I am making an argument that appeals to personal ethics and emotions. Facts cannot assuage peoples irrational fears about nuclear power. A scientific argument will not work with people who are cognitive dissonance. (I wish it did). In order to win the debate we have to make a moral and emotional argument. We have to take the moral high ground away from the anti-nukers/fossil fuel industry stooges.
Waste is a red herring. It always has been. It has never hurt anyone. There is not a lot of it. It is merely unused fuel. I think we should recycle it to produce 10000+ years electricity.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Do you understand that fossil fuels are what is causing climate change? I doubt it. Methane is also a much stronger greenhouse gas then CO2. Natural gas leaks release methane into the atmosphere accelerating climate change.
We simply need to move the grid towards less and less of their time being operational.
The best way to move the grid away from fossil fuel sources is to add new nuclear power. Also the major issues with nuclear are not technical. Those have already been solved. They are political.
The United States uses ~4000 TWh annually. Dividing that by 365 and you get ~11 TWh daily. Divide that by 24 and you get ~450 GWh. It varies by peak demands throughout the day, but for this discussion it is a good number. We have significantly less then that it both generating and storage capacity.
Any reliable grid will still need at days to weeks of storage. And solar thermal does not have 100% availability. The best plants (which are location dependent) have capacity factors less then 50%.
The problem is the cost of storage. Renewables are intermittent meaning we need storage or baseload backup. 96% of our current storage is done thru pumped hydro. All of our current storage will last less then a hour. It is not feasible to scale that up to a 100% percent renewable grid. Batteries are even more expensive and less feasible for grid level storage.
Given the realities of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
I absolutely cited my sources. Look at earlier posts in the thread. I made several citations. You probably just did not remember (not surprising from someone who gets his facts from TV)
French reactors have not been offline for that long. And not for security issues.
Biomass releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Meaning it is not clean. Here is the first link I found on Google.. You are free to google this issue yourself. It turns out that biomass is dirtier then coal. Give me my Nobel Prize now.
Using DU as ammunition and nuclear power are two separate things. We can ban the former and keep the latter. You want to justify banning the latter because of the former. I would also argue that DU is more dangerous as a heavy element. Swallowing it will kill you, but not from radiation. If they went back to lead based weapons, there would be just as many health problems.
You're so blinded by your ideology that you can not or will not examine the facts.
I can say the exact same thing about you.
I know the difference between right and wrong which is why I support nuclear energy. It is immoral to oppose nuclear energy.
Nuclear idealists, such as yourself are usually too busy trying not to look stupid or embarrassed because you argue on the basis of a belief system, not fact or truth.
The mental gymnastics you perform to believe that must make you dizzy. My positions are based on fact(nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy source and the only chance we have to mitigate climate change). My rhetorical arguments are based on truth and morality.
For the record I am in favor of Integral fast reactors. And yes the oil and gas lobbies killed that program. So what? Second generation reactors in the united states have a proven safety record. Fact- nuclear power is the safest source of energy.
You are the one who has to call me evil and show me pictures of dead babies to regain the moral high ground. I guess I am evil brain-washed child-killing communist with nothing to offer society. I might as well kill myself
I already linked you a source from the national institute of health showing 0 effects from wifi. They even used signals several times stronger then normal wifi. They found nothing.
Given its proven safety record, it is immoral to oppose wifi
I have cited my sources dumbass. Your sources come from TV. French is only 75% nuclear. They also utilize renewables and hydro. That makes them 89% clean. Germany is only 34% clean(biomass does not count). Biomass is dirty.
I only have 1 brain cell left, but the facts are as follows. 89% of French power is from clean sources. 34% of German power is from clean sources. German biomass is a large greenhouse gas emitter and is not clean. Meaning only 11% of French power is dirty while 66% of German power is dirty(Lignite, biomass). It might appear that it is only ~6x, buy due to heavy German coal usage it is ~10x.
The numbers are as follows 58g CO2/kWh vs 560 g CO2/kWh
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
The numbers absolutely do make sense. The problem is not the numbers. The problem is you. You are incapable of acknowledging a fact that contradictions your preconceived notions. You previously said "It does not matter how the numbers are exactly" which is strong evidence of cognitive dissonance.
My deception? What deception? I compared Germany and France because they are similar. They are both European countries with strong economies. Their populations are close enough in population to draw meaningful comparisons along with their annual energy usage. The made different decisions on energy which resulted in German electricity being 10x dirtier.
If you want me to compare Germany to Germany I can. Germany has not decreased greenhouse gasses in any significant measure. Their reputation as an environmental leader is undeserved.
I care about greenhouse gas emissions more then I care about any corporate welfare claims. Renewable subsides can also be considered corporate welfare. I do not care. I care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, safety and energy reliablity. Nuclear provides all of that.
Finally yes the French elected a couple of anti-nuclear greenies, Hollande and Marcon. Thankfully their plans to shutdown nuclear reactors have failed. Every place in the world where a nuclear power plant was shutdown had its capacity replaced by fossil fuels(see Germany and California).
I have no problem with running a reactor in my backyard. And yes we need to test it. Which is why it sucks you anti-nuclear and fossil fuel people banned new nuclear R&D in the US in 1993.
Let's get real. Nuclear is one of the least subsidies electricity sources. Renewables are subsidized at a much higher rate.
Waste is not a massive problem. It is a red herring. Check out this youtube video series. Honestly waste is not an issue. The number of people have ever been killed or even injured from waste is 0. I would appreciate if you would stop repeating bs fossil fuel industry written talking points.
Finally power storage solutions are expensive. Much more expensive then new nuclear power.
Given the reality of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
I disagree with you. It turns out a lot of scientists disagree with you as well. The Dutch also disagree with you.
The leading 100% renewable plan has been debunked by the national academy of science. It is not feasible with current technology. Energy storage is expensive. Yes nuclear is expensive as well, but 4th generation reactors can be factory built. The Dutch are innovating in that technology.
Thankfully the Dutch are also building nuclear reactors. Safer thorium reactor trials could salvage nuclear power The Dutch are aware that there are mathematical limits to renewable energy (due to intermittency), and consequently they are building clean baseload nuclear energy.
Given the reality of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
Nuclear energy did not kill any of those children. The fact that you have to blame me for those deaths in order to retake the moral high ground demonstrates your cognitive dissonance.
Let me get this straight. I am an evil mentally-ill baby-killer communist? Because I think nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change(a stance a super majority of scientists share)?
Remember you are the one who thinks wifi is dangerous.
You are nuts and a hypocrite. And after showing me pictures of dead babies, which have nothing to do with nuclear energy, I know better then to ever click one of your links again.
It is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Slashdot Mirror
I am making an argument that appeals to personal ethics and emotions. Facts cannot assuage peoples irrational fears about nuclear power. A scientific argument will not work with people who are cognitive dissonance. (I wish it did). In order to win the debate we have to make a moral and emotional argument. We have to take the moral high ground away from the anti-nukers/fossil fuel industry stooges.
Waste is a red herring. It always has been. It has never hurt anyone. There is not a lot of it. It is merely unused fuel. I think we should recycle it to produce 10000+ years electricity.
We simply need to move the grid towards less and less of their time being operational.
The best way to move the grid away from fossil fuel sources is to add new nuclear power. Also the major issues with nuclear are not technical. Those have already been solved. They are political.
I do not see a fundamental problem going to 100% renewables.
You might not, but that national academy of sciences does. They have rejected the feasibility of the leading 100% renewable plan. Many of the worlds top climate scientists have repeatedly said nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change
The United States uses ~4000 TWh annually. Dividing that by 365 and you get ~11 TWh daily. Divide that by 24 and you get ~450 GWh. It varies by peak demands throughout the day, but for this discussion it is a good number. We have significantly less then that it both generating and storage capacity.
Any reliable grid will still need at days to weeks of storage. And solar thermal does not have 100% availability. The best plants (which are location dependent) have capacity factors less then 50%.
Nothing is wrong with hydro. It cannot power 100% of our needs, but if we could retrofit existing dams we should.
Nope
The problem is the cost of storage. Renewables are intermittent meaning we need storage or baseload backup. 96% of our current storage is done thru pumped hydro. All of our current storage will last less then a hour. It is not feasible to scale that up to a 100% percent renewable grid. Batteries are even more expensive and less feasible for grid level storage.
Given the realities of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
I absolutely cited my sources. Look at earlier posts in the thread. I made several citations. You probably just did not remember (not surprising from someone who gets his facts from TV)
French reactors have not been offline for that long. And not for security issues.
Biomass releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Meaning it is not clean. Here is the first link I found on Google.. You are free to google this issue yourself. It turns out that biomass is dirtier then coal. Give me my Nobel Prize now.
You're so blinded by your ideology that you can not or will not examine the facts.
I can say the exact same thing about you.
I know the difference between right and wrong which is why I support nuclear energy. It is immoral to oppose nuclear energy.
Nuclear idealists, such as yourself are usually too busy trying not to look stupid or embarrassed because you argue on the basis of a belief system, not fact or truth.
The mental gymnastics you perform to believe that must make you dizzy. My positions are based on fact(nuclear is the safest, cleanest energy source and the only chance we have to mitigate climate change). My rhetorical arguments are based on truth and morality.
For the record I am in favor of Integral fast reactors. And yes the oil and gas lobbies killed that program. So what? Second generation reactors in the united states have a proven safety record. Fact- nuclear power is the safest source of energy.
