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"
Above immigrants
Above public school
Above "terrorism"
Quote: (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.
Quote: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: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?
Quote:Quote:
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: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.
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.
Quote: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
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote:Quote:
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.
Quote: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)?
Quote: (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.
Quote: (02-08-2017 06:11 PM)Excelsior Wrote:
Quote: (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.