Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Doppelganger wrote: | Parked Out wrote: | https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/09/democratic-candidates-climate-policy-commitments-are-incredibly-ambitious-but-fail-a-reality-test/ |
Same tired sources. Pielke is a tool lacking credibility who has been discussed here before, used to present information exactly as you have regurgitated it, with the sole purpose of achieving political and economic goals. He's happy to do it, and may even be compensated for it... Your statement does not address the questions of Pielke's credibility or motives. Furthermore, these questions have been explored in previous comments in this thread (as I already stated in my prior post) |
Even your ad hominem attacks don't make any sense. Pielke's been banging the drum on this issue for awhile now - that neither the US nor the world are decarbonizing at anywhere near the rate needed to met our ostensible climate goals. Apparently you disagree? And please tell us what you imagine these nefarious political and economic goals are that he's allegedly in service of with this Forbes piece. Maybe he'd like to see someone put forth a plan that's halfway plausible? Wow, so evil...
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:54 am
|
|
|
The nuclear issue is a good example of my call for flexibility. I would claim that arguments against nuclear have some strong points. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this time the promise of a cheap and safe new reactor design that doesn't create vast quantities of toxic waste that must be transported somewhere on our nation's highways, etc etc, will actually come to fruition. Then I will need to adjust my opinion, and if a plan adopted already did not include that, it would need to be adjusted too.
Many have their opinions on the best way to get started. But everybody also needs to keep an open mind as we see what works best. Plenty of countries around the world are aggressively pursuing nuclear energy, so we will see.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
drm wrote: | new reactor design that doesn't create vast quantities of toxic waste that must be transported somewhere on our nation's highways, etc etc, |
Maybe if you Green Party types and Big Enviro would stop the misinformation campaign... ^^^
Carbon intensity of electricity-2
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Doppelganger wrote: | Parked Out wrote: | Even your ad hominem attacks don't make any sense. Pielke's been banging the drum on this issue for awhile now - that neither the US nor the world are decarbonizing at anywhere near the rate needed to met our ostensible climate goals. Apparently you disagree? And please tell us what you imagine these nefarious political and economic goals are that he's allegedly in service of with this Forbes piece. Maybe he'd like to see someone put forth a plan that's halfway plausible? Wow, so evil... |
Fine, I went ahead and did the work, reviewing the previous occasions Pielke has been a topic of conversation here. Guess what, some of the same questions were directed to you then regarding Pielke's credibility and credentials, and you ignored them with the same "doesn't make sense" dismissal (and ignored the invitation for clarification, as you will again I am sure). I guess confusion is something you feel when challenged by facts? I won't link the posts, the same questions you asked before and are asking again today were answered then. You've read each of the posts, responded to them and are welcome to put in what little effort you see fit. |
Pielke's credibility & credentials aren't an issue (no matter how much you want them to be), in this particular case because all he does is present the candidates' own proposals and then put them in the context of what those proposals would take to achieve vs. what has actually been achieved to date, and asks 'how in real life do you intend to achieve that?' Anyone could do the same and it would be a legitimate question. Since you have nothing to offer but don't like the question, you go all ad hominem but I guess that's what you do.
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
France pursued aggressively nuclear power decades ago, and they did it well.
Their results are impressive: cheaper electricity than their european neighbors AND significantly less CO2 production per capita. They reprocess their fuel enough such that its mass is small enough to be less annoying.
Their "green" neighbors, struggling to force less reliable renewables into poor locations, are finding their costs increasing while their CO2 emissions remain significantly higher.
If we want cheap reliable carbonless in large quantity soon, fission is the only tech that is ready.
And cheap=realistic.
Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release.
|
Back to top |
|
|
coldrain108 Thundering Herd
Joined: 05 Aug 2010 Posts: 1858 | TRs | Pics Location: somewhere over the rainbow |
thunderhead wrote: | Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release. |
Do they choose the design and build of the facility by the highest quality of work or do they do as the USA does and choose the lowest bidder?
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
thunderhead wrote: | Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release. |
The US has about 100 nuclear plants vs 58 in France and the only significant US release was at Three Mile Island in 1979. The release was inconsequential for worker/public health but highly consequential for future plant safety.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:23 pm
|
|
|
coldrain108 wrote: | thunderhead wrote: | Edit: and i should add I do not believe France has had any noteworthy radiation release. |
Do they choose the design and build of the facility by the highest quality of work or do they do as the USA does and choose the lowest bidder? |
I don't think contracting out work on nuclear programs in France is something that is even considered. The nuclear generation program is run by EDF a firm essentially owned by the French government.
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Quote: | Three Mile Island in 1979 |
Lol couldn't resist.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
thunderhead wrote: | Quote: | Three Mile Island in 1979 |
Lol couldn't resist. |
Lol! I enjoyed that show, even if it wasn't very accurate.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Doppelganger wrote: | There's absolutely nothing wrong with the question "'how in real life do you intend to achieve that?" |
But of course that's not going to stop you from going off on a pointless ad hominem tirade.
Some of us think it's valuable to call bs on the absurd claims made by politicians. Others are happy to just lap it up and be content in their ignorance.
Doppelganger, sometimes you're worth engaging with but apparently this wasn't one of those times. Glad you got to practice with your emoticons though, those are cute.
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:20 am
|
|
|
Parked Out wrote: | drm wrote: | new reactor design that doesn't create vast quantities of toxic waste that must be transported somewhere on our nation's highways, etc etc, |
Maybe if you Green Party types and Big Enviro would stop the misinformation campaign... ^^^
Carbon intensity of electricity-2 |
I'm not sure what you're on about. Are you saying that nuclear waste wouldn't have to be transported somewhere if we were to have a major growth in that form of energy production? And what does carbon intensity have to do with what I said?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
drm wrote: | I'm not sure what you're on about. Are you saying that nuclear waste wouldn't have to be transported somewhere if we were to have a major growth in that form of energy production? And what does carbon intensity have to do with what I said? |
For starters:
|
Back to top |
|
|
|