Is that COP OUT 20?

[bilby]

But unless the planet is an infinite waste dump creating toxic waste non-stop is not a sustainable plan.

Apparently the planet is a, so far, infinite waste dump since half of its biomass is decomposer.

Just trying to bring the discussion back on track here folks.

Again, the problems with nuclear aren't physical, they're attitudinal. Human fear of the unknowable generally trumps solutions for that sort of thing.

Except, apparently, in France.

Are the French more knowledgeable than the rest of the world, or just braver?

Fear of new technology rarely survives for long.

Railways are now permitted to travel faster than 25mph, as it turns out that travelling above that speed is not, in itself, deadly. Cars are permitted within the city limits without a flag-man walking ahead of them. Electric light didn't turn everyone blind; the LHC didn't create an Earth-swallowing black hole.

People remain fearful of nuclear power because of a very effective sixty year propaganda campaign. Public opinion on the issue is not immutable; and there are increasing signs that it is starting to change.

 

[untermensche]

Did I claim I was?

Yes. When you quote somebody's post and make a response, you are indicating that you are having a conversation with the person who's post you quoted about the subject matter which you quoted.

But unless the planet is an infinite waste dump creating toxic waste non-stop is not a sustainable plan.

Well then it's good that there are zero people on the planet, let alone in this conversation, who have put forward such a plan.

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

No, it produces a finite amount which is easily dealt with and doesn't turn into a problem.

 

[bilby]

Yes. When you quote somebody's post and make a response, you are indicating that you are having a conversation with the person who's post you quoted about the subject matter which you quoted.

But unless the planet is an infinite waste dump creating toxic waste non-stop is not a sustainable plan.

Well then it's good that there are zero people on the planet, let alone in this conversation, who have put forward such a plan.

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

All forms of electricity generation produce toxic waste.

Windmills don't produce much; but then, compared to fossil fuels, nor does anything else. Windmills don't grow on trees.

If you take an absolutist position against toxic waste of any kind and quantity, then simply living is unacceptable - you exhale toxic waste with every breath.

 

[untermensche]

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

No, it produces a finite amount which is easily dealt with and doesn't turn into a problem.

An ever growing amount. Eventually it must end.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. When you quote somebody's post and make a response, you are indicating that you are having a conversation with the person who's post you quoted about the subject matter which you quoted.

But unless the planet is an infinite waste dump creating toxic waste non-stop is not a sustainable plan.

Well then it's good that there are zero people on the planet, let alone in this conversation, who have put forward such a plan.

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

All forms of electricity generation produce toxic waste.

Windmills don't produce much; but then, compared to fossil fuels, nor does anything else. Windmills don't grow on trees.

If you take an absolutist position against toxic waste of any kind and quantity, then simply living is unacceptable - you exhale toxic waste with every breath.

All forms?

You are familiar with all possible forms of energy?

What is needed is massive research, not easy reliance on dirty forms of energy.

 

[bilby]

No, it produces a finite amount which is easily dealt with and doesn't turn into a problem.

An ever growing amount. Eventually it must end.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. When you quote somebody's post and make a response, you are indicating that you are having a conversation with the person who's post you quoted about the subject matter which you quoted.

But unless the planet is an infinite waste dump creating toxic waste non-stop is not a sustainable plan.

Well then it's good that there are zero people on the planet, let alone in this conversation, who have put forward such a plan.

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

All forms of electricity generation produce toxic waste.

Windmills don't produce much; but then, compared to fossil fuels, nor does anything else. Windmills don't grow on trees.

If you take an absolutist position against toxic waste of any kind and quantity, then simply living is unacceptable - you exhale toxic waste with every breath.

All forms?

Yes.

You are familiar with all possible forms of energy?

Of course.

If you are not, then you should go and learn before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

What is needed is massive research, not easy reliance on dirty forms of energy.

Oh. Too late; There you go.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it produces a finite amount which is easily dealt with and doesn't turn into a problem.

An ever growing amount. Eventually it must end.

Yes. However, given that renewables can't replace coal at the moment and may not be able to for some time, regardless of how many research dollars are put towards them, replacing it with something that can replace it at the moment is the better option that continuing to use coal for the forseeable future.

Your argument is like saying that since fully electric cars aren't cost-effective right now, we should all keep using leaded diesel gasoline for the next few decades until they are because unleaded gas produces emissions.

 

[untermensche]

You are familiar with all possible forms of energy?

Of course.

You are full of shit.

You may know what is known but not what is possible.

 

[fromderinside]

Again, the problems with nuclear aren't physical, they're attitudinal. Human fear of the unknowable generally trumps solutions for that sort of thing.

Except, apparently, in France.

Are the French more knowledgeable than the rest of the world, or just braver?

Fear of new technology rarely survives for long.

Railways are now permitted to travel faster than 25mph, as it turns out that travelling above that speed is not, in itself, deadly. Cars are permitted within the city limits without a flag-man walking ahead of them. Electric light didn't turn everyone blind; the LHC didn't create an Earth-swallowing black hole.

People remain fearful of nuclear power because of a very effective sixty year propaganda campaign. Public opinion on the issue is not immutable; and there are increasing signs that it is starting to change.

There are categories of fear relating to technology. New is only a problem until it's understood. Not understandable new is a problem any time a feared incident comes up. If, say, one communicable disease followed another, followed another, the fear would not tamp down soon after the third incident. State or cause terrorism is another category where consequences are similar to the communicable disease model. These are conditions against which one hasn't sufficient protection possible resulting in prolonged fear.

Such fear situations require society stepping up to provide adequate safeguards so people know they are going to be safe before such threats are put aside like the rise of a new technology.

Increasing the number of very safe reactors to ubiquitous increases the incidence of one of them being in the headlines almost every day. France is an encouraging example until the reactors age to the point where failure incidents increase to always on the mind of the french which may occur as soon as in the next decade.

So proposing nuclear solutions reqires significant increases in both treatment and safety before mistakes, poor design, and aging infrastructure are accommodated - I included political with new technology since I think this class of fear exists for all possible feared things - for this not treatable class of new thing.

I am a child who grew up in a nuclear power family, experienced in possibilities and cautions, have encountered one of its benefits in removing a patch from my face in 1941, then having had thyroid failure consequent to radiation exposure. No its not genetic. Yes its due to exposure to my dad for about twelve years followed by nuclear navy service for another four years. I know low to moderate doses can be treated if treated during and right after exposure. Yet I fear radiation so much that I'll try to counter anyone who advocates nuclear power. I studied TMI in schools as a human engineering pre-doctoral student, Later I studied nuclear medicine. So I'm aware of challenges and actions taken and I'm still going to speak up.

I'm among those who should be the easiest to convince because Iam still subject to rational discussion and evidence.


But there you go. I'm on the other side.

 

[bilby]

Of course.

You are full of shit.

You may know what is known but not what is possible.

What is possible (on planetary scales) is known.

Did you think that the LHC was built to make coffee? I don't think you have any grasp of just how deep your ignorance is on this topic.

 

[untermensche]

You are full of shit.

You may know what is known but not what is possible.

What is possible (on planetary scales) is known.

Did you think that the LHC was built to make coffee? I don't think you have any grasp of just how deep your ignorance is on this topic.

The available energies are known.

All the ways they may possibly be put to use is not.

 

[bilby]

What is possible (on planetary scales) is known.

Did you think that the LHC was built to make coffee? I don't think you have any grasp of just how deep your ignorance is on this topic.

The available energies are known.

All the ways they may possibly be put to use is not.

 

[untermensche]

The available energies are known.

All the ways they may possibly be put to use is not.

So you want to claim you know all the possible ways we may put something like tidal energy to use?

Again, you are full of shit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. When you quote somebody's post and make a response, you are indicating that you are having a conversation with the person who's post you quoted about the subject matter which you quoted.

But unless the planet is an infinite waste dump creating toxic waste non-stop is not a sustainable plan.

Well then it's good that there are zero people on the planet, let alone in this conversation, who have put forward such a plan.

People have proposed we rely on energy that produces toxic waste.

That IS proposing toxic waste without end.

No, your answer produces much more toxic waste.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it produces a finite amount which is easily dealt with and doesn't turn into a problem.

An ever growing amount. Eventually it must end.

Are you not reading the thread? Reprocess and it decays to ambient in 10k years. At that point it's just ordinary trash.

All forms?

You are familiar with all possible forms of energy?

What is needed is massive research, not easy reliance on dirty forms of energy.

And we aren't opposing research. It's just research doesn't provide power. You can't just put the world on hold while you do the research!


You're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course.

You are full of shit.

You may know what is known but not what is possible.

Where can I buy a tidal generator?

Just because something might be possible in the future doesn't mean it's possible now. We need power now.

Also, I had a thought here. Oops, I looked up the total expected generation from tides + shallow water waves and I'm getting 5,800 TWh. That's about a quarter of current world electric use--and that's not counting fuel used for purposes other than electricity.

 

[untermensche]

You are full of shit.

You may know what is known but not what is possible.

Where can I buy a tidal generator?

We don't have one because assholes think we don't need to massively expend resources to develop renewable clean alternatives.

Some are so pathetic they even tell us the inefficient market will help. What a joke they are.

And some think we should be wasting resources killing Muslims half a world a way and making the world a less safe place.

 

[bilby]

Where can I buy a tidal generator?

We don't have one because assholes think we don't need to massively expend resources to develop renewable clean alternatives.

Some are so pathetic they even tell us the inefficient market will help. What a joke they are.

And some think we should be wasting resources killing Muslims half a world a way and making the world a less safe place.

You don't really want to discuss this topic at all, do you? You are just looking for YET ANOTHER place to ride your hobby horse about the evils of the free market and of killing Muslims.

There are other threads where you can discuss those things. Why are you trying to shoe-horn them in here? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I would rather you didn't attempt to answer it; particularly if your response is a plea to join you in your deep concern about these issues - I don't care if they are important; they are still not ON TOPIC).

 

[untermensche]

We don't have one because assholes think we don't need to massively expend resources to develop renewable clean alternatives.

Some are so pathetic they even tell us the inefficient market will help. What a joke they are.

And some think we should be wasting resources killing Muslims half a world a way and making the world a less safe place.

You don't really want to discuss this topic at all, do you? You are just looking for YET ANOTHER place to ride your hobby horse about the evils of the free market and of killing Muslims.

There are other threads where you can discuss those things. Why are you trying to shoe-horn them in here? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I would rather you didn't attempt to answer it; particularly if your response is a plea to join you in your deep concern about these issues - I don't care if they are important; they are still not ON TOPIC).

What do you think there is to discuss?

Our choices have been forced upon us and are beyond our control.

You keep harping about how we are forced to choose between nuclear and coal, and it never seems to dawn on you that this is a choice we have been given, not a choice that exists because it was the only possibility.

 

[bilby]

You don't really want to discuss this topic at all, do you? You are just looking for YET ANOTHER place to ride your hobby horse about the evils of the free market and of killing Muslims.

There are other threads where you can discuss those things. Why are you trying to shoe-horn them in here? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I would rather you didn't attempt to answer it; particularly if your response is a plea to join you in your deep concern about these issues - I don't care if they are important; they are still not ON TOPIC).

What do you think there is to discuss?

Our choices have been forced upon us and are beyond our control.

You keep harping about how we are forced to choose between nuclear and coal, and it never seems to dawn on you that this is a choice we have been given, not a choice that exists because it was the only possibility.

So what? It is the choice we have. There are no other viable choices today. If the store has ice cream only in chocolate or vanilla, you can't have strawberry no matter how much you scream and cry.

Maybe there will be strawberry next week. maybe not. But if you don't want to go hungry today, you have a choice; and the choice is between chocolate ice-cream that has melted and gone rancid, or vanilla ice-cream that your kid sister said is made from boogers.

Nobody wants the chocolate; but lots of gullible people would rather starve - or even try to choke down the rancid option - than question their unqualified kid sister's highly dubious claims.