10 Oct 2019, 5:25 pm
10 Oct 2019, 9:51 pm
You always impress me, Sir.
I can't believe such a young man has such a wise head on his shoulders.
You really need to get rid of that hat though. 
jimmy m wrote:
Climate Change: Why is nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams off the table?
Good question.
I understand there are natural habitat issues for our little animal critters regarding the building of damned dams.
I am not sure as to the negativity regarding nuclear.
I would like someone from the left side of politics to give a comprehensive explanation, preferably with relevant links.
Regarding Nuclear:
I haven't studied this question myself but it seems to be a partisan position where there is no compromise.
I will invoke the Autistic motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen."
I personally haven't come across a rational principle.
Please provide one,
You MuthaFockers.
And if you don't,
I may have to assume you guys don't know and are simply following an edict to which you have no intellectual investment.
If so, hardly deserving of respect.
Groupthink is not something which we should cherish,
According to one of Pepe's laws pertaining to wisdom.
Quote:
However, when it comes to energy and climate policy, there is little rationality to be found.
Fine for those embracing emotionalism,
But not for those who value intellectual content.
Irrational nonsense can be found on both sides of the political divide,
But it is beyond me how anyone can take irrational jibberish seriously.
I have come to the conclusion that some people are simply incapable of rational/logical thought processes,
And rather than admitting to this deficit, they double down and maintain their unreasonable philosophical position.
It seems to me that upholding emotionalist nonsense is encouraged by certain power groups of our respective societies.
"Religion is the opiate of the people", for example,
And the intention of the opiate is to pacify the masses or at least direct their energies in certain, err, directions.
Quote:
The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... the+people
Personally, I tend to focus more along the lines of the following consideration of Ernst Bloch:
Quote:
on one side the theocratic religion of the official churches, the opiate of the people, a mystifying apparatus at the service of the powerful; http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/s ... article807
We now have a new "Climate Change" "Religion" where politics harnesses the inherent fears of the naked ape by the powers that be so as to create "useful idiots".
Quote:
In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders. https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ful+idiots
Quote:
People who believe that climate change is an existential threat often reject nuclear power -- the only realistic solution -- in favor of wind and solar despite that they are insufficient to power the planet. An excellent article by Michael Shellenberger explains why.
You do realise that:
"You can take a wombat to logic,
But you can't make it think",
Right?
So what makes a wombat a wombat?
What are the causes of its intellectual and objectivity limitations?
Here are some of the well-known factors:
-A physically undeveloped brain,
-Childhood indoctrination,
-Cynical manipulation,
-Social influences,
-Instinctual tribalism,
-Groupthink,
-Lack of intellectual ability,
-Disproportional affinity with emotional satiation.
-Chemical imbalances,
-Psychological imperatives,
-A desperate need for personal meaning,
-Cognitive dissociation,
-Metacognition.
Can these obstacles to philosophical and intellectual development be overcome?
In many cases.
However,
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One, but the lightbulb has got to want to change.
Quote:
Even worse, Germany already experimented with a policy called Energiewende meant to reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously phasing out nuclear power. It didn't work. Not only was it an outrageously expensive way for Germany to fail to meet its emission targets, the country still relies heavily on coal and has become increasingly reliant on Russia for natural gas. As Foreign Policy noted in one of its characteristically subtle headlines, "Germany Is a Coal-Burning, Gas-Guzzling Climate Change Hypocrite."
Damn!
If those klever krautz can't do it. <EEP!>
Quote:
Mr. Shellenberger sums up the dilemma perfectly:
All of which raises a question: if renewables can't cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?
All of which raises a question: if renewables can't cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?
As an aside:
My immediate concern is the security factor in third world nations.
How does one protect the acquisition of the components of a dirty bomb?
There is a new safer technology available:
Quote:
Reactors that use thorium are operating on what's called the Thorium-Uranium (Th-U) fuel cycle. The vast majority of existing or proposed nuclear reactors, however, use enriched uranium (U-235) or reprocessed plutonium (Pu-239) as fuel (in the Uranium-Plutonium cycle), and only a handful have used thorium. https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... r6LQmkfi6E
Quote:
The only way to leapfrog fossil fuels is to use nuclear power. While wind and solar certainly can and should play an important role in regions where it makes sense, neither is suitable for a national energy strategy, let alone a global one. It's time to embrace the truth: Nuclear is the best, carbon-free source of energy we have.
<the wombats sit up and blink blankly and incomprehensively>
Quote:
<the wombats blink sumore>
Quote:
Graham Strouse noted: Indeed, France went nuclear in about 15 years. Sweden, which relies on a mix of nuclear & hydro, de-carbonized most of its grid in about the same time frame. Much smaller country, but impressive nonetheless.
Bloody show-offs.
Quote:
Brian Noury noted: I find it impossibly hard to consider any green proposal as a serious take on the issues when the green movement has been tragically unserious in matters of nuclear energy. The solution has been sitting in our lap for nearly a century, and they twaddle and hope that one day soon, some new combination of renewables will save us.
"Greens".
So many cane toads,
So few golf clubs.
10 Oct 2019, 10:04 pm
Noca wrote:
No solution is perfect. Hydroelectic dams cause methylmercury poisoning in the water supply.
https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2016/ ... c-projects
https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2016/ ... c-projects
Firstly:
I don't eat fish, so meh.
Secondly:
Adam and Eve sure messed up big time for god to snooker us at every turn.
And,
Could someone build a time machine so as to find that "Murphy's law" guy and smother him in his sleep?
nick007
Veteran
Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,125
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in the police state called USA
11 Oct 2019, 5:16 am
11 Oct 2019, 5:56 pm
nick007 wrote:
The danger with nuclear power is the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. However the risk with nuclear weapons is a LOT worse so it makes no f#cking sense why we can have nuclear weapons but not nuclear power.
I think it safe to say that Chernobyl was an example of shoddy workmanship and implementation that the USSR was renowned for back then.
And Japan having nuclear reactors near a faultline wasn't the smartest move in hindsight.
But most developed countries don't have these problems,
And as I have mentioned previously,
There is a safer alternative using Thorium rather than Uranium.
Quote:
Why don't we use thorium instead of uranium?
The answer boils down to wartime politics. Why aren't we using thorium in nuclear reactors, given the possibility of a meltdown is nearly zero and the waste cannot be used to make bombs? It's certainly possible to base nuclear reactors around thorium, as opposed to the most commonly used element, uranium.May 7, 2014 https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... an+Uranium
The answer boils down to wartime politics. Why aren't we using thorium in nuclear reactors, given the possibility of a meltdown is nearly zero and the waste cannot be used to make bombs? It's certainly possible to base nuclear reactors around thorium, as opposed to the most commonly used element, uranium.May 7, 2014 https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... an+Uranium
The far left is just pig-headed and refuse to give up their virtue-signalling position, imo.
Politics,
Damn politics,
And f*****g damn politics.
Humans.
05 Oct 2020, 6:40 pm
05 Oct 2020, 7:00 pm
jimmy m wrote:
Climate Change: Why is nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams off the table?
Politically bastardry.
07 Oct 2020, 9:31 am
02 Nov 2020, 11:59 am
03 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm
30 Dec 2020, 12:17 pm
This is a plot of carbon dioxide levels compared to temperature on Planet Earth over geological time.
30 Dec 2020, 12:22 pm
30 Dec 2020, 12:59 pm
30 Dec 2020, 1:37 pm
