Is that COP OUT 20?

[bilby]

I don't think you understand the terminology you're using, if you're applying them to *me*.




Do you know how little this actually amounts to? The average person living within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power will receive only 0.1 μSv a year. That's 2600 times LESS than the dose they receive from cosmic background radiation.

The only other emissions from nuclear power plant are those from waste heat, which have a relatively minimal impact on the environment compared to the pollution caused by most other forms of energy generation. Now you may think "AHA! GOTCHA! EMISSIONS!", but no... as a matter of fact, the waste heat emissions generated by nuclear power are actually *below* those of concentrated solar power.

You think the the big circle of exclusion zone around Fukushima and Chernobyl and the cancer clusters surrounding the Santa Susanna nuclear realtor incident in Southern California are there because these were clean and safe.

Once again, you're confusing incidents for the baseline. Air travel is safe, the fact that there's an occasional air crash where lots of people dies doesn't change the fact that it's much safer compared to other forms of travel. In that same vein, nuclear power is clean and safe. The occasional accident does not change the overall numbers.

Quit being so fearful

There's only person being driven by fear here, and that's you.

So why not be environmental when you make your changes?

Because as people have been trying to explain to you, nuclear power *is* the environmentally sound choice.

I think you have a problem with being unable to share things and unable to give a single thing up. That makes you spoiled and addicted and you will yammer on endlessly that your current view of things is a necessity in the future. You quite simply are mistaken.

He said, while refusing to give up his decadently western lifestyle. In what way, exactly, are *you* helping the environment, hmm? Because as I already explained to you, it just won't be enough. You could go completely native, give up all technology and grow all your own food and it *still* wouldn't be enough. Humanity can not be provided for in that way. The only way we can save the environment while at the same time swearing off nuclear fission technology altogether is to either wait until we develop viable fusion, which might be too late; or have two thirds of humanity commit suicide. So, are you willing to kill yourself for the sake of others? Or are you just as spoiled as the rest of us who refuse?

I categorically reject your proposition that I am some sort of energy gobbling bastard that also needs the things you say you need.

Irrelevant, because you ARE an energy gobbling bastard, same as the rest of us. How much energy do you think goes into the act of giving you the opportunity to buy tomatoes at your local supermarket? Not to mention everything else you take for granted? It isn't just in how many things you've got plugged in. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient in every way, you have no right to claim you don't use a lot of energy. And of course, the fact that you're still here, typing away on a bloody computer, suggests you're not really all that serious about it anyway.

You still do not get the fact that coal and nukes require ever expanding sacrifice zones in order to keep going.

And you don't seem to get the fact that the same fucking thing applies to solar and wind. Where do you think the parts to build and maintain these things come from?

My background has always been scientific...possibly like yours. My specialty and the source of most of the income in my life was water pollution control and process fine tuning and process monitoring.

Then you were either utter shite at your job, or don't know how to apply your knowledge outside of your former specialty; because someone with a scientific background, especially in pollution control, should be able to comprehend the difference between incidents and baseline, and should really not be making the kind of arguments you've been making.

I frankly find you annoying and never contributing anything but your prejudices.

There's that irony again.

I will not play tweedledee to your tweedledum on this matter..

Yes, yes, we get it. You're old. I actually had to look up that reference.

It's not so much that I am old. I am just BETTER EDUCATED. You don't seem to know when to stop triangulating and deal with the OP. You just get so involved in denying me any credibility you forget entirely what we are talking about. I think THAT IS RUDE.

A couple of simple facts you ought to concern yourself with: Is COP 20 going to have any effect on global warming. That was the question, not whether or not nuclear power was right for the entire globe. You really are not acknowledging that we have a climate change problem which is descending on mankind and the living things on this planet. I guess you are modern and hip and can dismiss your future a lot more than mine. The denial I see coming out of you is the same crap we used to get when we were working trying to get asbestos removed from general production and distribution. I have seen it before and I definitely am seeing it now...simply laziness. For you personally, I would find that okay for you to simply ignore our social problems. Your type of concern is to treat others like they were defective. I don't understand how you can advocate the things you do. COP 20 is right in your neighborhood. Perhaps you should get over there and put those people right on track. Why don't you admit you are ignorant of what went on there today? And in fact what goes on in all sorts of places.

COP20 isn't in dystopian's neighbourhood. Dystopian is in the Netherlands; COP20 was in Lima, Peru.

Last year.

It's grand being elderly. But if you can't keep up, it's time to leave the hard work to the young'uns.

 

[dystopian]

I am just BETTER EDUCATED.

One would expect a well educated individual to know better than to assume their education level exceeds that of someone they don't know anything about. One would also expect such an individual to recognize the limits of their own education. But then again, education is no substitute for intellect.

You just get so involved in denying me any credibility you forget entirely what we are talking about.

I don't think so. I've been addressing your various arguments quite consistently. I've also been addressing your various tangents in a similar fashion. It is no my problem if you're incapable of keeping the arguments straight.

I think THAT IS RUDE.

Oh noes.

A couple of simple facts you ought to concern yourself with: Is COP 20 going to have any effect on global warming. That was the question, not whether or not nuclear power was right for the entire globe. You really are not acknowledging that we have a climate change problem which is descending on mankind and the living things on this planet.

Right. *I'm* the one who isn't acknowledging that.

I guess you are modern and hip

Well, 'hip' enough to not use that word in an unironic fashion, at least.

and can dismiss your future a lot more than mine.

What are *you* so worried about? As you're keen to point out, you're old. You won't have to worry about any of this in a few more years. I meanwhile, have to live on this planet for quite some more time. And I'd like it if out of touch old coots and other clueless people refrained from fucking things up any more than they already have, thanks. People like you obviously don't have any viable solutions. All you can do is rail against solutions that don't meet your impossible standards of perfection. And in doing so, you accomplish nothing but maintaining things as they are. Stop fucking up my future.

Your type of concern is to treat others like they were defective. I don't understand how you can advocate the things you do.

Do you really not see the irony of that second sentence of yours following the first? It's impressive how you can doing this sort of thing.

Perhaps you'd like to consider the possibility that your lack of understanding isn't because I'm wrong... but because *you* are.

COP 20 is right in your neighborhood. Perhaps you should get over there and put those people right on track.

COP21 (as someone else poited out), and it's two countries over, actually. Also, how do you expect me to get there without polluting the environment? Also, I already think they're on the right track.

Why don't you admit you are ignorant of what went on there today?

Sure, I don't know what went on there today. *Yesterday* however, an alliance was formed of 18 starting countries and 60 organizations, aimed at reforming the global construction industry, which has the potential of cutting total planetary greenhouse emissions by as much as a third. Oooh... how evil!

 

[arkirk]

One would expect a well educated individual to know better than to assume their education level exceeds that of someone they don't know anything about. One would also expect such an individual to recognize the limits of their own education. But then again, education is no substitute for intellect.

You just get so involved in denying me any credibility you forget entirely what we are talking about.

I don't think so. I've been addressing your various arguments quite consistently. I've also been addressing your various tangents in a similar fashion. It is no my problem if you're incapable of keeping the arguments straight.

I think THAT IS RUDE.

Oh noes.

A couple of simple facts you ought to concern yourself with: Is COP 20 going to have any effect on global warming. That was the question, not whether or not nuclear power was right for the entire globe. You really are not acknowledging that we have a climate change problem which is descending on mankind and the living things on this planet.

Right. *I'm* the one who isn't acknowledging that.

I guess you are modern and hip

Well, 'hip' enough to not use that word in an unironic fashion, at least.

and can dismiss your future a lot more than mine.

What are *you* so worried about? As you're keen to point out, you're old. You won't have to worry about any of this in a few more years. I meanwhile, have to live on this planet for quite some more time. And I'd like it if out of touch old coots and other clueless people refrained from fucking things up any more than they already have, thanks. People like you obviously don't have any viable solutions. All you can do is rail against solutions that don't meet your impossible standards of perfection. And in doing so, you accomplish nothing but maintaining things as they are. Stop fucking up my future.

Your type of concern is to treat others like they were defective. I don't understand how you can advocate the things you do.

Do you really not see the irony of that second sentence of yours following the first? It's impressive how you can doing this sort of thing.

Perhaps you'd like to consider the possibility that your lack of understanding isn't because I'm wrong... but because *you* are.

COP 20 is right in your neighborhood. Perhaps you should get over there and put those people right on track.

COP21 (as someone else poited out), and it's two countries over, actually. Also, how do you expect me to get there without polluting the environment? Also, I already think they're on the right track.

Why don't you admit you are ignorant of what went on there today?

Sure, I don't know what went on there today. *Yesterday* however, an alliance was formed of 18 starting countries and 60 organizations, aimed at reforming the global construction industry, which has the potential of cutting total planetary greenhouse emissions by as much as a third. Oooh... how evil!

Prove that to me, mister young 'un. Evil, not evil...what the hell are you talking about. Source? It is long past time for something like you say is happening.

You are right, you could not get to Lima, but I am sure Paris is not that far from you. You go where the action is. Paris is going to be another Lima, another Copenhagen, another cop out regardless of the number you assign it. There are answers to this climate change thing to begin to have some effect on it. One of them comes from Jim Hansen:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/james-hansen-cop21-emissions-trading-wont-work-my-global-carbon-fee-1531467

I feel you will find as time passes that nuclear power is nothing but a bleeding public pocketbook and leaves in its wake large masses of dangerous pollution. I agree the containments in the industry are STATE OF THE ART. The problem is that even state of the art containment has accidents and natural disasters like Fukushima and when these occur, the overall backgound radiation world wide is affected. The more common these plants become, the more accidents occur. The proper control of this contaminant is to not create any more of it than you have to. I still think you are demanding too much power consumption for yourself and that is at the true heart of your objection to limitations in the amount of power we use. You seem to feel you cannot function without monstrous expenditures of power. I think you have not examined ways of living that consume less power and can make reduction in total demand more possible. That is really an important factor regardless of your disparaging view of conservation. You act like everything ought to be open to industrial exploitation and mutilation. You may be living on land that was stolen from the sea and have a very over blown faith in man's power over the earth. With sea level rise, I would have expected a different perspective from you on global warming. At any rate, the unenforceable pledges of carbon reductions at Paris point to a temperature rise of about 3 degrees celsius, even if they are honored and this is not enough to forestall serious sea level rise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody wants to assume the liability because there isn't a big enough insurance company in the world to do it.

That's not actually true - I provided a link earlier to an underwriting syndicate that insures nuclear power plants.

It's the same as no insurance company wants to write flood or earthquake coverage. (Yes, both exist. Flood is underwritten by the government and earthquake is priced far above the actual risk in order to keep people from buying it.)

Nuclear power is profitably insured by the private sector. Of course, some is also underwritten by governments. But the claim that no private insurer will insure a nuclear power plant is simply a lie.

Sure there can be insurance--with liability limits. The anti-nukes are insisting on liability insurance with no limit--something that's out of the question.

 

[arkirk]

That's not actually true - I provided a link earlier to an underwriting syndicate that insures nuclear power plants.

It's the same as no insurance company wants to write flood or earthquake coverage. (Yes, both exist. Flood is underwritten by the government and earthquake is priced far above the actual risk in order to keep people from buying it.)

Nuclear power is profitably insured by the private sector. Of course, some is also underwritten by governments. But the claim that no private insurer will insure a nuclear power plant is simply a lie.

Sure there can be insurance--with liability limits. The anti-nukes are insisting on liability insurance with no limit--something that's out of the question.

Do you guys think for one second that private insurance is handling Fukushima or Chernobyl? These are big government expenses and neither of these are anywhere near over. So what would be the appropriate rate for proper coverage for liabilities without limits? Expansion of nuclear power usage truly should be classed as something that's out of the question. Just like proper insurance for them would be.

 

[dystopian]

Prove that to me, mister young 'un. Evil, not evil...what the hell are you talking about. Source?

Really? A post ago you were accusing me of not knowing what was happening at this event, now you're telling me *you* don't know what's happening there?

http://europeansting.com/2015/12/03...gs-and-construction-to-combat-climate-change/
http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/201...ion-sector-commits-to-massive-carbon-savings/

Pay some fucking attention already.

It is long past time for something like you say is happening.

What the hell is your problem even? Industries are starting to tackle the problem, and rather than encourage them, you're doing... what? Bitching and moaning about how it's too late? Because you're not presenting ANY solutions whatsoever. If all you can do is complain that it's too late, then just stop and get out of the way. Remove yourself from this planet so that you no longer contribute to the problem.

ou are right, you could not get to Lima, but I am sure Paris is not that far from you.

It's 750 kilometres away. That is too far for me to travel just to voice my support for what's going on there.

You go where the action is. Paris is going to be another Lima, another Copenhagen, another cop out regardless of the number you assign it. There are answers to this climate change thing to begin to have some effect on it. One of them comes from Jim Hansen:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/james-hansen-cop21-emissions-trading-wont-work-my-global-carbon-fee-1531467

Then he should tell that to the countries and organizations in Paris.

Incidentally, he does acknowledge in the article that they're actually doing positive things at COP21; he just doesn't think they're going to solve the problem. So I'm not sure why you are railing against the conference.

I feel you will find as time passes that nuclear power is nothing but a bleeding public pocketbook and leaves in its wake large masses of dangerous pollution.

The numbers have been explained to you, there is no need to repeat them. Whether you accept them or not is no concern of me, as you are of no relevance beyond presenting an annoying distraction to people on this forum less obstinate than yourself..

I agree the containments in the industry are STATE OF THE ART. The problem is that even state of the art containment has accidents and natural disasters like Fukushima and when these occur, the overall backgound radiation world wide is affected. The more common these plants become, the more accidents occur.

Incorrect. The more common these plants become, the more competent we become in manging their dangers. Besides, you could greatly increase the number of incidents, and the effects would still be an acceptable tradeoff compared to the alternatives. This too, has been explained to you. The fear that rules you does not change basic reality.

I still think you are demanding too much power consumption for yourself and that is at the true heart of your objection to limitations in the amount of power we use. You seem to feel you cannot function without monstrous expenditures of power.

This too has been explained to you. We could cut living standards down to third world levels, and we would still require vast amounts of power just to keep humanity alive and fed. You do not appreciate just how much energy is required to sustain seven billion people, even if they all lived at a substinence level. Once again: there are only two roads we can take to solve the problems we face. We can keep pushing the limits of technology and engineering, or we cull the herd. One of these is an acceptable road to take. The other is not.

I think you have not examined ways of living that consume less power and can make reduction in total demand more possible.

We can live in ways that consume a lot less power, sure. But the human race far exceeds the numbers that the planet can sustain in an environmentally sound manner, no matter how spartan our lifestyle becomes. You keep missing this basic fact. Furthermore, nobody will accept the drastic reduction in quality of life required to push energy costs down to the kind of significant enough levels you're imagining. If your vision for saving the world depends on gaining universal consensus, your vision is pointless. You are proposing we go backward, which only dooms us as a species and planet. The only way is forward.

You may be living on land that was stolen from the sea and have a very over blown faith in man's power over the earth. With sea level rise, I would have expected a different perspective from you on global warming.

I am not surprised you showcase such a spectacular failure in understanding the culture and resolve of other countries. For your information, our government and industry has been keenly aware of the risks involved with climate change, and does not engage in token efforts in such matters. Our fight against the sea has been a core part of our national identity for longer than we've been a nation to begin with. When *your* country designs flood defenses, making them capable of withstanding the kind of stormsurge that happens once a century is considered good enough. When *my* designs them, being able to withstand the kind of storm that happens once every 1,250 years is considered the *bare minimum*. We have flood defenses rated to withstand storms that happen only once every 10,000 years. And even that isn't considered good enough. The government has already earmarked a minimum of 100 billion euros in the budget for the next century to deal with rising sealevels. We've given over the safety of many of our people over to vast high-tech structures controlled purely by AI. We're building floating cities. Our flood defenses are visible from orbit; our largest land reclamation project is the only manmade object visible from the moon. If any of that sounds like sci-fi to you, it's because everyone else is a minimum of three decades behind us in this field. Any country that wants to recreate our flood defenses needs to be prepared to spend trillions of dollars, because that's how much our existing infrastructure is worth. We take water engineering *very* seriously. If all the world's countries were to vanish below the sea, we would not be the first to go. We would be the last.

You say we overestimate our power over the earth. I say that if we all thought like you we'd still be living in caves, waiting to be wiped out by one natural disaster or another. Give you the reigns of our species, and you would set back the clock and doom us to extinction at worst, and mediocrity at best. Give me the reigns of humanity, and I would reshape the world in our image. And if my methods are too harsh and the world knocks me on my ass, I would get up and try again. I would keep trying and trying until I got it right. Because I will not accept a humanity that is either extinct, or mediocre.

At any rate, the unenforceable pledges of carbon reductions at Paris point to a temperature rise of about 3 degrees celsius, even if they are honored and this is not enough to forestall serious sea level rise.

Which we're already prepared to deal with, unlike the rest of you. We're already upgrading in preparation for a 3 meter sea level rise over the next century. For reference, the projections predict a 1-1.5 metre rise by 2100 as the most likely scenario. Like I said, we take this a hell of a lot more seriously than you give us credit for.

 

[arkirk]

dystopian: You always think the worst of people who merely disagree with you. Cool it. I visited your links and I do approve of some of the efforts at COP 21 and was glad to see the building industry involved. They have to be you know. I was about to send you a thank you for your links then I noted the rest of your post was just so full of vitriol there is no point in bothering. Hansen says 3 meters based on the pledges. Lucky you have somebody thinking ahead. Building these things will involve a lot of energy consumption. That might be why you want the nukes. I feel that nukes are fool hardy. That is my disagreement with you. It is not a matter of one party here being feeble minded and the other being strikingly brilliant. It is a matter of not being willing to sacrifice the genetic integrity and sometimes the lives of others in my case. For somebody who lives in a relatively progressive country, you seem to have a bad case of cultural narcissism. In many ways we have a lot in common. I used to feel our technological advancements were taking us to a better world and those who didn't accept them were backward and moronic. A lot of our advancements came with unintended consequences. That is something I learned from my years in pollution control. One way I was not like you was taking pride in what my country was doing in the world and looking down my nose at everybody else...how could that ever be? I live in a land of raving Christians. During the first few days of this convention you could watch all the world leaders put on their best act and pretend to be civil then leave their delegates to do the uncivil stuff, to keep it all non obligating and to essentially create conditions that will be like before the conference. In a conference with so many different elements involved I am sure there are some with altruistic intentions and plans. The Putins, the Obamas, the Abe's and other big shots threaten each other just hours after making high and mighty pronouncements at COP 21. We need to figure out how to live on this planet without being so ready to sacrifice our fellows and our environment. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring.

 

[dystopian]

dystopian: You always think the worst of people who merely disagree with you.

Again, there's that irony.

I was about to send you a thank you for your links then I noted the rest of your post was just so full of vitriol there is no point in bothering.

Passive aggressive much?

Also, there's that irony again.

Hansen says 3 meters based on the pledges. Lucky you have somebody thinking ahead. Building these things will involve a lot of energy consumption. That might be why you want the nukes.

Do you imagine we're incapable of building them without nuclear power? We're a net exporter of energy. Our energy consumption will not increase particularly drastically by upgrading our flood defenses. The reason I want more nuclear power is because more than 80% of our energy is generated by fossil fuel burning. Only 3,9% of our energy production is nuclear. Despite the precarious position the country is in, as you were so keen on pointing out, we're one of the *worst* countries in the EU when it comes to CO2 emissions. If we increased nuclear power's share of production, it would drastically lower our emissions, and we'd contribute much less to the problem we're facing with rising sea levels. And practically the sole reason we're so reliant upon fossil fuels in this country is because of shortsighted and terrified people like you. If not for you and everyone like you on this planet, the climate problems of the 21st century would be far more manageble for the Netherlands. That is not my opinion. That is not ideology. That is pure simple fact. I blame *you* for forcing us to spend all this money just to keep dry. And the more of your kneejerk reactions we have to listen to, the more money you're costing us and the more you put us at risk. Either get out of the way, or start paying your share of the future rent. You are *not* some noble and wise old man who'se putting us on a sustainable path... you're a misguided nuisance whose continued obstinence is an actual and genuine fucking threat to our continued existence. My opposition to the things you're saying isn't a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of survival-motivated self-defense.

 

[arkirk]

Again, there's that irony.

I was about to send you a thank you for your links then I noted the rest of your post was just so full of vitriol there is no point in bothering.

Passive aggressive much?

Also, there's that irony again.

Hansen says 3 meters based on the pledges. Lucky you have somebody thinking ahead. Building these things will involve a lot of energy consumption. That might be why you want the nukes.

Do you imagine we're incapable of building them without nuclear power? We're a net exporter of energy. Our energy consumption will not increase particularly drastically by upgrading our flood defenses. The reason I want more nuclear power is because more than 80% of our energy is generated by fossil fuel burning. Only 3,9% of our energy production is nuclear. Despite the precarious position the country is in, as you were so keen on pointing out, we're one of the *worst* countries in the EU when it comes to CO2 emissions. If we increased nuclear power's share of production, it would drastically lower our emissions, and we'd contribute much less to the problem we're facing with rising sea levels. And practically the sole reason we're so reliant upon fossil fuels in this country is because of shortsighted and terrified people like you. If not for you and everyone like you on this planet, the climate problems of the 21st century would be far more manageble for the Netherlands. That is not my opinion. That is not ideology. That is pure simple fact. I blame *you* for forcing us to spend all this money just to keep dry. And the more of your kneejerk reactions we have to listen to, the more money you're costing us and the more you put us at risk. Either get out of the way, or start paying your share of the future rent. You are *not* some noble and wise old man who'se putting us on a sustainable path... you're a misguided nuisance whose continued obstinence is an actual and genuine fucking threat to our continued existence. My opposition to the things you're saying isn't a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of survival-motivated self-defense.

You sure don't even have a clue what a sustainable path would look like. It is a matter of your over inflated ego surviving without friends> I suppose that is alright. You know, the world don't give a damn about either one of us...really you know that is the truth. I am not threatening anything of yours. You just get so worried you have to always defend your ego. Too fuckin much testosterone at work there I think. Nuclear power remains an unacceptable danger. You won't make it happen large scale so I don't lose any sleep over your carrying on. What does concern me is the fact the the COP is not working out to have enough cooperation between genuinely jaded old men to do enough about climate change. We do disagree on the safety of nuclear power and the importance of your "self-defense." You really are a tender coward if you can't take what I am saying.

 

[dystopian]

You sure don't even have a clue what a sustainable path would look like.

I do, actually. It's you who doesn't. You seem to think that all it takes is installing some solar panels on your roof and eating organic. That won't even make a dent. If we want to become a sustainable species, we're either going to need to reach a higher level of technological development, or commit mass suicide. Put up, or shut up.

I am not threatening anything of yours.

You *very existence* threathens me. No matter how little power you *think* you consume compared to others, human civilization puts out a lot of pollution to keep you alive on a yearly basis. Pollution that causes climate change, which as we've established, is a direct threat to my life as someone who lives below sea level. That in itself is enough to consider you a threat, though one that could be forgiven since it's unreasonable to expect you to commit suicide just to stop contributing to the problem. However, your misguided fears and hopelessly naive fantasies about sustainability are part of a larger human pattern, one that despite your intentions ends up empowering the fossil fuel industry. And *that*, makes you a far bigger threat to my existence than others, and one I'm not willing to just forgive.

There is no difference between environmentalists of your variety, and anti-vaxxers. You're both misguided and end up being far more destructive than the things you oppose.

 

[arkirk]

I do, actually. It's you who doesn't. You seem to think that all it takes is installing some solar panels on your roof and eating organic. That won't even make a dent. If we want to become a sustainable species, we're either going to need to reach a higher level of technological development, or commit mass suicide. Put up, or shut up.

I am not threatening anything of yours.

You *very existence* threathens me. No matter how little power you *think* you consume compared to others, human civilization puts out a lot of pollution to keep you alive on a yearly basis. Pollution that causes climate change, which as we've established, is a direct threat to my life as someone who lives below sea level. That in itself is enough to consider you a threat, though one that could be forgiven since it's unreasonable to expect you to commit suicide just to stop contributing to the problem. However, your misguided fears and hopelessly naive fantasies about sustainability are part of a larger human pattern, one that despite your intentions ends up empowering the fossil fuel industry. And *that*, makes you a far bigger threat to my existence than others, and one I'm not willing to just forgive.

There is no difference between environmentalists of your variety, and anti-vaxxers. You're both misguided and end up being far more destructive than the things you oppose.

You seem to have it all figured out. Good for you. I guess it is okay if you stay home. You have nothing to add except insult. What kind of fruitcake imagines I support or encourage or even off handedly give the fossil fuel industry any support at all. You are just mad because I do not support YOUR NUCLEAR AGENDA. Now that doesn't scare me too much because it isn't going to be happening. I am flabbergasted that you in your dark little world imagine you know how I *think* or in fact how I live. Your speculation is wildly inaccurate. I am sure I use less fossil fuel than you perhaps by a factor of 10.

As threatened as you say you feel, do you suppose I should report you to Homeland Security? Frightened people are usually the ones responsible for violence. Nukes just seem to be a sacred cow to you and you will fly in the face of potential friends insulting them for its sake. I feel privileged to not have to cowtow to people like you.

 

[bilby]

I do, actually. It's you who doesn't. You seem to think that all it takes is installing some solar panels on your roof and eating organic. That won't even make a dent. If we want to become a sustainable species, we're either going to need to reach a higher level of technological development, or commit mass suicide. Put up, or shut up.




You *very existence* threathens me. No matter how little power you *think* you consume compared to others, human civilization puts out a lot of pollution to keep you alive on a yearly basis. Pollution that causes climate change, which as we've established, is a direct threat to my life as someone who lives below sea level. That in itself is enough to consider you a threat, though one that could be forgiven since it's unreasonable to expect you to commit suicide just to stop contributing to the problem. However, your misguided fears and hopelessly naive fantasies about sustainability are part of a larger human pattern, one that despite your intentions ends up empowering the fossil fuel industry. And *that*, makes you a far bigger threat to my existence than others, and one I'm not willing to just forgive.

There is no difference between environmentalists of your variety, and anti-vaxxers. You're both misguided and end up being far more destructive than the things you oppose.

You seem to have it all figured out. Good for you. I guess it is okay if you stay home. You have nothing to add except insult. What kind of fruitcake imagines I support or encourage or even off handedly give the fossil fuel industry any support at all. You are just mad because I do not support YOUR NUCLEAR AGENDA. Now that doesn't scare me too much because it isn't going to be happening. I am flabbergasted that you in your dark little world imagine you know how I *think* or in fact how I live. Your speculation is wildly inaccurate. I am sure I use less fossil fuel than you perhaps by a factor of 10.

As threatened as you say you feel, do you suppose I should report you to Homeland Security? Frightened people are usually the ones responsible for violence. Nukes just seem to be a sacred cow to you and you will fly in the face of potential friends insulting them for its sake. I feel privileged to not have to cowtow to people like you.

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

And the word is 'Kowtow'.

 

[maxparrish]

Bilby and I rarely agree, but on this he is absolutely correct. Renewables are intermittent, and therefore highly dependent on the much larger fossil fuel and nuclear power electrical grid. To oppose nuclear power means that the only other alternative is more coal and natural gas.

Germany, like Denmark, has only been able to develop intermittent renewable energy resources because of the high capacity inter-connections with other large European energy providers/consumers. In effect, Germany and Denmark have used the European and Nordic grids as a large battery. It follows that if other European countries were to follow the path taken by Germany the system as a whole would soon run out of capacity to deal with the fluctuations in renewable energy production.

The German Energiewende has not resulted in less dependence on the burning of coal to generate electricity and will not do so anytime soon.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/02/german-energiewende-modern-miracle-or-major-misstep/

The pathological hate of nuclear power is self-destructive, IF decarbonization is the social goal.

 

[maxparrish]

And this in regards to the German plans for further decarbonization:

Excerpts from the body of the report:

“• Cost almost double current system. The direct cost of Energiewende, using today’s costs as a reference point, is 1.9x the current system. Compared to the current system, Energiewende reduces CO2 emissions at a cost of $300 per metric ton”

PL Comment: $300/t CO2 is around 30x the current EU carbon price.

“1f. Is there a cheaper way to do it? A balanced system, with nuclear power

Nuclear Power. For some, the discussion stops here, since they have scientific, financial, environmental or geopolitical objections. That said, we analyze a balanced system as well: Germany maintains the wind, solar, hydro and biomass it now has; relies on nuclear to meet 35% of demand by turning back on some of its idle plants; and uses a 50/50 natural gas/coal mix for the remainder. Balanced results are shown in the last row, along with no-storage and storage scenarios for Energiewende, and the current system.”

http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/29/deep-de-carbonisation-of-electricity-grids/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do, actually. It's you who doesn't. You seem to think that all it takes is installing some solar panels on your roof and eating organic. That won't even make a dent. If we want to become a sustainable species, we're either going to need to reach a higher level of technological development, or commit mass suicide. Put up, or shut up.




You *very existence* threathens me. No matter how little power you *think* you consume compared to others, human civilization puts out a lot of pollution to keep you alive on a yearly basis. Pollution that causes climate change, which as we've established, is a direct threat to my life as someone who lives below sea level. That in itself is enough to consider you a threat, though one that could be forgiven since it's unreasonable to expect you to commit suicide just to stop contributing to the problem. However, your misguided fears and hopelessly naive fantasies about sustainability are part of a larger human pattern, one that despite your intentions ends up empowering the fossil fuel industry. And *that*, makes you a far bigger threat to my existence than others, and one I'm not willing to just forgive.

There is no difference between environmentalists of your variety, and anti-vaxxers. You're both misguided and end up being far more destructive than the things you oppose.

You seem to have it all figured out. Good for you. I guess it is okay if you stay home. You have nothing to add except insult. What kind of fruitcake imagines I support or encourage or even off handedly give the fossil fuel industry any support at all. You are just mad because I do not support YOUR NUCLEAR AGENDA. Now that doesn't scare me too much because it isn't going to be happening. I am flabbergasted that you in your dark little world imagine you know how I *think* or in fact how I live. Your speculation is wildly inaccurate. I am sure I use less fossil fuel than you perhaps by a factor of 10.

As threatened as you say you feel, do you suppose I should report you to Homeland Security? Frightened people are usually the ones responsible for violence. Nukes just seem to be a sacred cow to you and you will fly in the face of potential friends insulting them for its sake. I feel privileged to not have to cowtow to people like you.

We have it a lot more figured out than you do with your green fantasies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

And the word is 'Kowtow'.

He's not looking at reality, but rather at a green fantasy.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, today we are forced to use oil and coal or nuclear energy. Forced because of decisions made over the past 100 years.

The question is: Will we use the energy we have that is both destroying the environment and limited to develop better sources of energy than nuclear?

Or will we stay on our present course and make the choice to wage endless war instead of using our wealth and efforts on something productive?

 

[dystopian]

I am flabbergasted that you in your dark little world imagine you know how I *think* or in fact how I live. Your speculation is wildly inaccurate. I am sure I use less fossil fuel than you perhaps by a factor of 10.

First you declare your indignation that I'd presume to think how you live... then you turn around and just make assumptions about the way I live. There's that completely oblivious sense of irony you have, again.

For the record, there is no chance in hell that your carbon footprint would be 10 times lower than mine. Let's see... I don't have a car; I take the bicycle or public transport wherever I go, and the distances I travel aren't really that great. In terms of electricity and gas consumption, I'm below average. I live in a flat, which drastically lowers my footprint compared to people who live in a regular house. I only power my computer, the fridge, and the lights in the room I happen to be in. I don't own a TV and don't really use any electric appliances beyond those in the kitchen, which I use infrequently. I don't smoke, and my alcohol intake can be measured in a handful of glasses a year. I don't buy physical books or magazines, and I don't read newspapers. I don't go to restaurants or cinemas or what have you, so those don't contribute to my footprint either. My food consumption patterns are not optimal though, and if I had the willpower I could streamline that to keep my carbon footprint down even more. Nonetheless, my carbon footprint is well below the western average, and it is highly implausible that yours is 10 times lower than mine.

However, the point wasn't to claim you're using a lot of energy by your personal standards, but that no matter *how little* you actually use, it's still too much when we're talking about the human race as a *whole*.

As threatened as you say you feel, do you suppose I should report you to Homeland Security?

You could, if you want to. But you'd be an idiot for numerous reasons if you did, not the least of which is that I obviously fall outside their jurisdiction.

 

[arkirk]

You seem to have it all figured out. Good for you. I guess it is okay if you stay home. You have nothing to add except insult. What kind of fruitcake imagines I support or encourage or even off handedly give the fossil fuel industry any support at all. You are just mad because I do not support YOUR NUCLEAR AGENDA. Now that doesn't scare me too much because it isn't going to be happening. I am flabbergasted that you in your dark little world imagine you know how I *think* or in fact how I live. Your speculation is wildly inaccurate. I am sure I use less fossil fuel than you perhaps by a factor of 10.

As threatened as you say you feel, do you suppose I should report you to Homeland Security? Frightened people are usually the ones responsible for violence. Nukes just seem to be a sacred cow to you and you will fly in the face of potential friends insulting them for its sake. I feel privileged to not have to cowtow to people like you.

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

And the word is 'Kowtow'.

That is pure bullshit. Not supporting Nuclear has NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPORTING COAL. What you are describing is insufficient support for alternatives and insufficient support for conservation. This has been the case as long as I can remember. I suspect you would know how to spell words connoting frightened submissive obedience considering your country's treatment of its native peoples. Energy mixes are the result of NO PROGRAM TO CONTROL CARBON AND NUCLEAR POLLUTION. We are at the beginning of a process which should in all rights be much further along, but thanks to denialists like yourself it is way behind schedule. We cannot blame people for not knowing where these technologies (fossils and nukes) would eventually take our society, but when we finally find out, then there is blame that can be assigned to those who deny the handwriting on the wall for SHORT TERM PROFITS. The problems with the nukes were apparent BEFORE there was widespread knowledge and proof of the CO2 effect. Alternative advocacy has always been here. I was part of it in the 60's. I ran a solar water distiller company in the 80's. I really am aware of the economic constraints that have been applied to alternative energy projects. These economic restraints were accompanied by public relations character assassinations proffered widely by fossil fuel companies and nuke companies.

The earliest objections to coal were already sufficient in terms of heavy metals emissions and particulate emissions, but the coal people relocated many of their projects far from cities which temporarily were not directly experiencing the air pollution. You are just an extension of that press for more and more power consumptive lives and I have seen and known of attitudes like yours for the better part of fifty years. I have the privilege of having known an ex-nuclear mining engineer and we have discussed what his job was about....air circulation in uranium mine to remove radon gas. He very frankly told me that that part of the business was the most difficult and subject to failure a lot. He quit that line and went into city planning. The radon gas was pumped to our atmosphere outside, to join with all the other air pollutants. You want to say those who get sick and die from this stuff are just collateral damage. Let me remind you we have to stop being on a war footing with our environment. It isn't just a matter of short term safety but rather of conceptualization of how we live our lives and how those who follow us will be living theirs. In that territory we all have a certain amount of blindness, but we can see that cumilative long term environmental destruction cannot do anything but make future lives more difficult and threatened with our toxic waste. I really understand your position. It just appears to me to be saying..."Just a little more...we need some more...anything for short term expediency in generating profits. I am not sure if you are aware of the racism in your own country that is constant being applied to native peoples in the pursuit of mineral exploitation...and yes, one of the worst cases is uranium mining. You people have real problems with water and you are running up against environmental feed back in more than one area of industrial endeavor. Your rice farmers are going under in a drought, just like ours here in California. Your voice just calling for just a little more is loud and clear here and we are still quite resistant to the reality of what we need to be doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, today we are forced to use oil and coal or nuclear energy. Forced because of decisions made over the past 100 years.

The question is: Will we use the energy we have that is both destroying the environment and limited to develop better sources of energy than nuclear?

Or will we stay on our present course and make the choice to wage endless war instead of using our wealth and efforts on something productive?

The problem is that we have no alternatives. Your "green" answers fall down on the storage.