You are the one who has to call me evil and show me pictures of dead babies to regain the moral high ground. I guess I am evil brain-washed child-killing communist with nothing to offer society. I might as well kill myself
It is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
I already linked you a source from the national institute of health showing 0 effects from wifi. They even used signals several times stronger then normal wifi. They found nothing.
Given its proven safety record, it is immoral to oppose wifi
I have cited my sources dumbass. Your sources come from TV. French is only 75% nuclear. They also utilize renewables and hydro. That makes them 89% clean. Germany is only 34% clean(biomass does not count). Biomass is dirty.
I only have 1 brain cell left, but the facts are as follows. 89% of French power is from clean sources. 34% of German power is from clean sources. German biomass is a large greenhouse gas emitter and is not clean. Meaning only 11% of French power is dirty while 66% of German power is dirty(Lignite, biomass). It might appear that it is only ~6x, buy due to heavy German coal usage it is ~10x.
The numbers are as follows 58g CO2/kWh vs 560 g CO2/kWh
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
Al least I do not get my "facts" from TV
The numbers absolutely do make sense. The problem is not the numbers. The problem is you. You are incapable of acknowledging a fact that contradictions your preconceived notions. You previously said "It does not matter how the numbers are exactly" which is strong evidence of cognitive dissonance.
It does not matter how the numbers are exactly
Of course facts matter. 560g CO2/kWh vs 58g CO2/kWh. Those are the numbers. German electricity is dirty.
witness via TV counts
No witness via TV does not count. The World Health Organization(WHO) found less then 60 deaths directly attributed to chernobyl.
Maybe you should stop calling people morons when they cite facts
My deception? What deception? I compared Germany and France because they are similar. They are both European countries with strong economies. Their populations are close enough in population to draw meaningful comparisons along with their annual energy usage. The made different decisions on energy which resulted in German electricity being 10x dirtier.
I can also compare Germany to Finland. Finland currently is using 30% nuclear with plans to increase that to 60%. Not surprising given the high quality of Finland education. They plan to fill the last 40% using a combination of renewables.
If you want me to compare Germany to Germany I can. Germany has not decreased greenhouse gasses in any significant measure. Their reputation as an environmental leader is undeserved.
I care about greenhouse gas emissions more then I care about any corporate welfare claims. Renewable subsides can also be considered corporate welfare. I do not care. I care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, safety and energy reliablity. Nuclear provides all of that.
Finally yes the French elected a couple of anti-nuclear greenies, Hollande and Marcon. Thankfully their plans to shutdown nuclear reactors have failed. Every place in the world where a nuclear power plant was shutdown had its capacity replaced by fossil fuels(see Germany and California).
.
Let's get real. Nuclear is one of the least subsidies electricity sources. Renewables are subsidized at a much higher rate.
Waste is not a massive problem. It is a red herring. Check out this youtube video series. Honestly waste is not an issue. The number of people have ever been killed or even injured from waste is 0. I would appreciate if you would stop repeating bs fossil fuel industry written talking points.
Finally power storage solutions are expensive. Much more expensive then new nuclear power.
Given the reality of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
I disagree with you. It turns out a lot of scientists disagree with you as well. The Dutch also disagree with you.
The leading 100% renewable plan has been debunked by the national academy of science. It is not feasible with current technology. Energy storage is expensive. Yes nuclear is expensive as well, but 4th generation reactors can be factory built. The Dutch are innovating in that technology.
We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is a reason the world's leading climate scientists have repeatedly said nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change
Also Germany tried what you did and they have failed. Only 34% of German electricity is clean. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and their electricity is 10x dirty then their neighbor France. Scroll to the third graph comparing Germany and France. You will notice that Germany emits 560 grams of CO2 per kWh and France emits 58 grams of CO2 per kWh. That is almost 10x.
rather than, say, building nuclear reactors
Thankfully the Dutch are also building nuclear reactors. Safer thorium reactor trials could salvage nuclear power The Dutch are aware that there are mathematical limits to renewable energy (due to intermittency), and consequently they are building clean baseload nuclear energy.
Given the reality of climate change, it is immoral to oppose nuclear power
Nuclear energy did not kill any of those children. The fact that you have to blame me for those deaths in order to retake the moral high ground demonstrates your cognitive dissonance.
Let me get this straight. I am an evil mentally-ill baby-killer communist? Because I think nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change(a stance a super majority of scientists share)?
Remember you are the one who thinks wifi is dangerous.
It is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
You are nuts and a hypocrite. And after showing me pictures of dead babies, which have nothing to do with nuclear energy, I know better then to ever click one of your links again. It is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
And no you did not personally witness 10000 dead because there were not even 100 dead from Chernobyl.
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
For all test conditions, no abnormalities were noted in the pregnant rats and no significant signs of toxicity were observed in the pre- and postnatal development of the pups, even at the highest level of 4 W/kg. So fuck your crazy wifi radiation nonsense.