Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1578 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 9:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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?

I was going to respond in kind but figured I would sit back and see where PO took things, I wasn't disappointed rolleyes.gif

No mention of the other partial meltdowns, any of the other (officially reported) incidents numbering in the scores, or rational discussion of existing or proposed waste sites and how we would clean up the dirty ones, or move waste to the new ones. 3 Mile Island was the most prolific of the US incidents, but certainly not the only incident, our nuclear record is certainly not sterling as PO seems to portray.

That 12 year old video of some test program at Sellafield, of containers whose manufacturer is not cited?  The containers pictured in your video are 12 years old now, and have probably been sitting around in yards or transporting waste - would you buy a car that's been doing that for 12 years? These containers do look sturdy, but are these the exact make and model of containers they'll be ordering when it's time to move waste from Hanford to Yucca Mountain? Probably not, I'll wager that they'll be ordering the best balance of cheap and effective, and playing the odds that there are no transportation incidents. PO, do you even know the history of Sellafield where those tests were conducted in your video? Not really an inspiration of confidence in safety and security!

Anyways, congratulations on getting us to follow this side path with you PO. Agreed, nothing to do with DRM's post.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 9:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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?

Secondly, when you say "vast" quantities, compared to what?  All the nuclear waste generated so far in the US would cover a football field a few meters deep.  Under Mark Jacobson's plan, the daily replacement rate of solar panels is estimated to be what, 11 million square meters?  I'd have to look it up.   But nuclear waste is the amount that's vast?  Explain.

The graphic was just a reminder how absurd it is to be worried about CO2 emissions while at the same time actively opposing nuclear energy.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1311 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 12:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Those flasks are impressive, kind of like the promises that have been made in the past about safety, only to find something (a big tsunami, for example, on the east coast of Japan) was not taken into account. And comparing the waste in solar panels to reactor waste is funny.

Look, you can continue advocating for these and if their use in other countries proves me wrong, then so be it. But having a much larger number of reactors on line compared to now means a lot more reactors, a lot more waste, a lot more opportunity for poor construction of something that works perfectly in a test setting. I imagine that they probably could build oil tanks that could withstand a meteor strike if they wanted to, but they still blow up too. I call it the Chernobyl Syndrome - if humans can build something badly, they will - eventually - build something badly.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 902 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 12:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well then you must ask yourself, which do you think is worse?

A little bit of highly radioactive fission waste and a slight chance of a meltdown rendering ~1000 square miles uninhabitable for a few decades, or

a lot of fracking and co2 or,

a lot of solar panels, rare earth mines, and a depressed economy.

Keep in mind both fossil fuels and renewables would consume far more than 1000 square miles.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 12:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
This is not correct.  The warming we are seeing is almost certainly not natural.  There is no plausible warming mechanism other than our co2+water vapor radiative forcing changes - that could explain this.

Far more warming was natural before, which means current warming is within the envelope of natural variation.

The sole basis of arguments like yours, is models. Which, once again, are not empirical evidence.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 12:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Magical solutions to climate change from the Dem candidates.

"Since decarbonization rates are highly abstract, even to us energy nerds, it is useful to consider what they mean in practice. In 2017 the United States produced more than 5,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Using some simple math, to achieve Sanders’ proposed reduction of 71% by 2030 would require the removal of about 200 million vehicles from the nation’s roads by 2030, assuming proportional reductions in other fossil fuel consuming sectors. Does Sanders have a proposal to eliminate or replace ~20 million vehicles per year (more than 50,000 per day) starting in 2021? For those with less ambitious plans (a 50% reduction by 2030) that number is ~15 million per year (more than 40,000 per day) starting in 2021."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/09/democratic-candidates-climate-policy-commitments-are-incredibly-ambitious-but-fail-a-reality-test/

Here's more of the environmental cost of sating the sky god religion at a the cost of trillions and massive restrictions on life of every citizen....

Quote:
In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium—an essential element in wind turbines—extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.

The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction.

That’s just for electricity. We also need to think about vehicles. This year, a group of leading British scientists submitted a letter to the U.K. Committee on Climate Change outlining their concerns about the ecological impact of electric cars. They agree, of course, that we need to end the sale and use of combustion engines.

But they pointed out that unless consumption habits change, replacing the world’s projected fleet of 2 billion vehicles is going to require an explosive increase in mining: Global annual extraction of neodymium and dysprosium will go up by another 70 percent, annual extraction of copper will need to more than double, and cobalt will need to increase by a factor of almost four—all for the entire period from now to 2050.


This is why they will need to also attack  consumption on a vast scale...reducing your personal mobility, the ability to heat your home affordably, or get around on your own schedule, not the state's and not the city's, raising prices on food and all goods. And even better, those production figures are for the tech and hardware alone
, they don't even account for the mining to build the factories and hardware to build the factories and hardware. That 2700% increase in lithium ore will not leap into the extra dump trucks...it will require drills, explosives, plumbing, electricity, railroads, loaders, and all the tools to support that infrastructure, plus an increase in the foundries and mills to handle the increased production, plus all the tools and infrastructure to build them too.

It's almost as if these 'planners' have zero comprehension of the massive technological pyramid production requires. And *all* of these actions will require the environmental reviews, permits and such which come with extraction and production.

All to solve a non existent problem. It is sad and sick...and wasteful beyond imagining because it is for nothing.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 12:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
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. Wake up, your post before this showed some progress.

That they're 'tired' or 'lacking credibility' is irrelevant. Those are political attacks, ad homs and logical fallacies with zero bearing on logical arguments and science.

It is also irrelevant if the argument has been 'regurgitated', or stated before once or a million times.

If you cannot falsify it, it's status as possibly true is 100% intact no matter how much rhetorical fecal matter you sling at it.

If this is the judgment and metrics running in your own head when you look at the arguments, it is not valid logic and not consistent with science in any way. If you ever argue non scientists cannot judge 'experts', why, you're only proving that is true for yourself.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 12:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
And an attempt at redirection. 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) and you are free to exercise the Search feature of the forum - or even the Search feature of the Internet! - to find this information for yourself, instead of crying for me to do that work for you.

Neither his credibility or motives are relevant in any way. There is no need to 'address' logical fallacies other than identifying them. Engaging them beyond that is pointless, because they are already logical fallacies and even settling them, impossible when it's subjectives like 'credibility',  is still irrelevant.

The content of his arguments are the sole concern. Falsify them, or admit they remain possibly true. This not 3rd grade, nor a clique.

You claim he is wrong, it is *your* responsibility to back up those arguments with falsifying information, not pass off defending your own arguments onto someone else. The person evading doing their own work, is you.

And one last thing...doing that work in an applicable manner does *not* include digging up more sources that merely repeat your tactic. Ad homs, claims about 'credibility' which are irrelevant in science, etc....do not count. Find the arguments which falsify Pielke's arguments.

Seeing people claim they're all about science while they use your tactics is rampant, but it doesn't make those tactics science or evidence of valid judgment.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1311 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 1:47 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm not sure where the depressed economy comes from. One of the extra benefits from renewables is that they are labor intensive and employ far more people at good wages than a capital-intensive and concentrated form like nuclear does. And while a distributed form of solar is not as efficient as massive solar farms, they take up no extra land. And if thousands of new reactors are built, then I expect meltdowns fairly regularly. The issue is really the scale combined with the concentrated impact when problems do occur. But it's certainly true that there are tradeoffs.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 2:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
I'm not sure where the depressed economy comes from. One of the extra benefits from renewables is that they are labor intensive and employ far more people at good wages than a capital-intensive and concentrated form like nuclear does. And while a distributed form of solar is not as efficient as massive solar farms, they take up no extra land. And if thousands of new reactors are built, then I expect meltdowns fairly regularly. The issue is really the scale combined with the concentrated impact when problems do occur. But it's certainly true that there are tradeoffs.

So the extra benefit is higher labor intensive production, and thus higher prices for the energy and any products it is used in.

The entire point of economically valid capital intensity is increasing productivity or lowering product costs, thus lowering prices.

It's no wonder you're not sure where the depressed economy arguments come from. You're claiming increasing labor costs to get less reliable energy, thus resulting in *lowering* productivity with respect to it's output (energy) is a benefit.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 902 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 3:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
I'm not sure where the depressed economy comes from

Pretty much every sector of the economy is harmed by more expensive energy.  Every citizen will pay more for commuting, for home heat, for keeping the lights on.  They will have less disposable income, to pay for things that are more expensive.  Every restaurant and shop will also have to pay more for all these utilities too, with the added detriment that all the stuff they want to sell will be more expensive to create and also more expensive to ship.  Every farmer will pay more to run their equipment, every factory will pay more to run their machines.  People will travel the world and meet other cultures far less.

It would be like trumps idiotic trade disruptions on steroids and then multiplied exponentially.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 7:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
Those flasks are impressive, kind of like the promises that have been made in the past about safety, only to find something (a big tsunami, for example, on the east coast of Japan) was not taken into account. And comparing the waste in solar panels to reactor waste is funny.

Look, you can continue advocating for these and if their use in other countries proves me wrong, then so be it. But having a much larger number of reactors on line compared to now means a lot more reactors, a lot more waste, a lot more opportunity for poor construction of something that works perfectly in a test setting. I imagine that they probably could build oil tanks that could withstand a meteor strike if they wanted to, but they still blow up too. I call it the Chernobyl Syndrome - if humans can build something badly, they will - eventually - build something badly.

The use of nuclear energy in our country has proven you wrong.  If you disagree, show us some deaths-per-megawatt data that says differently.  You must've been heartbroken that nobody died of radiation poisoning at Fukushima.

Health effects of energy production
Health effects of energy production

https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

Your utter lack of rationality on this issue makes me think that there's an unspoken agenda here other than climate change mitigation that guides your thinking.  Degrowth or ...?  Care to comment on that?

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 8:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Pretty much every sector of the economy is harmed by more expensive energy.  Every citizen will pay more for commuting, for home heat, for keeping the lights on.  They will have less disposable income, to pay for things that are more expensive.  Every restaurant and shop will also have to pay more for all these utilities too, with the added detriment that all the stuff they want to sell will be more expensive to create and also more expensive to ship.  Every farmer will pay more to run their equipment, every factory will pay more to run their machines.  People will travel the world and meet other cultures far less.

It would be like trumps idiotic trade disruptions on steroids and then multiplied exponentially.

Yup.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11074 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 11, 2019 8:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Your utter lack of rationality on this issue makes me think that there's an unspoken agenda here other than climate change mitigation that guides your thinking.  Degrowth or ...?  Care to comment on that?

Many, many people think of humans as innate problems in and of themselves. Because of numbers, because other people do things they think are stupid, or wasteful, or that they shouldn't want or value what the observer thinks is wrong.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostThu Sep 12, 2019 12:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Parked Out wrote:
Your utter lack of rationality on this issue makes me think that there's an unspoken agenda here other than climate change mitigation that guides your thinking.  Degrowth or ...?  Care to comment on that?

Many, many people think of humans as innate problems in and of themselves. Because of numbers, because other people do things they think are stupid, or wasteful, or that they shouldn't want or value what the observer thinks is wrong.

Deep in the psyche of the Green Party....

Where are political parties born? Labour might say workplaces, the Conservatives their clubs and stately homes, but the Green party – which is 40 years old next week – can be precise: the Bridge Inn at Napton, in Warwickshire, where an unlikely group of lawyers and estate agents used to meet for a drink after work in the early 1970s.

Hardly revolutionary, but it was only when Coventry solicitor Lesley Whittaker passed around a copy of Playboy magazine, which she had bought in WH Smith, that these ultimate middle Englanders resolved to challenge the UK political establishment.

The magazine had an interview with US academic and population scientist Paul Ehrlich, who predicted famine and apocalypse if numbers continued to grow. It scared the hell out of Whittaker and her solicitor husband, Tony. "Good god. The whole thing's going horrible. What are we going to do about it?" she remembered thinking.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/17/green-party-green-politics

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday outdoorgirl, wildernessed!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy