Post: #51

Fighting the carbon tax and the environmentalism movement needs to be moved to priority #1 for the western world...

Above immigrants

Above public school

Above "terrorism"

Post: #52

(02-07-2017 05:27 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  I'm confused as to what you're trying to argue. That people have irrational fears? Thanks, but I already stated that people are emotional and nobody wants a plant in their backyard. Cool, glad we agree people are irrational. But that's still a hurdle you have to cross politically and it's a serious one.

I agree. I think we need to fight to clear that hurdle, not run away from it. Socolow and Pacala (who I had not heard of before this discussion, for the record) seem to agree, so perhaps I'm not crazy.

Quote:"Back yard" is not to be taken literally. Nevadans across the board rejected the Yucca Mountain storage proposal, even if they lived on the other side of the state. Nobody wants anything nuclear anywhere near them. People would freak out if they realized how much waste is already near them.



Storage is clearly not one of the most easily overcome issues. If it was, we wouldn't have waste in temporary storage.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nucl...repository

Quote:Congress’ decision to study only Yucca, and its subsequent June 2002 approval/designation of the site, triggered years of legal challenges, strong opposition from many in the state of Nevada, and a significant amount of scientific disagreement about the suitability of the site. This has stalled the project. As a result, the original plan for DOE to begin accepting fuel at Yucca Mountain in 1998 did not happen.

In 2006, the DOE, during the George W. Bush administration, recommended that Yucca should open and begin accepting fuel by 2017. However, opposition continued, and in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to abandon the project. After his election, the DOE filed a 2010 motion with the NRC to withdraw its Yucca Mountain license application. A number of lawsuits have been filed in response to the DOE’s action.

We can't even do long-term storage right for the waste we have right now. You can argue as much as you want about irrational fears, but unless you have a magic wand that makes irrationality disappear, it is a tremendous political stumbling block. And you're surprised people don't want to push nuclear more?

Given the sheer scale of the alarmism they engage in with regard to climate change yes, I am surprised. None of these challenges seem as great as the doomsday scenarios I keep hearing about.

Quote:

Quote:So to conclude: nuclear can
1) can cause armageddon through nuclear proliferation
2) is a safety and environmental hazard
3) what do you do with the waste?
4) cost is outrageous, even for environmentalists.

1) Not it can't
2) Not it isn't
3) Storage is not complicated
4. Environmentalists promote vastly more outrageous "solutions" to their problems every day.

Quote:1) Yes it can - you've provided no evidence proliferation isn't a serious concern
2) Yes it is - unless you can guarantee zero possibility of meltdown or radiation, it's a hazard (albeit a very small one) and thus politically toxic
3) Yes totally not complicated, that's why Yucca Mountain has been such a success
4) Let's not caricature environmentalists or lump them together into a monolithic block. No doubt some promote outrageous solutions all the time. But quite a few (as I know them personally) are very sensible and see outrageously expensive ideas, including nuclear, for what they are: absolute no-gos.

Try again.

I will.

1). My understanding is that it is very difficult to remove reactor material from a a plant site. It is all meticulously tracked, logged, and serialized. With the right security measures in place, I think the risk of proliferation can be mitigated entirely. I'm not saying there will be no effort required here, but I don't buy proliferation as a damning argument against the spread of civilian nuclear power.

2). The political toxicity is due to irrational fear that makes Nuclear energy seem like a bigger hazard than it is. We need to clear that hurdle, not run from it.

3). Ties in with #2

4. Perhaps I've been affiliating with a different kind of envirnmentalist, then. Also, this bit needs more attention:

Quote:But quite a few (as I know them personally) are very sensible and see outrageously expensive ideas, including nuclear, for what they are: absolute no-gos.

Just to be clear: you're calling nuclear energy an "absolute no-go" here? Or am I misreading you? Because even Socolow and Pacala (who you cite in just a bit) don't seem to believe substantial increases in nuclear capacity are part of the solution, not the problem.

Quote:"IMO" - glad to know we've got your opinion. Backed by what exactly? Bring me some data if you want me to take you seriously on your perspective on the most optimistic scenario.

Who are these environmentalists you talk off? The absolute crazies like Naomi Klein?

I get the impression you don't actually talk to environmentalists in real life and are basing your opinion of them off of sensationalized news

I don't know Naomi Klein. The environmentalists I know aren't in the news.

As for my 30% opinion, do you know what percentage wind/solar would work out to in the Socolow-Pacala stabilisation wedge theory (assuming all of their decarbonisation targets are met)?

Quote:In case you didn't know, both Socolow and Pacala are very prominent in the climate change field. The crazy Naomi Klein even quoted Pacala in her silly book This Changes Everything. She just left out the fact that Pacala believes nuclear should be an option and we need to transition from coal/oil to gas to reduce CO2 emissions.

That sounds like the environmentalists I know.

Quote:You've brought up the baseload question a few times. I don't deny that right now with the technology we have today we need a base load power. I've said it before myself that with where we currently stand, 100% renewable grid isn't happening.

That said, I don't take sure a certain position on this issue. My emphasis on talking about smart grids and microgrids was to demonstrate that people are trying to figure out ways to reduce if not altogether remove a baseload power requirement.

This will have to be another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on. You seem dead set on needing something like nuclear as baseload power. I'm not. I'm very much open to the possibility that we may figure out a way to run without baseload powers.

Yes, that seems like it. The crux of our disagreement here is as follows (if I'm understanding correctly): I think baseload power is essential and will remain so, and I do not believe wind and solar energy have the potential to serve as that baseload (space based solar power seems to me the best hope to change this, but I'm seeing too many hurdles to that as well).

You think baseload power is not necessarily going to remain essential and, even if it did, wind and solar may very well have the potential to become baseloads and you do not want to foreclose the possibility of their doing so.

We are at an impasse. That's fine. Reasonable minds may differ.

That being said, I am in full agreement with Socolow and Pacala with regard to the value of nuclear energy in achieving the decarbonisation objectives held dear by many envronmentalists, and I'll continue to remain highly suspicious of those who claim a serious concern for the environment while either dismissing or just not mentioning the (in my mind essential) nuclear option.

Post: #53

Quote:

Quote:But quite a few (as I know them personally) are very sensible and see outrageously expensive ideas, including nuclear, for what they are: absolute no-gos.

Just to be clear: you're calling nuclear energy an "absolute no-go" here? Or am I misreading you? Because even Socolow and Pacala (who you cite in just a bit) seem to believe substantial increases in nuclear capacity are part of the solution, not the problem.

You're right, I perhaps used too much hyperbole and not enough clarification. There are a few places in the world where nuclear makes sense (economically). But the more you built, the fewer suitable places are left. I don't know any environmentalist that would advocate for 100% nuclear. So an absolute no-go on 100% nuclear. I should've clarified that point. I imagine that's why Socolow and Pacala only advocate for a doubling of capacity, rather than 100% nuclear.

Though I find Socolow and Pacala to be more optimistic than I am about costs of different technologies (they also advocate carbon capture & storage, which isn't cost-effective yet). Same goes for their opinions on educating the masses on the relatively low risks of nuclear power plants. I just don't see it happening.

Quote:As for my 30% opinion, do you know what percentage wind/solar would work out to in the Socolow-Pacala stabilisation wedge theory (assuming all of their decarbonisation targets are met)?

Not sure. The wedge theory itself was meant more as a theoretical concept to explain that with multiple approaches reducing CO2 becomes a more manageable task:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5686/968

So for example, the aim is to remain at about 7 Gigatons of Carbon emissions per year. At 2004 projections (the year they published their paper in Science), we'd hit 14 Gigatons of Carbon emissions per year by 2050.

Wedge theory broke down the problem by saying we should have 7 wedges, each targeting a Gigaton of emissions. It was a conceptual explanation specifically made to
a) get people to stop putting all their eggs in one basket - for example nuclear
b) show that a combination of current technologies are enough to get the job done (technologically at least, maybe not economically)

But a very rough calculation, considering numbers change rapidly:

* 25% of emissions is from the electric grid. Assume doubling of electricity production until 2050. So 25% of 14 Gigatons will come from the electric grid (3.5 Gigatons).
* ~ 75% of emissions are from coal, which is responsible for ~ 40% of electricity generation
* If we're only replacing coal with solar/wind, every 10% of the electric grid is worth 3.5*0.75*(0.1/0.4) = 0.65 Gigatons
* 15% would give 1 Gigaton, or a wedge.

So would need 15% for solar, 15% for wind to get each to be a wedge. Ha, would actually come down to 30% solar/wind!

In terms of proliferation concerns, although safeguards can be made - it's also quite easy for nations to go rogue. All you need is a nation to kick out UN inspectors and start using the enrichment facilities to get to highly enriched uranium. I'll have to review some papers, but if I remember correctly, it only takes a month to enriched enough U235 to have a functional bomb. A nation going rogue and getting a bomb can happen very fast. Perhaps another point we can politely agree to disagree.

Post: #54

(02-07-2017 03:35 AM)911 Wrote:  Come on dude, a TED talk, by a guy from Berkeley? This guy is a brainwashed idiot, sucking up to crooks like Bill Gates, James Hanson, the IPCC and freaking out about carbon emissions. You guys need to get red pilled, I will throw a global warming datasheet putting together a lot of research I've made on the subject.

CO2 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total hoax, based on faulty science and leftist technocratic propaganda. We have at least one century of oil and gas in N. America alone, and five centuries worth of coal. No need to go nuclear, if only on costs alone, at least until we perfect the nth wave super safe no waste cheap nuclear fission technology.

I believe the following:

1. Climate change is happening
2. Man has had some impact on driving climate change

I am still a classified as a denier (more of a skeptic, really) because I also believe the following:

3. The long-term impacts of climate change may not be catastrophic and could in fact be beneficil in many instance. We have no scientific certainty with regard to the long-term impacts of climate change (positive? negative? How positive? How negative? Neutral?) or the variability of that impact in different parts of the world. Those who talk as though we do have this certainty are wrong, in my view.

4. We do not know the extent to which man is impacting the climate or the extent to which his action could alter climate change (if at all).

So there's where I stand - these are my views formed over time as I've read and observed the relevant facts. I don't need to be "red-pilled". It isn't live I've formed my opinions with no information at all

Also, I don't care that the guy went to Berkeley. I'm not in the business of invalidating people's opinions based on where they went to school and some manufactured perceptions about their being "brainwashed" or what have you. With regard to this particular topic, he made many salient and accurate points and that's what matters. Those points are to be judged on their merit, not his educational background, his political affiliation, and our perceptions of people who go there. That's the kind of prejudicial BS that get used against people in the manosphere/on the right all the time and I'm not going to engage in it.

Post: #55

(02-08-2017 06:11 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 03:35 AM)911 Wrote:  Come on dude, a TED talk, by a guy from Berkeley? This guy is a brainwashed idiot, sucking up to crooks like Bill Gates, James Hanson, the IPCC and freaking out about carbon emissions. You guys need to get red pilled, I will throw a global warming datasheet putting together a lot of research I've made on the subject.

CO2 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total hoax, based on faulty science and leftist technocratic propaganda. We have at least one century of oil and gas in N. America alone, and five centuries worth of coal. No need to go nuclear, if only on costs alone, at least until we perfect the nth wave super safe no waste cheap nuclear fission technology.

I believe the following:

1. Climate change is happening
2. Man has had some impact on driving climate change

I am still a classified as a denier (more of a skeptic, really) because I also believe the following:

3. The long-term impacts of climate change may not be catastrophic and could in fact be beneficil in many instance. We have no scientific certainty with regard to the long-term impacts of climate change (positive? negative? How positive? How negative? Neutral?) or the variability of that impact in different parts of the world. Those who talk as though we do have this certainty are wrong, in my view.

4. We do not know the extent to which man is impacting the climate or the extent to which his action could alter climate change (if at all).

So there's where I stand - these are my views formed over time as I've read and observed the relevant facts. I don't need to be "red-pilled". It isn't live I've formed my opinions with no information at all

Also, I don't care that the guy went to Berkeley. I'm not in the business of invalidating people's opinions based on where they went to school and some manufactured perceptions about their being "brainwashed" or what have you. With regard to this particular topic, he made many salient and accurate points and that's what matters. Those points are to be judged on their merit, not his educational background, his political affiliation, and our perceptions of people who go there. That's the kind of prejudicial BS that get used against people in the manosphere/on the right all the time and I'm not going to engage in it.

I'm guessing most "deniers" think this way.

There are a few more things I think:
1. Measuring...Trying to get enough data to merely determine humans' affect on the climate would cost way more than we've already wasted...and even then, the number of variables (the sun to begin with) determining weather patterns is huge. Billions maybe? Trillions of variables? The idea we could even put a margin of error on such predictions is preposterous.

2. Changing behavior...Let's just say we figured out a way to do step 1, which again, to me seems impossible in the near future. The idea of changing human behavior in such a way to prevent our affect on the climate without the aggressive use of force at the detriment to human well-being (more than has already been done with the trillions of dollars of resources already wasted) seems difficult.

3. Other factors...sun cycles, solar flares, volcanoes, extraterrestrial impacts, etc...these are all things we know have had a huge factor on the erf's climate in the past, as recently as 10,000 years ago. Those will cause massive destruction. Massive. Way more than a couple inches in sea level change.

4. If you look historical at the improvement of resource usage, it's private enterprises trying to make more money that has improved efficiency.

To point 4, I don't blame dummies for not understanding the driving force of the free market...they're just ignorant products of the pubic screwal system.
I suggest "Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs" by Michelle Malkin.

Plus, private industry waste money on things that don't work all the time, but not nearly as much as government-forced efforts waste (specifically, big governments like the U.S., to a lesser extent CA, to a lesser extent Indiana...small municipalities waste, but not nearly as much). Just look at the bullet train in California.

Post: #56

Instead of ranting about actual pollution - smog / plastic debris.

The pro-climate change propagandists only saw it as another vehicle in which to impose authoritarian measures.

It never really was about the environment...

Post: #57

I'm curious to know what if Climate Change were indeed true, and we're too late to do anything about it.

I'm gonna do a "Pascal's Wager" here:

the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise. (Substituting hell with global warming).

• What is gained if climate change is false, and we didn't do anything about it(Keep $Trillion energy industry alive)
• What is lost if climate change was true, and we didn't do anything about it (We all go to hell)
• What is lost if climate change was false, and we did something about it(Potential lost of $Trillions, major recession, nationwide unemployment)
• What is gained if true, and we did something about it (We get to keep Earth)
  
  

It would be absolutely beneficial to me, and everyone else, to believe that everything is fine and dandy.

What's in it for the pro climate change propagandists? Will they become billionaires because of this? Why would they intentionally cause the loss of millions of jobs and maybe the next great depression? They just want anarchy? Or they want to dominate the world? Maybe there's a book somewhere called Protocols of the Elders of Treehuggerion that was better kept secret than THAT other protocol book.

(Apologies if this start to sound like a rant. But please do consider the points given in this argument)