Sciencescienceglobalclimatechangepropaganda

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 10:40 PM

Why Environmentalist's hate nuclear

Propaganda is always an important element in any public campaign. The purpose of propaganda is to create an image in the minds of the people. As an Example. People who buy Pick Up Trucks want one that is strong, able to handle the difficult jobs that will be expected of them. So Chevrolet is built like a rock. Built Ford Tough. Dodge Ram, best in class. It goes on, and on, and on. Always has, and it always will.

Propaganda regarding the environmentalist agenda is similar. Everyone agrees Climate Change is happening, the debate is over. The big problem with that is while the statement is true, it's also false.

An example of the problem. For most of my life I've been hearing doom and gloom predictions, always a decade away, from Climate Change called first Global Cooling, then Global Warming, and now Man made global climate change. The fact that none of the predictions have come true is troubling to me.

Imagine if you will that a Scientist predicted that a Comet would appear near Jupiter in September. September comes, and no comet. October, and November come and go, still no comet. The obvious answer from the public would be that the scientist is wrong. Standing and shouting that the scientist is right, and everyone knows he's right doesn't change the fact that none of his predictions have come true.

That's part of the problem with the image of the Global Climate Change groups. They tried to stir up fear and immediate action with the most outrageous doom and gloom predictions. When the predictions didn't come true, instead of fessing up to the mistake, and admitting it, they pretended that it never happened. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

Predictions must be confirmed with observation in order to validate the science. Consensus is how you pick a popular song, or Television show. Prediction, coupled with observed results is how you validate science.

So let's set that aside for a bit and move along. Energy. Obviously society needs a stable, and dependable source of energy. No debate there, or at least I hope. So we want a source of energy, but with Climate Change, we want one that provides energy without creating carbon dioxide.

We turned away from Nuclear in the 1970's, and you know why. Propaganda. Propaganda had a movie, the China Syndrome. Propaganda had an accident, Three Mile Island. Propaganda had all the ammunition to doom and gloom the population. Propaganda also had funding, from the oil companies. http://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-to-antinuclear-movement/

Yes, the early Solar movement was funded by the Oil Companies that hoped to derail Nuclear power knowing that Solar wasn't ready, and wouldn't be in the foreseeable future, but Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas would be chosen as a stop gap measure.

Yet Nuclear produces no carbon dioxide. Engineers have developed, tested, and validated new designs that are safe fail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety

We tested the reactors, and performed demonstrations of the designs safety feature. A loss of coolant accident for example. The temperature spiked, and then started down naturally. The observers were ready to run, but the engineers who designed the thing stood calmly, knowing how the system worked.

The documentary Pandora's Promise showed actual video of this test, and saw how designs like that would have prevented a Chernobyl, or Fukushima. Imagine this for a moment friends. A problem at the nuclear power plant and it shuts down safely with no input from humans. Remember, we've tested the design, it works.

So what is the problem? Yucca Mountain. The demands of the Environmentalists are now that we have to guarantee that the nuclear material stored there will be safe for ten thousand years. Seriously? That's longer than the recorded history of mankind. Anyone who can say that something man made will stand safely for ten thousand years would properly be labeled a liar. I'd personally lead the effort to label them a liar.

Remember, Science is prediction, observation, and validation. It isn't guarantees. It isn't consensus. It is theory, prediction, observation, and validation. The lack of validated predictions is why Climate Change is still doubted by a majority of people, and a quarter of scientists. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/

So why aren't the Environmentalists embracing Nuclear? In a decade we could cut the use of fossil fuels by a third or perhaps even a half. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Imagine that, use of fossil fuels reduced by a third, CO2 emissions cut by how many billions of tons? Not dependant upon windy days, or sunny days, with requisite Natural Gas power plants constructed nearby to take up the slack when the sun isn't cooperating.

But the propaganda from the 70's continues to hold sway. Fear and a half a handful of incidents in old designs is all it takes to reject the new. While at the same time telling people that only the new theories matter.

We're pawns. The environmentalists, and the deniers. All of us are pawns in the game. We choose our propaganda, and we run with it convinced we're right. It's like a religion, we have to make sure others believe, converting them to our ideals. We have to eschew any beliefs that do not fall in line. We have to decry the heretics who question any part of our beliefs. They must be silenced. Truth is the first casualty, and it died in the 1970's.

51 replies, 3581 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Environmentalist's hate nuclear (Original post)
SavannahMan Jul 2015 OP
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #1
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #5
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #13
Guyzilla Jul 2015 #2
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #4
Guyzilla Jul 2015 #7
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #9
Guyzilla Jul 2015 #10
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #11
Guyzilla Jul 2015 #12
Currentsitguy Jul 2015 #16
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #35
It Guy Jul 2015 #14
TexMex Jul 2015 #21
Transcendence Jul 2015 #23
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #36
Transcendence Aug 2015 #37
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #38
Transcendence Aug 2015 #41
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #42
Transcendence Aug 2015 #43
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #45
Transcendence Aug 2015 #47
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #48
Transcendence Aug 2015 #49
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #50
Transcendence Aug 2015 #51
Tolk Jul 2015 #3
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #6
Tolk Jul 2015 #8
johnaries01 Jul 2015 #15
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #17
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #18
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #19
SavannahMan Jul 2015 #20
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #24
TexMex Jul 2015 #22
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #27
_eek Jul 2015 #25
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #26
_eek Jul 2015 #28
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #29
_eek Jul 2015 #30
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #31
_eek Jul 2015 #32
OneLoudVoice Jul 2015 #33
_eek Jul 2015 #34
SavannahMan Aug 2015 #39
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #40
Transcendence Aug 2015 #44
OneLoudVoice Aug 2015 #46

Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 10:52 PM

1. Where would you suggest we store nuclear waste?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:44 PM

5. For Ten thousand years?

If that is the standard, it's not safe where it is before we dig it up and refine it.

That's what we do, we refine existing material into a more useful form. Uranium has been in the earth since it was formed. Want to know how much? Well how much Lead is there? Because Lead is the result of Uranium decaying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

In ten thousand years, it's possible that Mankind will have moved to colonize the stars, and no one will be left on Earth anyway. In ten thousand years, it's possible that our political differences has resulted in wiping the species off the planet long ago. Meteors could have eradicated all life on the planet.

No one knows what is going to happen over the next ten thousand years. But we know what will happen if we don't reduce CO2 don't we? With Nuclear Power we could meet our energy needs in a decade while reducing CO2 by what, a third or more?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:50 AM

13. No, for 10 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 10:54 PM

2. Propaganda my ass. They are expensive, and their power is expensive.

 

In addition, they are built by humans. I knew a guy that used to machine valves and such. they would fake the certs to get much more money for them than if they failed and were relegated to coal fired power.

The Rancho nuke was built 180 degrees off. they just printed the gauges in reverse in one unit. Then forbid those working on one unit from working in the other. Nukes are not profitable as is, but they cannot exist unless we limit culpability on accidents. So, the taxpayer will pay for their own slow painful death.

I went to the big CSN concert at san Onofre, to protest their having no escape plan whatsoever.

Another nuke had pipes that had leached from boric acid, and the only thing stopping the genie getting out of the bottle was a few thousanths thick cladding.

They are also ripe for terrorist attack. I knew a guard at San Onofre. They ALLLLLLLLLLLL smoked pot on the job.

You don't seem to know anything about nukes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:39 PM

4. OK

Tell me why the test bed reactors, Generation III models, were shut down despite showing success of the design?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

Scientific Consensus is that the reactor design is much safer than ones currently in use. Why has research into the Generation IV designs been essentially shut down. Those would be even safer that current or Generation III designs. Additionally, they would produce a fraction of the radioactive material that current designs do.

Again, Consensus of Scientific Opinion is that these are safe. Are you saying that the Scientists don't know anything about Nuclear power? Or that they are misinformed? You can't have it both ways. If a mere consensus of scientific opinion is all that is needed to prove that Global Climate Change is happening, you can't dismiss a Consensus opinion on other topics can you?

I'm no nuclear scientist. I do read a great deal, and watch documentaries extensively. I'd suggest you watch Pandora's Promise. It's available on Netflix if you're a member. Elsewhere if you aren't.

Start with this truth however. The anti-nuclear position was funded by the Oil Companies in the 1970's. So the protests and concerts you've attended were to the benefit of the oil companies.

What isn't ripe for Terrorist Attack? What isn't a good target for a Terrorist attack? The oil docks in Houston are a great target. The Refineries are a great target. Power substations are a great target. Highway bridges, railroad bridges, dams, and even theaters are great targets for a terrorist attack. Army Recruiting Offices are targets of terrorist attacks. A marathon has been the target of a terrorist attack. What isn't a target?

I'm saying take a step back and look at the information, and see what is out there. Stop just holding onto the beliefs you've always held, question them. Question everything. If Global Climate Change and CO2 is a huge threat, than shouldn't we limit CO2 as much as humanly possible? If that is the biggest threat we face, and I've heard it is for years now, then wouldn't a reactor that produces the electrical power we need, not the power we want, but the power we need while producing less than a tenth of the radioactive waste be a good thing?

Think it through man, think it through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:46 PM

7. I am not antinuke. I would welcome advances. Perhaps micronukes.

 

I will look into them. gen 3. The four paragraphs I read sound pretty good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:01 AM

9. That's my point.

We had a working reactor under President Clinton. It was at the Idaho test facility. We tested failures, and the tests showed the designs worked. That's an awesome start man. More testing would have had a working reactor design NOW. We would have reactors with passive safety features able to take over from designs that dated from the 1950's.

Perhaps we would have found a flaw with the additional testing. Perhaps we would have found problems. Then again, perhaps we would be able to get rid of the current designs with more modern, and much safer designs.

That's the problem with the anti-nuke position. They point to the first designs as if that is all there ever can be. That would be like arguing that automobiles can't be made safer because the 1950 DeSoto didn't have airbags or crumple zones. We've made tons of progress on car tech since then. Airplane design has advanced, but only nuclear reactors can't ever advance. As if the first designs were the last ones anyone would ever need.

We've learned a lot since the first design days. We've learned and we've improved the theories. The French use pebble bed reactors, which reduce the chance of a failure dramatically.

As a people, we should be striving to improve things. We should be trying to increase, not limit the advancements that can help us improve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:04 AM

10. You are wrong about them replacing any early. Like the train cars that are safer from blowing up

 

They will only be replaced by attrition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:08 AM

11. Perhaps.

But if a design that was safer was available, and approved, then pushing one past it's expected life span like Fukushima was, might not happen as often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 12:11 AM

12. True.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 04:05 PM

16. You guys should read up on this:

I think this technology holds a lot of promise while addressing many of the current concerns.

Liquid fluoride thorium reactor
LFTRs differ from other power reactors in almost every aspect: they use thorium rather than uranium, operate at low pressure, receive fuel by pumping without shutdown, entail no risk of nuclear meltdown, use a salt coolant and produce higher operating temperatures. These distinctive characteristics give rise to many potential advantages, as well as design challenges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Molten salt waste-burner
Seaborg Technologies, a company based in Denmark, has recently been developing the core for a MSW (Molten Salt Waste-burner). The MSW is a high temperature, single salt, thermal MSR designed to go critical on a combination of thorium and nuclear waste from conventional nuclear reactors. Thorium produces much less of the long lived and problematic transuranic waste (e.g. plutonium and americium) than conventional reactor fuel, even when running a closed fuel cycle. As a consequence the core produces much less transuranic waste than it consumes – hence a waste-burner. The MSW design is modular and the reactor core is estimated to be replaced every 6–10 years, however, the fuel will not be replaced and will burn for the entire power plant lifetime. The first version of the Seaborg core is planned to produce 50 MWth power and is shown to reduce the amount of transuranic waste in the world by approximately 1 ton (not considering natural decays) over its 60 years power plant lifetime. After 60 years the 233U concentration in the fuel salt is high enough to initiate a closed thorium fuel cycle in the next generation power plant. Whitepaper.

Liquid fluoride thorium reactor
Reactors containing molten thorium salt, called liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR), would tap the abundant energy source of the thorium fuel cycle. Private companies from Japan, Russia, Australia and the United States, and the Chinese government, have expressed interest in developing this technology.

Advocates estimate that five hundred metric tons of thorium could supply all U.S. energy needs for one year. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the largest known U.S. thorium deposit, the Lemhi Pass district on the Montana-Idaho border, contains thorium reserves of 64,000 metric tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 10:55 PM

35. What isnt ripe for terrorist attack?

individual solar panels dotting every roof across the nation, for one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 03:19 AM

14. "The Rancho nuke was built 180 degrees off. They just printed the gauges in reverse in one unit."

That was such an incredulous statement, Because anybody with a modicum of a technical background would know that is utter BS.

Cooling such a steel vessel too quickly can cause cracks, which could drain the water that acts as a coolant and trigger a meltdown. The overcooling at Ranch Seco did not last long enough to threaten a meltdown, but during one 24-minute period, the plant cooled by 180 degrees--well beyond the approved 100 degrees an hour.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-03-23/news/mn-5572_1_power-plant/2

The issue was an automatic fail safe that kicked in the cooling pumps and valves, this also triggered Another safety feature by activating the control rods to shut down the core, so the plant cooled by 80 degrees too fast. Engineers design these plants with abundant tolerance levels that exceed worst case scenarios. The other thing you said about printing the gauges in reverse is laughable. A gauge is essentially a transducer and they measure whatever force they are designed for. If the gauge is backwards and reading in reverse, then that means that the force applied is reversed. So if a pressure gauge can't read pressure then it must be a vacuum?

It must be tough living in your world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 07:23 PM

21. The guard story is 100% bs.

 

I know an IT co-worker who transferred to a nuke plant. He failed his piss test and he was gone, before he arrived to his first day at the plant... We can't make energy policy based on your loser friends smoking pot. Hang up the bong buddy and rejoin us in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guyzilla (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 09:19 PM

23. If nuclear is so expensive...

...why does France (which generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear) have lower electricity rates than Germany?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 11:04 PM

36. Subsidies.

Same as here in the US. The tax payers pick up the tab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #36)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 05:44 AM

37. Proof?

Forgive me if I refuse to take the assertion of an anonymous poster on the internet. Do you have any links to support your assertion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #37)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 07:54 PM

38. Go do a little research

You can start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Cost_per_kWh

Its not any big secret. Here in the US, the nuclear industry literally cant move without uncle sam covering them for insurance.

http://www.thenation.com/article/who-pays-nuclear-power/

In france, the government owns most of the nuclear power, and there is apparently no transparency about the costs. But they have a similar arraignment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Frankly, when you factor in long term waste storage, and insurance costs in case of catastrophy, nuclear just isn't affordable compared to other forms of generation. The only reason it works is that governments are willing to cover or waive those costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 3, 2015, 10:57 AM

41. Those links don't say what you claim

The first link only compares nuclear to gas and coal, not renewables.

The second link talks about how the government provides insurance--but that only costs the people money if something goes wrong, which has never happened (even Three Mile Island resulted in no injuries or deaths, and no insurance claims were made).

The third link says that it's hard to calculate the true cost of nuclear in France because the government owns the plants. While this is true, it proves nothing about the actual cost of electricity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 3, 2015, 02:22 PM

42. I think you need to go back for some critical thinking skills

My claim is that government resources are propping up nuclear power, and that without that, nuclear power wouldn't even be on the table as an option. And my links do show that.

I guess you do not support the free market.

To be fair, neither do I. But I would prefer that when the government is going to play favorites between companies, they do so with companies offering a better product, not just with companies that are well established or who offer the biggest campaign contributions.

The fact of the matter is that without government resources propping them up, we would not have any nuclear power in the US. And neither would France.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 3, 2015, 11:49 PM

43. There would be no renewables without government subsidies either

Yes, nuclear receives subsidies. but those subsidies pale in comparison to what renewables receive:



The situation looks even worse when you compare what you get for those subsidies:



In the US, nuclear gets 21% of the subsidies and generates 20% of the electricity. In comparison, wind and solar get 50% of all energy subsidies but generate a mere 2% of our electricity.

So which power source is really dependent on government subsidies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #43)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 12:43 AM

45. Not an accurate count

For instance, the subsidies to carbon fuels are much higher than shown.

Same for the nuclear industry. We the taxpayer provide the insurance. Because the industry cant afford it. Which means that we are passing them a fucking huge subsidy, off the books.

If the numbers were honest, we could have an informed discussion. But they are not. Which makes it a significant challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #45)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 11:25 AM

47. The nuclear industry pays for its own insurance

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

The nuclear energy industry’s liability insurance consists of two tiers:

The first tier provides $375 million in liability insurance coverage per incident—the maximum amount available through private insurers. This coverage is provided by insurance pools, which are groups of insurance companies pledging assets that enable them to provide much higher coverage than an individual company could offer. Utilities pay an annual insurance premium for each reactor site. As of 2014, the average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site was $860,000.
If the first tier funds are not sufficient to cover claims arising from an accident, a second tier of financial protection applies. This tier offers additional liability insurance coverage up to $13.2 billion per incident. This amount is adjusted periodically for inflation, most recently in 2013. All operating nuclear reactors in the United States participate in the second-tier financial protection program. After a reactor incident, every plant would be required to pay a premium equal to its proportionate share of the excess loss, up to a maximum of $121.3 million per reactor per accident. This can increase to $127.3 million if a 5 percent surcharge to cover legal costs is included.

http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Insurance-Price-Anderson-Act-Provides-Effective-Li

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #47)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 12:55 PM

48. They do not. You need to look deeper

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html

They do have a minimal private insurance policy, I will give you that. But the 375 million wouldnt even be a drop in the bucket if we have a serious nuclear incident. After that its all promises and fluff, and the only real backing becomes the government guarantee. Thats not private insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:15 PM

49. History says you are wrong

You say "375 million wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket". Based on what? According to the link you just provided the Three Mile Island accident resulted in an insurance payout of 71 million dollars. The Three Mile Island reactor melted down--it doesn't get any worse than that. Your claim that $375 million is insufficient is simply not backed by the facts.

Moreover, why do you simply dismiss out of hand the 13+ billion dollars in the second tier insurance? How do you justify doing that? The bottom line is that there is way more money available to cover the costs of an accident than could possibly be needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #49)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:30 PM

50. Take it up with the people who calculate such things

First off.. three mile was 5 on a 7 point scale. So.. it does get worse than that.

second.. Location, location, location. There are plants that could go without serious immediate harm to our economy. There are other plants that could kill major cities.

Third... its easy enough to look up. Even minor glitches can cost hundreds of millions to fix. Major disasters can cost in the billions(ie chernobyl, with 15 billion immediate loss, and hundreds of billions over the decades). And Weve been lucky so far. Imagine what the cost could be if, for instance, Indian point had a major disaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #50)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:40 PM

51. The Chernobyl example is irrelevant

Chernobyl did not have a containment structure, and that makes all the difference in the world. In the US (as well as pretty much everyone else in the world) all nuclear plants are required to have containment structures in place to prevent the massive release of radiation that occurred at Chernobyl. Three Mile Island and Fukushima are much better examples of what can go wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:00 PM

3. your using propaganda

 

To counter propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tolk (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:45 PM

6. I'm exposing the propaganda on both sides

I'm assuming that the truth is somewhere in between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:49 PM

8. oh

 

Well carry on then =)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 03:24 AM

15. Not only is the waste material dangerous,

so is the mining process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 04:49 AM

17. I know exactly why I dont much care for Nuclear plants

My objections are pretty directly tied to the surgery my mom had to have on her thyroid after growing up in an area where nuclear waste contamination had leaked.

I also dont like the idea that I am forced to subsidize the plants. If they could get their own insurance, I'd be a lot more willing to discuss the topic, but as long as I have to take on all the risk, while they take on all the benefits, that strikes me as a terrible deal. Especially in light of all the risk free alternatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 07:52 AM

18. What risk free alternatives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 01:08 PM

19. I suppose risk free is a misnomer

Manufacturing processes pretty much always contain risk.

But whats the worst case scenario on a solar panel going bad? How about a wind turbine, if everything possible goes wrong with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 01:31 PM

20. Well, there are risks to even those systems.

Birds are regularly cooked in mid air by solar panel reflectivity.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/streamers-birds-fried-midair-solar-plant-feds-say-n183336

That also means that a major atmospheric heat pump is created at major solar fields. That creates a significant upwelling of hot air. Effects on weather are debatable of course.

Then there are the wind turbines. More dead birds according to environmentalists who are trying to get them banned for that reason.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

But don't worry, the Obama Administration has given a thirty year free pass to wind farm operators to slaughter birds, including endangered species at will.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/06/obama-administration-will-let-some-wind-companies-kill-or-injure-eagles

Then there are the problems that develop when wind isn't blowing, or the day is overcast. Do you know where the energy in your home comes from then? IF you answered a Natural Gas Turbine, you answered correctly. That's why the oil companies like wind and solar, because for every one of those fields that is converted to a renewable energy source to the delight of the green energy groups, not far away a Gas Turbine is built to provide power at night, or when it's cloudy, or when it's not windy.

Offshore wind farms also have problems.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034012/article

Major disturbances to the wildlife, and habitat areas. The sound of the turbines swooshing through the air would carry, and electromagnetic fields from the power lines carrying the energy back to shore would cause problems with undersea wildlife.

So for me, and thee, perhaps no problem at first. Unless our Grandchildren ask why the Eagles are extinct. Or unless we hope to harvest things like food from the sea. Otherwise, no sweat.

In other words, nothing is without some cost. Now Gas Turbines work no problem, as do Hydro Electric. But Hydro screws up migration patterns of fish, and gas turbines create a lot of CO2. The failure of a Dam in a Hydro Electric plant means a lot of dead people down river, and dead wildlife.

Anything mankind does, has some cost. Nothing is zero impact, or no downside, even if everything goes well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 10:28 PM

24. Nice try, but no.

a) You can talk till you are blue in the face, but neither solar nor wind nor even hydro, natural gas, or coal caused my mothers problems. That was all Nuclear.

b) No, birds are not being cooked by solar panels. They are apparently being cooked by giant mirror farms. Just goes to show that centralizing everything under control of a corporation isnt always the best way to do things.

c) Your supposed environmentalists objecting to wind, at last I checked, were actually a carbon fuel industry funded plant. I know a fair few environmentalists, and none of them object to wind turbines.

d) your own excerpt about offshore wind farms actually says that there can be environmental disruption while building them, but that long term environmental effects may actually be positive, depending on the goals for the area.

e) I never defended hydro. I can see use for limited hydro, but I think we over did it to the point of abuse. However, they take out damns regularly these days, and no one dies. That claim is just silly. As is your eagles claim. All the wind turbines and even all the solar death rays put together are an infinitesimal threat to eagles compared to environmental pollutants that were messing with their eggs. As proven by the fact their numbers are rebounding even as we increase our solar and wind power.

And none of your mentioned concerns are anything that couldn't potentially be addressed if we started putting our money and ingenuity into that effort, rather than trying to build nuclear power plants to mooch off of the public dime and extract carbon fuels from ever more difficult fields (whether they be technically difficult, or militarily difficult, it costs a LOT of money)

In short, you are spreading misinformation. No one who actually looks into any of your claims is going to be fooled. But I suppose thats what those spreading those claims are counting on.

So sure, everything has an impact. But some things have more of an impact than others. And one of the impacts caused my mother(and many others) to have to have life altering surgery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 29, 2015, 07:25 PM

22. You'll love this:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexMex (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:17 PM

27. Ok. so thats the worst case scenario.

As long as we dont put the big ones above schools or in residential areas, the worst case aint so bad.

Compare that to the worst case on a Nuclear plant.

Which one would you rather see fail somewhere in your county?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 04:55 PM

25. And the processes needed to get the components used in your panels?

And the chemicals needed to create your batteries, you know for when the Sun is down and the wind don't blow?


Nuclear is here now, and efficient and works, modern modulars could be in place in the next decade, as we work on solving the storage bottleneck so many of the alternative energy sources are held back by.

generation is not the hold back right now, it is storage, and the ability to spread the KW created through the hours it is needed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 08:14 PM

26. What about them?

They didnt cause my mother to have to have surgery.

And I think we could improve on those processes, in a way we can not when it comes to nuclear. As I stated, risk free is a misnomer. Theres virtually always risk. But theres a difference in risk level between crossing in a crosswalk when the signal says go and darting out onto a 6 lane highway, wearing black clothing, in the middle of the night.

I also think we could find alternate energy storage that is better than what we have now. As a hypothetical, man made hydro. Build a big ol salt lake somewhere, use solar to pump it full of ocean water, and then empty it back into the ocean at times when we need the stored physical energy. Im sure there are even better ideas out there.

But that relies on us having the will and resources to do so. Its much like being in a household with an old beater car. As long as you are focused on all the repairs to keep it running, you will never have the time, energy, or money to go buy a new one that works better.

As to nuclear.. It doesn't work, financially or physically. The companies making the plants are not paying for themselves. The tax payer is paying for their profits, and then some. And their safety measures didn't work for my mothers thyroid. Pumping more tax payer dollars into a failed experiment is a bad idea, when our goals should be elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 30, 2015, 10:58 PM

28. Didn't harm YOUR mom..

And the Chinese mothers and children? Fuck 'em?

It's all about you isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 12:13 AM

29. Read the op.

"Why Environmentalist's hate nuclear"

Nuclear harmed my mother. That's the reason why I hate nuclear. I suppose you think I should love things that harm my mother? How very anti-american of you. Do you hate apple pie as well?

Now, even if you dont hate Nuclear, there are plenty of reasons to think nuclear is a bad plan. For instance, I am certain it can and will harm your "Chinese mothers and children" just as much as it did my mother, given time. And time is one thing nuclear waste definitely has on its side.

Which leads to the next question. Why do you hate and want to harm my mother, and all the Chinese Mothers and children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 08:42 AM

30. Ah, you mistake my intent.

Like you, I don't care about someone else's mother, My moms thyroid is absolutely perfect, so nuclear is great. And no one is refining and dumping chems in my lakes and rivers. So Solar is good too. It's all about my back yard dontcha know.

Environmentalist? You? not hardly. Your only concerned about the piece of the planet you can see....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 07:55 PM

31. Mistake your intent? Not likely

Unlike you, I do care about other people, including other peoples mothers.

Your last line is kinda funny. And contradictory. Its hard to make satire of posts like yours, since you do it to yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:27 PM

32. OK skippy

You think that.

and that is the sorriest attempt at deflection I've seen here yet.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _eek (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:44 PM

33. If it so sorry

then stop doing it. Skippy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 31, 2015, 09:53 PM

34. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #26)

Sat Aug 1, 2015, 09:15 PM

39. I've been thinking about your post.

The story of technology in our world is advancement. At the time most of the currently in use reactors were designed, cars had tail fins, and no seat belts much less any safety equipment.

Engineers who designed and built cars had no concept of crumple zones. A head one collision at speed would often drive the motor right back into the passenger compartment.

Now of course, we do know. We've learned. We've improved the safety of the vehicles. We've designed motor mounts to throw the engine down to hopefully prevent the mass of hot metal from being thrust into the passenger compartments. We've designed crumple zones to absorb the energy, and now airbags are standard as are seat belts.

Now, imagine if someone argued that cars can never be safe because a 62 Plymouth was responsible for a family member losing a limb.

Airplanes designed in that ear were inefficient, heavy, and fell out of the sky far too regularly. Now, we design the plane to have components fail, and still keep flying.

We've all seen those engine mounts where the jet hangs below, and forward of the wing. Did you know that was intentional? Not for flight efficiency, but because that kind of engine mount allowed a motor that broke loose to circle up above the wing and back away from the plane. Testing indicated that design caused far less damage to the plane.

The newest reactor designs, the already initially tested Gen III and the theoretical Gen IV produce much less radioactive waste. Improved isolation materials further increase safety. That's besides the passive safety features mentioned above.

The difference between the reactors in normal use now, and the reactors I've been talking about is the difference between a Ford Van from the 1960's and a modern Toyota Sienna Van. A crash in the Toyota is far more survivable than a similar crash in the antique Ford.

Better yet, the first Commercial Jet Airliner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

This was a beautiful design. The engines were installed inside the wings. It had beautiful rectangular windows that had nice sharp corners. It looked quite beautiful, was fast for the era, reasonably efficient for the era. It was also a death trap. The square windows produced stresses that the engineers didn't know about. That caused explosive blowouts, and torn metal that caused the plane to literally disintegrate at altitude.

Compare that with a modern Boeing 777. There really is no comparison.

If aircraft design had stopped with the De Havilland Comet, I'd argue that air travel was too risky to allow. But it didn't stop there. It went on, and improved, and then improved more. We learned, and we advanced our knowledge.

The reactors I'm talking about have as much in common with the previous generations of reactors as the Boeing 777 has with the death trap Comets. Yes, they're both airplanes, but the similarities really pretty much end there. Yes they are both nuclear reactors, but the similarities end there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 3, 2015, 02:42 AM

40. Cost VS reward

First... The op question was why do environmentalists (me) hate nuke plants.

I answered that. Because they harmed my mother. I think thats reasonable.

Relating that back to your argument... If an old ford was responsible for my mother losing her arm, I dont think I would be a ford loyalist, even though they may have improved the quality of their product over time.

I also have delved into a second question. Why do I oppose nuclear power.

Cost vs Benefit. If the new reactors are so much better in all ways, then they should have no problem self financing and buying insurance from insurance companies without the government having to prop them up. Will that be the case? Also, to meet my requirements for support, they would have to have dealt with the waste storage issue. Have they?

It comes to cost vs benefit. Nuclear has some short term benefits. But if/when things go wrong, the trouble caused has a large scale and a long shelf life. If an airplane goes down a few hundred folks may be directly effected. If a car fails, a few people may be directly effected. If a nuclear plant goes wrong, thousands or millions of people may be effected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneLoudVoice (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 3, 2015, 11:55 PM

44. Question

Were your mother's health issues the result of contamination coming from a civilian nuclear power plant, or a military base? I ask because it is a well known fact that the military is subject to far more lax rules than civilian nuke plants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #44)

Tue Aug 4, 2015, 12:45 AM

46. Power plant

However, its rather irrelevant. Even a small risk of a major disaster is too much, in my opinion, particularly when we have so many options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescienceglobalclimatechangepropaganda