Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I live in hope.
    Posts
    5,935

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    Quote wadaye said View Post
    Quote Strato said View Post
    Each night before I finally turn out the light I am getting my green/left views recalibrated by Steven Pinker.

    Nuclear power is the way to go.
    I would be interested to read the articles you are looking at. One problem is that its easy to miss unforseen consequences.
    It's Enlightenment Now, 2018. I recommend it.

    As was The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why the World Is Becoming Less Violent, 2011, Pinker's latest book is full of graphs and data.

    Ultimately nuclear power doesn't even hint at addressing the use of the entropic principle that someone or something else should pay the price for, well, the generic 'me' and 'us'.
    My sentiments are getting 'recalibrated,' which is good because I am a baby boomer. One can't become some irrelevant neophobe.

    Nuclear is becoming wildly more expensive on a year to year basis and is only cost effective when used as a cover for a government subsidised military program. Add to that the fact that every nation state claims the god given right to develop nuclear power, and we have but one more tool for an immature species to anihalate each other and much of the natural world too.
    That is not so you will find. There is plenty of enriched uranium in warheads alone we can repurpose into fuel rods.

    I think the conflict risk is never assessed when looking at the economic costs of nuclear power. it is however undeniable.
    Pinker provides in graph form and numbers the historical data on deaths caused by carbon-based energy in various ways, not forgetting oil spill disasters. No stone is left unturned with Pinker.

    I don't anticipate another major war thanks to Pinker.

    Nearly all are deeply prejudiced against nuclear reactors. They are by far the safest, and cleanest and cheapest way to supply our growing requirement and need for energy around the clock every day of the year.

    Developing countries need energy to ever emerge out of grinding poverty.

    We only need two reactor designs, modern designs which can be built very cost effectively.

    Fusion technology will be forthcoming, this time really within 30 years which has been an ongoing joke in the field, 'It's ever been 30 years away'.
    Last edited by Strato; 8th April 2018 at 08:08 PM.
    Wars begin in the minds of men.
    The UNESCO motto, in Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Townsville
    Posts
    4,524

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    Have to disagree, Strato.
    Nuclear fission can be rather cheap (in a sense) to run, but extremely expensive to build. IIRC the last estimate I came across was 9 billion US to build a plant, this seems prohibitively expensive in my view.

    The other issue is the waste, you can't just blast the stuff into space, if something does go wrong with the rocket (and this still happens) the effect with be truly devastating.


    Then if it was to be sent to another planet to burn up in reentry, I just don't think this is an ethical correct choice.
    Also, you can pretty much rule out the 'launch it into the sun' idea as well,

    The other issue is, what type of reactor? There's a multitude of different types, mostly for energy production there are two types, but so far many types have and continued to be used.

    Breeder reactors are often touted as being the cure all and would provide billions of years of energy, except breeder reactors haven't really come to the point were they need to be for that, which is a problem.http://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf

    The reason this is a problem is because it means we still need to rely on known uranium supplies, which given current consumption rates, gives about 140 odd years of energy. https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/20...anium-2016.pdf

    More uranium can be obtained from the ocean though, except so far, no one has a cost effective way of doing this, if it can be done at close to current price or less, then you'd get another 6500 years of energy production. http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_3444

    We, as a species, will still need to use nuclear fission reactors (medicine, research etc) but I think so far, at the moment, the cost is prohibitive, and would take far too long to come online to address climate change.

    Regarding climate change though, we do have the technology to address this issue using renewable energy production, the best bet, IMO, would be to address climate change now with solar, wind, tidal energy production, continue research into nuclear fission and also fusion. I personally think fusion will win out in the end, and I think the German approach of building a complicated machine the has an easy operation is the better principle right now. Time will tell though I guess.
    Prejudices are what fools use for reason. Voltaire


  3. Like button bruce1937, Strato liked this post
    Thank button Blue Lightning thanked this post
  4. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I live in hope.
    Posts
    5,935

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    Thanks loubert.

    From this link you provided,

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    14 URANIUM 2016: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7301, © OECD 2016
    Conclusions
    Despite recent declines in electricity demand in some developed countries, global demand is expected to continue to grow in the next several decades to meet the needs of a growing population, particularly in developing countries. Since nuclear power plant operation produces competitively priced, baseload electricity that is essentially free of greenhouse gas emissions, and the deployment of nuclear power enhances the security of energy supply, it is projected to remain an important component of energy supply. However, the Fukushima Daiichi accident has eroded public confidence in nuclear power in some countries, and prospects for growth in nuclear generating capacity are thus being reduced and are subject to even greater uncertainty than usual. In addition, the abundance of low-cost natural gas in North America and the risk-averse investment climate have reduced the competitiveness of nuclear power plants in liberalised electricity markets. Government and market policies that recognise the benefits of lowcarbon electricity production and the security of energy supply provided by nuclear power plants could help alleviate these competitive pressures. Nuclear power nonetheless is projected to grow considerably in regulated electricity markets with increasing electricity demand and a growing need for clean air electricity generation. Regardless of the role that nuclear energy ultimately plays in meeting future electricity demand, the uranium resource base described in this publication is more than adequate to meet projected requirements for the foreseeable future. The challenge in the coming years is likely to be less one of adequacy of resources than adequacy of production capacity development due to poor uranium market conditions.
    Wars begin in the minds of men.
    The UNESCO motto, in Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018.

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,787

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    "I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,787

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    Quote Strato said View Post
    Quote wadaye said View Post
    Quote Strato said View Post
    Each night before I finally turn out the light I am getting my green/left views recalibrated by Steven Pinker.

    Nuclear power is the way to go.
    I would be interested to read the articles you are looking at. One problem is that its easy to miss unforseen consequences.
    It's Enlightenment Now, 2018. I recommend it.

    As was The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why the World Is Becoming Less Violent, 2011, Pinker's latest book is full of graphs and data.

    Ultimately nuclear power doesn't even hint at addressing the use of the entropic principle that someone or something else should pay the price for, well, the generic 'me' and 'us'.
    My sentiments are getting 'recalibrated,' which is good because I am a baby boomer. One can't become some irrelevant neophobe.

    Nuclear is becoming wildly more expensive on a year to year basis and is only cost effective when used as a cover for a government subsidised military program. Add to that the fact that every nation state claims the god given right to develop nuclear power, and we have but one more tool for an immature species to anihalate each other and much of the natural world too.
    That is not so you will find. There is plenty of enriched uranium in warheads alone we can repurpose into fuel rods.

    I think the conflict risk is never assessed when looking at the economic costs of nuclear power. it is however undeniable.
    Pinker provides in graph form and numbers the historical data on deaths caused by carbon-based energy in various ways, not forgetting oil spill disasters. No stone is left unturned with Pinker.

    I don't anticipate another major war thanks to Pinker.

    Nearly all are deeply prejudiced against nuclear reactors. They are by far the safest, and cleanest and cheapest way to supply our growing requirement and need for energy around the clock every day of the year.

    Developing countries need energy to ever emerge out of grinding poverty.

    We only need two reactor designs, modern designs which can be built very cost effectively.

    Fusion technology will be forthcoming, this time really within 30 years which has been an ongoing joke in the field, 'It's ever been 30 years away'.
    I'll have a look. You may be interested to watch Mehdi Hassan's interview of Steven Pinker
    https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...165958898.html
    "I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    22

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    Quote Strato said View Post
    This is a sad tale, tragic. The predictions based in science are calamitous for Cameron Mississippi.

    But why wouldn't New York or any coastal locale on the globe not be similarly impacted? I empathise. It gets a bit much to think about. I had kids.

    The Guardian

    Climate change will likely wreck their livelihoods – but they still don't buy the science

    'The small Louisiana town of Cameron could be the first in the US to be fully submerged by rising sea levels – and yet locals, 90% of whom voted for Trump, still aren’t convinced about climate change.'

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-trump-support
    I suspect that religion is possibly at the root of such irrational stupidity. The religious fear not calamities, because they believe that their god will take care of them, if not in this life, in the supposed next one.

    Cheers, Mad dogs Zenatah.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,160

    Default Re: When Climate Change Denial Is All One Can Do.

    Quote Maddox Zenatah said View Post
    I suspect that religion is possibly at the root of such irrational stupidity. The religious fear not calamities, because they believe that their god will take care of them, if not in this life, in the supposed next one.

    Cheers, Mad dogs Zenatah.
    Trump, being the loyal and nice guy that he is, will re-house them all in luxury in Trump Tower, feeding them caviar and peeled grapes. And, at no additional cost, the sweet baby cheeses will welcome them into heaven. Win-win. No need to be commie or green, or bother with that science flopdoddle. No need to consider others "not on the team".
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •