Yeah, but if you weren’t such an ignorant pussbag, you would know China has 25 reactors under construction right now. 25
big ones
Of course in the time they spend building them, they also brought online 2,000 coal power plants.
Which is ironic, since the latest “surprising” development in climate science is that sulfates from China’s coal plants is why there hasn’t been any Global Warming for the last 15 years.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Yeah, but if you weren’t such an ignorant pussbag, you would know China has 25 reactors under construction right now. 25
[/QUOTE]
And that has precisely what to do with the link you posted that I was responding too? Here, let me quote the first line from your link which apparently you didn’t read:
Unless you are saying that China has become part of the US and future production was used as a basis for the data they were gathering there…
(Really, you do all the work of making yourself look like an idiot…I hardly have to do more than just quote you)
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Which is ironic, since the latest “surprising” development in climate science is that sulfates from China’s coal plants is why there hasn’t been any Global Warming for the last 15 years.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? Obviously for the sulfates, since your assertion that ‘there hasn’t been any Global Warming for the last 15 years’ is a total crock.
-XT
(massively snipped)
Do they do it to the images of Geiger counters at their maximum while wearing lead condoms?
Trust me on this one…you don’t want to know. :eek:
-XT
Coal kills while nuclear power saves lives. Coal kills 141 people per Terawatt, while nuclear power kills 0.04. It’s all about power and profits. Coal apologists and Wall Street tycoons harp on nuclear power, while millions die and are hospitalized from emphysema and other coal-encrusted diseases. They focus on the nuclear property losses while callously ignoring the deaths of millions of infants, children, elderly and those of prime-working age.
Nothing to see here, moving on…
You’ve done one of these, but not the other. Guess which?
The sheer lack of self awareness that your level of hypocrisy demonstrates is beautiful.
I know! It’s a gift.
Like when we argued about solar. XT was able to argue that we would have to create millions of panels and cover a huge part of the dessert in order to replace coal plants.
Very well argued. impressive. Except nobody said it. Nobody argued that solar alone would replace all the coal plants. So he set it up and almost knocked it down.
He has shown the ability to parrot everything nuke plant operators and owners say. So he proved he can read. That too is impressive.
Fukushima is a 7 on the nuke scale. That is the top. It is poisoning the countryside including a farming area. But, show me a stack of bodies wins every argument in XT land.Even though radiation will only kill quickly if you are inside the reactor. But it will kill. It will be a few years.
Please note that the energy production here is total energy production, which means bio-fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel. It’s not comparing electrical generation alone, which has been sort of the over-arching topic of this thread.
It’s great that renewable energy is such a large percentage now. I love renewable energy. I make an assload of money off of renewable energy, and exactly nothing off of nuclear. But please try to be more clear about what sort of energy you’re talking about so the conversation is on an apples-to-apples (ironically, all biofuels) basis.
I don’t know what exactly he’s referring to, but I reckon that in general he’s talking about “global dimming” which I helped Cecil write about here: We know about global warming, but what about global dimming? - The Straight Dope
More specifically, he’s probably talking about this article, which has popped up on blogs all over the Western hemisphere: Sulfur emissions 'mask' global warming
Some harebrained schemes to fight global warming have even included dumping enormous amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere to dim the planet more. It’s sort of like just kicking the can down the road, however.
Yeah, I read an article on the subject yesterday on CNN’s web site but didn’t want to help him out by posting a link. I remember Cecil’s article about ‘global dimming’ as well. Thanks for the links Una.
-XT
I didn’t know about global dimming.
I just assumed, when you used the phrase, that you were talking about FXMastermind’s contribution to understanding of the energy issue. 
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Like when we argued about solar. XT was able to argue that we would have to create millions of panels and cover a huge part of the dessert in order to replace coal plants.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was millions of wind turbines and hundreds or even thousands of square miles of solar panels, but who’s counting?
Well, modesty impels me to point out that nothing I was saying there is that earth shattering…a few minutes of Google searching and an envelope could show anyone who actually wants to know anything about this stuff the reality of wind and solar and what it would take to scale it up to even be where nuclear is, let alone where coal is.
No…solar alone couldn’t do it. I’m not sure that ‘Nobody argued that’, since it’s quite difficult to pin down any of you who were arguing against nuclear and for renewable energy as a replacement technology (as opposed to the overwhelming number of posters who, like me are all for renewable energy as a fill in or gap technology and want to see it expanded as much as is feasible) just what the hell you WERE getting at. That’s the problem…it’s rather like playing whack-a-mole. You guys bring up solar, then it’s shown what it would take so you switch to wind, then it’s shown what that would take, then you switch to geo-thermal or some other off the wall technology…then back to solar. And neither you, nor lev nor any of the other fervent renewable believers seems to grasp that you are arguing a strawman…no one (or very few posters) is saying that there is no place for renewable energy. Quite the opposite. I’ve said, repeatedly, that I WANT renewable energy. I like wind and solar and think we should make more of it. I think that we should continue to develop it and research should continue. The future of energy in the US is going to be a mix of technologies…something you just don’t seem to grasp. The trouble is that without nuclear we will HAVE to continue to have coal (even with it we will continue to have to have it, just less if we build more nuclear), which means we will continue to have CO2 and other noxious emissions from coal fired power plants. Why this is seemingly so difficult for you and the others on your ‘side’ is beyond me, to be honest. The facts have been presented repeatedly, and even if you think I’m a clueless moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about there have been plenty of other posters, many of them far more knowledgeable than I (not that this is an exceedingly high bar to meet :p), who have said basically the same things. Yet you still don’t get it.
Sadly, the same can’t be said about you, since you STILL don’t seem to have any idea of what I or many other posters were actually saying.
Yes it is, and no one has denied this. Of course, level 7 has a wide range, and Fukushima falls at the lower end of that level…IIRC, something along the lines of 10% as much radiation leakage as Chernobyl, the only other level 7 in history (certainly a lot less deaths, considering that so far there have been zero).
See, but it isn’t. That’s the thing. Radiation escaped, no doubt, and there was certainly contamination, but by and large that’s been stopped, and the thing is that outside of the immediate environs of the plant remedial measures are being taken to mitigate that contamination, and will continue to be taken. Far from your assertion that the land in a 30 km radius from Fukushima is some sort of nuclear no mans land, much of that land will eventually (as in months or a few years) be usable again…unlike Chernobyl. I mean, THINK about it…people are still working AT THE POWER PLANT WHICH IS GROUND ZERO FOR THIS EVENT. Granted, they work in shifts and have to constantly monitor their exposure, but it’s just not as bad as you seem to believe it is. The reports I’ve read lately talk about hot spots up to 40 or even 50 km away, but those are hot spots, not everywhere, and the radiation they are talking is 2-3 times LEGAL limits…which are intentionally set low…and they are taking measures to find those hot spots and remove the contaminated soil if possible.
You and FXM have endlessly droned on about how deadly radiation is and how deadly the Fukushima disaster is…so, I ask you to demonstrate how deadly the ‘disaster’ is by showing us how many people have died. FXM speaks about mystery workers dying, or talks about some workers who died in the earthquake and tsunami (without pointing out that they didn’t actually die from radiation) and you handwave it away. If you want to drop how deadly dangerous nuclear energy is (because you can’t actually SHOW how deadly it is and have been repeatedly smacked down by facts showing that it’s one of the safest forms of energy, statistically speaking) then that’s fine by me. We can talk about something else. But every time you bring up this stupid point I’ll ask you…show me the bodies then if it’s so dangerous.
It MIGHT kill you in a few years…and the deaths from Fukushima (and I’m sure there will be some) will be miniscule compared to the deaths from the actual freaking disaster that caused all of this…and miniscule compared to the deaths each and every year from something like coal smoke, which also kills slowly and over time. That you STILL don’t get this is, well, militantly unsurprising. What IS surprising is you keep bringing this up, over and over, as if you think it will somehow get traction this time when it’s epically failed all the other times.
-XT
Ultimately it seems like the anti-nukers in this thread are coming at this from what I’m beginning to see more often on this board:
“You don’t agree with me on this one issue, therefore you must be 100% opposed to me and wrong on all issues.”
Case in point–I can’t think of a single pro-nuclear person who’s said any of the following:
- Fukushima wasn’t a bad thing
- All nuclear plants are totally safe
- We should never use renewable energy sources
Yet it seems like that position is what gonzo and FXM are trying to rebut. I mean, it’s a hell of a strawman, but who gives a good goddamn?
Three months later it’s impossible to deny that the problem all along was the four reactors (that all had explosions in each building) and all the fuel rods and the radioactive material that came out of the reactors and spread all over the fucking place.
It wasn’t ‘panic’ or ‘fear’ that was the problem. Just like I said three months ago.
It’s the radioactivity stupid.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108
It’s funny when the warmers claim the temperature did rise, when it didn’t. Their tenuous grasp on reality seems to evaporate completely when faced with anything that doesn’t confirm their belief system.
Yeah, I wouldn’t normally do his legwork for him except that I had the news article open earlier today and had it in my history.
Isn’t he the one who claimed there were all sorts of workers dead from radiation in Japan? Or was that someone else?
I’m immune to trolling. Did you forget that already?