Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
I stopped reading at this point (other things to do). You have a great point. But so do others who are trying to point out today's practical choices, vs your well intentioned but as of yet unavailable technological solutions.
Since we cannot predict the future as you have lectured (not meant negatively), we must work with what we have at hand. Nuclear energy may be a better option than coal, and we can only make that conclusion with today's knowledge.
I'd love to have the perfect solution to this problem, but my experience and wisdom tells me there rarely if ever is one. At some point, you have to submit to making a decision based on available knowlege and real world options, all the while knowing you'd love to make a better choice when they present themselves in the future.
And if the greener solution is right around the corner as you and I hope, then making the short term solution to nuclear with have marginal effect either way. If switching to nuclear becomes less dirty than coal on a large scale, go for it. And keep researching ways to get to the best solution that we would all love to have.
Researching green alternatives and using dirty energy sources are not mutually exclusive, which makes a large portion of your argument ineffective. (It seems like you are supposing we can only do one or the other).
We can all be philosophers, but at some point we also have to be politicians to get through the day.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 100,348
- 17,914
- 126
how come the US is lagging behind Germany on Wind Power? I mean, there has gotta be more windy places in US than the whole Germany.
According to this, Germany has twice what the US has in wind power...
http://healthandenergy.com/wind_power.htm
I wish there is more wind power setting up here in Ontario too. There was one interesting project where you buy shares into a windmill and you get paid dividend. Original idea was to credit investors with roll back electricity metre, but the hydro company didn't bite. But now they are installing smart metre so they can charge us more in peak hours, but it still won't roll backwards. The bastards.
According to this, Germany has twice what the US has in wind power...
http://healthandenergy.com/wind_power.htm
I wish there is more wind power setting up here in Ontario too. There was one interesting project where you buy shares into a windmill and you get paid dividend. Original idea was to credit investors with roll back electricity metre, but the hydro company didn't bite. But now they are installing smart metre so they can charge us more in peak hours, but it still won't roll backwards. The bastards.
Moonbeam, credibility is something that is earned (and typically not by sitting behind a computer posting one's life away).
Responsible disposal program for nuclear fission waste.....novel concept, eh? Its not as though a solution can't be engineered. And grand master of all, Moonbeam, how about some additional resources into researching fusion reactors?
"...knowledge about oneself that opens the door to knowledge about others...". What a line of BS. Your great insight for motivating/convincing others to believe in your arguments is represented by a typical Moonbeam quote:
Responsible disposal program for nuclear fission waste.....novel concept, eh? Its not as though a solution can't be engineered. And grand master of all, Moonbeam, how about some additional resources into researching fusion reactors?
"...knowledge about oneself that opens the door to knowledge about others...". What a line of BS. Your great insight for motivating/convincing others to believe in your arguments is represented by a typical Moonbeam quote:
You actually believe that you're superior to the "uneducated" masses such as those who fix your car, fix your furnace, build homes, serve in the military, repair your PC, fight fires, etc. Sad, really sad
W: I stopped reading at this point (other things to do). You have a great point. But so do others who are trying to point out today's practical choices, vs your well intentioned but as of yet unavailable technological solutions.
M: But they are not just well intentioned or unavailable. They are not focused on as the way to go because of the huge subsidy in nuclear and all the emotional commitments to nuclear that money creates. Put up 100 billion for solar and see the solar prophets rise to blow their trumpets.
W: Since we cannot predict the future as you have lectured (not meant negatively), we must work with what we have at hand. Nuclear energy may be a better option than coal, and we can only make that conclusion with today's knowledge.
M: We can't predict the future, but it would be the height of folly to assume it will be too much unlike the past when it comes to predicting human behavior. The same human frailties that have created past nuclear disasters will not go away until genetic engineering creates gods. We have a mess now and that is what the future will create more of if we go nuclear. We have met the enemy and he is us. We don't want a nuclear foe so we need to deny ourselves that option.
W: I'd love to have the perfect solution to this problem, but my experience and wisdom tells me there rarely if ever is one. At some point, you have to submit to making a decision based on available knowlege and real world options, all the while knowing you'd love to make a better choice when they present themselves in the future.
M: Exactly what I've done based not only on my understanding of science, but of human nature and the way we lie to ourselves about the pigs we are. It is not a linear problem but a holistic one that must consider human nature.
W: And if the greener solution is right around the corner as you and I hope, then making the short term solution to nuclear with have marginal effect either way. If switching to nuclear becomes less dirty than coal on a large scale, go for it. And keep researching ways to get to the best solution that we would all love to have.
M: Dream on. When nuclear becomes the entrenched monopoly like coal is there will be no prying it out of the hands of nuclear America. They will do anything and everything in their power to keep you on the grid. Solar power is like freedom. When the cells are paid for the energy is yours to use or sell. The nuclear folks won't want you to have that cut. Again, you are thinking science and leaving humans nature out of the equation.
W: Researching green alternatives and using dirty energy sources are not mutually exclusive, which makes a large portion of your argument ineffective. (It seems like you are supposing we can only do one or the other).
M: No, I am proposing that only green, non poisonous alternatives be pursued. What is technically possible has nothing to do with what makes sense in human terms.
W: We can all be philosophers, but at some point we also have to be politicians to get through the day.
M: I will get through the day and the rest of my life. I am concerned about the lives of others and in particular the lives of future children who will hate you if you poison their world. I think I am sane and what you propose is not. I don't really care what that makes me, philosopher, politician, or fool in your eyes. I go by my lights and I want them lit with solar.
M: But they are not just well intentioned or unavailable. They are not focused on as the way to go because of the huge subsidy in nuclear and all the emotional commitments to nuclear that money creates. Put up 100 billion for solar and see the solar prophets rise to blow their trumpets.
W: Since we cannot predict the future as you have lectured (not meant negatively), we must work with what we have at hand. Nuclear energy may be a better option than coal, and we can only make that conclusion with today's knowledge.
M: We can't predict the future, but it would be the height of folly to assume it will be too much unlike the past when it comes to predicting human behavior. The same human frailties that have created past nuclear disasters will not go away until genetic engineering creates gods. We have a mess now and that is what the future will create more of if we go nuclear. We have met the enemy and he is us. We don't want a nuclear foe so we need to deny ourselves that option.
W: I'd love to have the perfect solution to this problem, but my experience and wisdom tells me there rarely if ever is one. At some point, you have to submit to making a decision based on available knowlege and real world options, all the while knowing you'd love to make a better choice when they present themselves in the future.
M: Exactly what I've done based not only on my understanding of science, but of human nature and the way we lie to ourselves about the pigs we are. It is not a linear problem but a holistic one that must consider human nature.
W: And if the greener solution is right around the corner as you and I hope, then making the short term solution to nuclear with have marginal effect either way. If switching to nuclear becomes less dirty than coal on a large scale, go for it. And keep researching ways to get to the best solution that we would all love to have.
M: Dream on. When nuclear becomes the entrenched monopoly like coal is there will be no prying it out of the hands of nuclear America. They will do anything and everything in their power to keep you on the grid. Solar power is like freedom. When the cells are paid for the energy is yours to use or sell. The nuclear folks won't want you to have that cut. Again, you are thinking science and leaving humans nature out of the equation.
W: Researching green alternatives and using dirty energy sources are not mutually exclusive, which makes a large portion of your argument ineffective. (It seems like you are supposing we can only do one or the other).
M: No, I am proposing that only green, non poisonous alternatives be pursued. What is technically possible has nothing to do with what makes sense in human terms.
W: We can all be philosophers, but at some point we also have to be politicians to get through the day.
M: I will get through the day and the rest of my life. I am concerned about the lives of others and in particular the lives of future children who will hate you if you poison their world. I think I am sane and what you propose is not. I don't really care what that makes me, philosopher, politician, or fool in your eyes. I go by my lights and I want them lit with solar.
You were humiliated at some point in your life for bragging about yourself, is my guess, and you imagine that I have that same need that you did that got you in trouble and now you want to pass that shame you were dealt over on to me. No thanks. You also don't read too good. I am 'superior' not to the unwashed masses as seems to be the idol of your eye, but to the highly but narrowly specialized who can count their quarks, but can't tie their shoes, the kind of people who can't see you don't give a 45 to a child because it has a safety. I am talking about the real kind of common sense that is not so common, looking at things with wide perspective. Do I have the wider perspective here. Yes. Am I confident in that fact. Yes. Does that make me superior. Yes, if by superior you mean I have better sense. Does thinking the way I do imply I'm some sort of megalomaniac who fancies himself to be better than other people. I think it will always look that way to people who wear their inferiority complexes on their sleeves.
By the way, where is your argument on the subject of nuclear and or green power? Don't forget the worlds greatest Narcissist would still be right if he favored a green revolution, right? So why not focus on the real topic of the thread.
I've certainly been embarassed before (who hasn't?), but not humiliated due to bragging about myself. Superior through better sense is your own opinion.
Nuclear fussion, though it requires significant research. Hydrogen fuel cells also requires additional research, too (not to mention supremely costly infrastructure).
Nuclear fussion, though it requires significant research. Hydrogen fuel cells also requires additional research, too (not to mention supremely costly infrastructure).
I am not pushing fusion or hydrogen cells in particular. I favor alternative sources of power that do not include fission because of the toxic waste and our historical record in handling it, or not handling it, more to the point. And again, costs are a factor of scale to a significant degree.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,649
- 15,843
- 146
I posted it awhile back and you never commented but would you change your mind if the technology was developed to "burn the waste" as fuel only leaving by products that were less hazardous and only needed storage for 100-300 years instead of 10000? The fact that I've yet to see you at least acknowledge the solution fission power provides to the problem with current fossil fuel technologies and global warming leads me to believe you are letting your fear of radioactive waste masquerade as "wisdom".
BTW if you are pushing solar. Solar has almost no place as a direct replacement for a conventional power station. If you are talking about a distributed i.e. personal use of solar power then I'm right there with you.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,649
- 15,843
- 146
BTW (from an earlier post of yours somewhere in here) did you know that a rocket containing an RTG (radio isotope thermal generatory - plutonium) blew up on the pad at Kennedy back a couple of decades ago.
They fished it out of the water and re-used it in the next probe as it wasn't damaged.:Q
WaaaWaaa. Mommy! The mean boys are telling me that polluting is bad!
Wake up!
Energy conservation is real.
Solar energy is real.
Wind energy is real.
Geothermal energy is real (particularly heating and cooling).
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Yes, let's not explore space. Your short-sightedness is amazing. 1 megacurie over 1000'000 sq. miles comes out to 1 curie/sq. mile, or... well... almost nothing. I swore I wouldn't participate in this thread anymore, but seeing this insanity is unbearable.
Fission opposition
1. Danger of nuclear explosion = not possible
2. Danger of meltdown = not possible w. new reactor designs
3. Danger of terrorists attacking plants directly = unlikely to release enough radioactivity to matter
4. Danger of terrorists stealing nuclear material = difficult, and unlikely to generate enough material to matter
5. Short term radioactivity storage = fairly small amount if recycling is allowed
6. Long term waste storage = unlikely to be necessary, given a predictable enhancement of our ability to deliver the waste either under the continental plates, or offworld.
I've addressed every single one of these in this thread, and the only thing I keep hearing is Moonbeam's self-important remarks, and some ridiculous personal attacks.
For all you others, please realize that it's normal to be afraid of something you don't understand and feel no control over... but that's just emotion, with no real basis.
I think I made it clear that because something can be made to work does not mean it is a good idea to make it. Chernobyl was within the reasonable risks that the Russians were willing to take. I am sure they knew that it would be a disaster if something happened there but their estimates of the risk it actually would, I am sure, were just as grounded in their own estimation of their own good sense in their own eyes as any nuclear reactor that we would build today. They took a perfectively reasonable chance and now children are getting thyroid cancer there. Nice gift to leave the future.
Nuclear is not necessary because we can generate energy in sufficient quantities in other ways and reduce our ridiculous waste of energy as we do so. I am not afraid of nuclear waste. I simply judge its production and gifting it to our children to be profoundly immoral. The disaster you cannot foresee that could happen in ways you can't imagine will not happen 100% for sure if we don't go for nuclear power. The assurances you offer are meaningless in the face of the mess we already have and have as yet to clean up safely. If humanity cannot demonstrate a sincere intention to manage the waste we have now and before we produce even more, we have no business at all allowing bright eyed fools to proceed. We need only look at how we are to know we don't want to go in that direction. As with so many things in life people are in a state of denial because the plain fact is that humans are pigs and are embarrassed to admit it. That is why we make our sand castles in the sky and never notice the mud we stand in. Clean your own porch and then tell me we can handle nuclear power. We will not do it safely because we have not done so in the past. We are what we are and what we are is what we have been. You simply can't escape it with dreams.
Everybody in the world is going to like green energy except nuclear engineers and nuclear industries. It is what the human spirit craves, to walk clean upon the earth. You cannot love yourself and create poisons that kill. Leave hubris for the walking dead who have no feeling.
Very true. But I am correct about the fact that we have not cleaned up the nuclear waste we have already made nor repaired the ecological messes some of our past blunders have caused. We can see where we are going by looking in the rear view mirror so the evidence says I'm correct.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter