I quite agree, as I find the personal remarks a bore.
While at first I didn’t understand the difference between the pit and here, it’s clear now.
You remember 1958?
Yeah, I’m really old.
I also really know how to kill a topic.
Of course the loud supporters of how safe nuclear power is all kind of went silent. Can’t say I blame them.
Right here. If you weren’t blind to all the health problems and death other types of power generation, you’d understand it’s still safe - or more precisely, safer than other methods. We could have a chernobyl every month and not kill as many people as coal does.
I wonder, in all sincerity and innocent of snark…I wonder if its a matter of reception? For instance, did you read that piece with the sense of “Well, now, here is a candid, straight from the shoulder analysis from somebody who is clearly free from any agenda, with no axe to grind”? Did you, by any chance, read the comments at the end, questioning a few points?
And isn’t this approach buggering the question? After all, global warming is hardly killing anyone at all, these days. I, and many, many others, are convinced it will if we don’t get after this problem toot fucking sweet. Nuclear power is better than burning coal, much the same way that gonnorhea is better than cholera. Oh, happy day.
Do you have a flaw to point out in the methodology or is it just “welp, his conclusions don’t support my preconceptions, so he’s just a stooge”?
The first part of that is now hard fact. Three reactors melted through, with containment breach, and radiation spread far and wide, as well as huge amount in the water they have been using to try and keep it from getting worse. Based on the facts that are finally coming to light, they failed in so many ways it’s hard to count at this point.
If it was actually clean it would be a valid question. Hell, if it was cheap it would even be a valid question. The problem is, it’s neither clean nor cheap. Oh sure, if you ignore a lot of things you can say it’s cleaner than coal. But you can’t say it’s safer.
Like say, Japan?
What do you have to ignore? Nuclear waste goes into sealed metal bins, coal waste goes into the very air we breathe and also into landfill dumps - and it’s quite toxic. If “safer” refers to the number of deaths and harm it inflicts on people and the world, it’s massively, massively safer.
No one appreciates just how fucking nasty coal is, how many millions of people it afflicts with diseases of the lungs and cancer, how much land it taints with dumping leftover unburnt products. We could have a nuclear disaster every few weeks and it would still be safer and less harmful than coal.
This is like when an airliner goes down and people flip out and talk about how unsafe flying is, but then ignore the tens of thousands of car crashes that happen per day and tell themselves driving is somehow safer.
People are really bad at assessing risks, and fear the small unlikely exotic dangers more than the everpresent common dangers.
How clean and safe could coal or nuke be? We will never know because there is more profit in dirty coal and cutting corners in Nuke plants. The owners and operators will buy off regulators and fight any rules that force them to spend money on safety. That is the grim reality. Accidents will happen. And when they do, they will be worse because we stupidly trust the corporations to do the right thing. When will we realize they will not?
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Of course the loud supporters of how safe nuclear power is all kind of went silent. Can’t say I blame them.
[/QUOTE]
Say it loud! SAY IT LOUD! I’m a nuclear supporter and I’m proud!
(Ok, it’s better when James Brown does it)
Nothing that is or has happened in Japan has changed my mind, and I doubt any rational person viewing the evidence dispassionately has really had a change of heart either. The only people who have changed their minds are either those who were always uneasy with nuclear but were on the fence and, well, the people who aren’t rational. Whoever they might be.
Why did you revive this thread, anyway? Not getting enough attention in your Pitblog thread? There isn’t any new information available today that wasn’t available last week on the continued crisis (well, unless you count stuff being rehashed from March, as you did in your Pit thread). I doubt very much anyone has changed their minds one way or another since this thread fell off the front page. It’s just that you can only keep up the fever pitch of fear for so long before, well, people get bored and move on. Everyone has already attempted multiple times to discuss this rationally with you, and has insulted you until even that has gotten boring in the various Pit threads…there isn’t anything new, and there isn’t any point in continuing to beat this dead horse. Give it up already. Your faithful followers and fellow irrationalists are ALREADY convinced. You aren’t going to convince anyone else at this point…only time and events might sway a few more to the dark side. Or, perhaps, when people are able to look at what actually happens and put it in terms of actual cost, monetary and human, they will see that the big bad wolf was pretty much a small but very fierce beagle…with pelt lice.
Just remember…never look into it’s eyes. And they love blueberries…
-XT
OK you made me laugh.
I was reading the news from Germany, where now they are saying they can shut down their reactors by 2017, and with just a small increase in the price, replace all of them with green sources, or highly efficient gas turbines, avoiding coal.
Japan is also now committed to building and using safer cleaner means to supply electricity. Based on the cost/risk factors two of the worlds largest economies are talking about doing something to change how they generate power. This is actually a huge change.
Both countries are also technologically advanced, and Germany in particular has already been supporting solar as a power source.
If you have to factor in the cost of multiple reactors failing and polluting your country with radioactivity, suddenly nuclear doesn’t look good at all. Not from any viewpoint.
From a practical standpoint, as in money, nuclear is expensive. It’s also potentially catastrophically dangerous. All the more so if you add in war to the mix. As in, somebody is making a concerted effort to bomb the shit out of your reactors cooling systems (which are not protected like the reactor).
Everybody now knows that the weak link is the water intakes on a nuclear plant. All you have to do is fuck up the ability to suck in a shit ton of water every second to keep the reactors from melting down.
This of course can also happen if a dam fails, either by not releasing water, or bursting, either way suddenly you have a very dangerous national crisis at hand.
Whats the cost of having that hanging over your head? Of having 40 of those situations always there?
While the true nuclear believer wouldn’t change their mind if a dozen reactors blew up, and half of japan was uninhabitable, the rational leader might take a hard look at the future, and decide clean green energy could end up being cheaper in the long run.
Of course the naysayers will insist it isn’t possible. But they also were the ones saying nuclear power was safe and nothing bad will happen.
A stupid one. You presume that these pie-in-the-sky ideas will actually work.
Such a situation isn’t even possible. I might as well say that the renewable power supporters wouldn’t change their minds even if the panels were torching half the country with deadly concentrated sunbeams, or if the windmills grew legs and started eating people with their blades.
Really. :rolleyes: And who said that? As safe as many other industrial processes certainly, but I doubt you’ll find anyone who called nuclear plants perfect. And nothing all that catastrophic HAS happened despite all your hyperventilating. An old plant without modern safety features took hits from multiple natural disasters bigger than it was made to withstand, and doom did not occur the way you obviously desperately want it to. It’s a mess, but the fact that it came out of such disasters as well as it did is actually a testimony to how safe nuclear is in comparison to many other industrial facilities. I saw those videos of oil refineries burning and exploding.
Like I said, the true believer won’t be swayed by anything. It’s why they are a true believer. Evidence, logic, science, it all takes second stage when belief is involved.
The funny part is that the same mindset that loves nuclear power and nothing will change that, often also seem to have a very negative POV about clean energy, especially solar and wind power.
If it was up to them, nobody would even try to generate power from the sun and wind.
Let’s take a look at one problem Germany is facing. (remember, they want to shut down all their reactors)
There you have it. Solar is bad. Because there is too much of it already.
But wait, there’s more.
See? No mention of upgrading the grid to a modern smart grid. No mention of selling the excess to other countries, no positive mentions at all. The message is clear, stop adding solar power. It’s bad.
And this is in a country not know for it’s sunny expanses.
It is really a mark of a bankrupt argument to attempt to dismiss any other POV in this manner.
Truth is that there is lots that almost all here would agree on:
[ol]
[li]Nuclear power has real risks, and power plants in Japan failed with real consequences.[/li][li]Renewables have much potential.[/li][li]Coal is, compared to other power sources, cheap but with more significant harms.[/li][li]A goal is to provide low GHG power that is affordable and with low other costs in terms of health or potential disaster.[/li][/ol]
The disagreements are over: [ol]
[li]What is the magnitude of the risk from nuclear power and what do the events in Japan inform us about the potential for future risks with newer plants?[/li][li]How much potential over what time course do various renewables have, and how does that potential compare to the potential that nuclear has and to the anticipated need?[/li][li]How dedicated are we to reducing coal use? What costs (not just in dollars) are we willing to pay to reduce its use?[/li][li]And of course, what balance do we realistically expect to achieve? How do we get to a point that optimizes the balance between adequate power, low cost, low immediate health risks, low risk of disaster, and low risk of long term impact on climate change?[/li][/ol]
On one end are those who claim that the events in Japan prove that disasters are not impossible, so therefore nuclear is too dangerous. On the other are those who say that given the extremity of these events, the age of the designs in question, and that even then small improvements in design would have prevented the meltdowns, the fact that these events were not much worse is reassuring. New plants with designs informed by these events are, they argue, a fairly low risk venture.
On the one end are those who say that renewables can do enough that we do not need any nuclear power, on the other are those who say that renewables can,compared to the need, do very very little and at too high of a cost, and that a rapid ramp up of nuclear, a massive build out, is not only possible but is both required and would be more cost effective.
Not sure who is saying what about how important it is to reduce coal use and what price is justified to do it.
And I will continue to advocate that monetizing the carbon adequately, mandating adequate safety and health measures with adequate enforcement for compliance, and then letting market forces work is the best way to figure out what balance should be struck for each individual locale’s circumstances.
True believering has little to do with this debate and these disagreements. They are different takes on sets of facts, different speculations about future developments, and different sorts of costs held as being more important, not articles of faith.
You know, telling people who disagree with you that they only do so because they are mindless drones incapable of considering the facts and drawing their own conclusions from them* has never been a successful strategy for convincing someone to come around to your point of view, and is usually used by people who don’t have more substantive and persuasive arguments at their disposal. So unless you’re just here to feel smug and superior in an internet wankery sort of way, you might want to consider other approaches.
*or, in the common paralance, “sheeple”
ETA: Or what DSeid said.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
The funny part is that the same mindset that loves nuclear power and nothing will change that, often also seem to have a very negative POV about clean energy, especially solar and wind power.
[/QUOTE]
Can you give any example of any 'doper who is pro-nuclear in any thread on this board having a negative POV towards clean energy, including solar and wind? If not, this is another of your bullshit strawman arguments.
Myself, I LOVE wind and solar. I’m happy that they are being developed and deployed and I think they will be an important source in our overall energy mix. What I don’t think is that they can scale up to meet the majority of our energy needs. Wind and solar are (for the foreseeable future) going to be a niche source, something to enhance or top off our energy mix.
There is some pie in the sky about DOEs report that wind COULD be brought up to 20% of our total electrical production by the 2030’s, but even if it happens (which doesn’t seem likely to me) you are still only talking 20%. Even if you could get wind AND solar up to 40% total (by 2030), something that is completely unrealistic, you still need the other 60% from something.
Horseshit. Let’s see some fucking evidence. Show one 'doper who is saying that we shouldn’t use any wind or solar. If you can’t then I think it will demonstrate the value of your arguments in this post and the methods you are using…quite clearly and explicitly.
ETA: As Gyrate says, or what DSeid said.
-XT
I quite agree with you. The list of unsuccessful methods people try is long and varied. Ignoring facts and articles somebody links to and then discusses is also pretty useless for convincing anyone.
So it just saying something with out any evidence or even reasoning to back it up. I would say acting like you are smart and the person you are talking to is an idiot it a really stupid way to try and persuade.
Throw in a few personal attacks, some clever asides, and you have a recipe for somebody just ignoring you all together.
FX,
I am also not sure what your point is with that solar bit.
Solar uptake in Germany has been high due to subsidies. Nothing wrong with that. It is however a very volatile source, sometimes none, sometimes exceeding the demand, sometimes swamping the system. Yes, it can produce ample, but it also can produce way too little. And it only has an uptake with subsidies. Dealing with that volatility, or as it is often referred to, intermittency, is an issue that must be dealt with. I agree that it is not really that insurmountable of a problem - but it is a problem and depending too much on renewables in advance of having come up with an affordable plan to deal with it is a mistake. Germany may have gotten ahead of themselves is all and may need to pull back on the subsidies until they develop the solutions.
Again, balance is key. Solar good, but diversity of power generation is even better, and being prepared for the issues that increasing one source dramatically may cause is essential.