in this thread are taking the bait, and discussing nuclear power.

This is a thread about conservatives denying climate change

And all the problems that go with that -- spreading of misinformation, shutting down any discussion of solutions (let alone any implementations) are a huge problem.

Now, I haven't heard many Conservatives bring up nuclear power as being an influential factor on whether they believe in climate change, or trust Liberals' motives. But even if they had, it's still not good grounds for focusing our blame on the side that at least acknowledges that there's a problem. We should still be saying to Conservatives "Hey, that's no excuse for still denying the problem exists at all. Once you accept AGW and are willing to have a discussion then we can consider whether blocking nuclear power is then the #1 problem stopping us from addressing AGW".

In the meantime, focusing on the Left in a thread about climate change denial is disingenuous.
This. Cmon, guys. Anyone claiming the left is the problem is deflecting harder than Genji fighting 6 Bastions.
__________________
Interested in recreational hypnosis? Ask me about my Patreon, where I go by "ToymakerHypnosis".
  #266  
Old 08-25-2018, 09:54 AM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,111
There is so much to comment on in this thread (the left have equal amounts of science deniers? as if...); unfortunately all I have time to add is that we have done some informal polling here on the Dope about the left's support of nuclear power and the vast majority was supportive:

How do you feel about nuclear power?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017