When NASA climate scientists say you are wrong on the issue of climate change, you are wrong.
After reading your posts I am even more convinced you are cognitive dissonance. Stop being a lunatic. Be brave enough to admit you are wrong,
And fuck you for making me see dead babies. And what type of asshole uses duckduckgo anyways. And for the record Iraq did not have wmds so your birthdefects were not caused from nuclear energy or weapons.
It does follow. You are just so cognitive dissonance on this issue that you are incapable of thinking about nuclear power rationally.
The only moral solution is to reduce humanity's energy consumption.
Well maybe you should start by giving up your internet, electricity, transportation, sewage, hospitals, etc before you ask poor 3rd world people to not use it. I hate hypocrisy.
This anti-nuclear argument goes back to the 1960's. It turns out to be false. When people have more electricity societies problems decrease. Population growth slows. Education increases.
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Not according to the new york times. Scroll to the chart halfway down the page You will see that that Germany is only 2% cleaner then the United States (34% vs 32%). You should remove the adjective "much" from your statement. Germany is slightly cleaner than America.
Aren't you the guy that wants to ban wifi routers because they damage dna? I do not have to take your crazy nonsense seriously. Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
As for your claim that one needs to differentiate the reasons for the reactors - why exactly? A reactor that produces electricity and a reactor that enriches plutonium are both reactors, with a risk of radioactive contamination. There have been accidents and releases of radioactive material in both. Quite often the same radioactive materials. And the claim was that reactors was safe, not that electricity producing commercial ones were. Moving the goal posts doesn't help..
They are different. They do not use the same radioactive materials. Uranium for nuclear energy is only enriched to approximately ~1%-4%. Weapon materials needs to be enriched to ~80%+. So they are different. They also function differently. The mechanics and physics are different. Nuclear energy is also the safest form of power including solar and wind. That is a statistical fact that the IAEA acknowledges. 4th generation reactors are even better. We are not moving the goal posts. You anti-nuclear people are moving the goal posts. 5 of those example occurred before I was even born and the last two occurred with technology older then I am.
It's just as disingenuous, and is easily refuted by statistics showing that cancer death rates have indeed gone up both in the aftermath of Fukushima and Three Mile Island.
I am going to need a credible source for that and not any of that ecowatch bs.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
You are making a lot of apples to oranges comparisons by comparing weapons facilities to civilian operation. They are different. You also presented a bunch of examples of accidents that did not involve radiation or nuclear power plants.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Yeah I am strong supporter of thorium reactors along with other 4th generation reactors such as Terrapower. I have even lectured a congressman about the benefits of Thorium.
Nuclear power is finite. You are again implying it is infinite.
I never did that. Not once did I say nuclear was infinite. I just said solar was finite(which it is), and nuclear is sustainable(which it is). I was countering the argument that because nuclear is finite we should not build them.
Who's We?
The human race stupid. The adoption of nuclear energy benefits the entire human race and every other species on this planet.
Do you work in the nuclear industry designing nuclear reactors?
No. My background is in math, comp sci and computational neuroscience.
Well out with it then - let's see what your plan is.
I can not speak for the rest of the world, but for the United States we need to triple our nuclear capacity. There are a lot of ways of doing that, but I would focus on development of 4th generation nuclear. The United States built the first 4th generation reactor called the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. GE has developed plans for 10x version of the reactor called the Prism. Bill Gates' Terrapower is building their first reactor in China. NuScale has filed paper work with the NRC for a factory built small modular reactor. Terrestrial energyis developing a thorium reactor based on a successful experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960's. And of course Russia has a working 4th generation reactor which they are already exporting to the rest of the world. There are 50 other companies doing related work. We need to make the NRC accept and support 4th generation nuclear plants. We need to provide loan guarantees, and we need to restart nuclear R&D. I could list more but it is getting late.
What, specifically, do you blame the fossil fuel industry for?
Other then greenhouse gasses? You do know climate change is real right?
What is it that is so bad that they are doing to the nuclear industry?
Their constant lawsuits artificially increase the price of nuclear. Having a judge stop construction for years is expensive. Even right now the Koch brothers are backing lawsuits against the nuclear industry all over the United States. The fossil fuel industry spends billions of dollars convincing people such as yourself that nuclear is bad when in fact it is the safest and cleanest energy source.
I was being polite so I didn't embarrass you by calling it complete and utter bullshit.
You were being stupid. It is not a strawman argument. My arguments are also based on facts(which I cite)
and you continue to make unsupported accusations.
The second sentence from the wiki page said "Friends of the Earth was founded in 1969 as an anti-nuclear group by Robert O Anderson." Anderson was an oil tychoon. There are more examples then just Friends of the Earth, but you can use google those yourself.
You're a shill.
No I do not get paid. I just have a moral obligation to leave a better planet for the next generation.
Without saying what you what question you want to answer
What is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Scaling up nuclear power is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was not a mistake for France to use nuclear. It was a mistake for Germany to stop using it. I do not know why you do not understand that. Germany picked coal over nuclear which is a grave mistake.
And comparing to Norway is simply moronic
Norway is the cleanest country in the world. 97% of their electricity is clean. See the chart half way down You will see Norway is 1st, Sweden(91%) is 2nd and France(89%) is 3rd. Not mentioned in the article is Iceland which is also very clean because they use geothermal. Not every country can build enough hydro or geothermal to power their society because of environmental concerns. Germany is really bad because they are only at 34%. That means energiewende has been a failure.
Comparing successful countries (Norway, and France) to unsuccessful countries (Germany and the United States) is basic analysis. It is not moronic. It is basic logic.
Comparing Germany's failures decarbonizing their grid with countries that have successfully reduced carbon emissions(France and Norway) is not a strawman. It is actually a sound scientific comparison because it uses accurate statistics.
Yeah, that's what you did. You tried to imply the resources of the nuclear industry exceeded the suns energy
No I did not. I made a rhetorical point against a strawman argument(Nuclear is finite). I never said resources from nuclear exceed those of the sun. In fact by continue this line of argument you are making a strawman argument.
Go to wikipedia for friends of the earth
Not without a massive re-engineering of the entire Nuclear Industry, this comment is essentially a strawman and I doubt you have considered it deeply.
Luckily we have companies developing 4th generation reactors. The integral fast reactor is one type of reactor. Terrapower has a traveling wave reactor. We are re engineering the entire nuclear industry. I understand what it would take to decarbonize our planet better then you do. A strawman is a logical fallacy of "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." We have had the technology to build 4th generation rectors (See experimental breeder reactor 2) for decades. These new reactors can power our civilization for millenniums. It is not a strawman.
It's a lot easier to blame greenies and NIMBYS than Oil and Coal interests that control energy production in the world, so it is unlikely we will see any advancement in nuclear power, battery technology or anything else to produce the outcome you describe that threatens their dominance of those industries.
I do blame the greenies, yet I blame the fossil fuel industry more. The entire anti-nuclear movement was founded and funded by the fossil fuel industry. See Friends of the Earth.
The previous post said "France's emission of uranium is infinitely larger than Germany's" which is factually not true. The burning of coal does emit uranium and Germany burns a lot more coal then France. 75% of France is nuclear which releases 0 emissions, and 89% of the power is carbon free. So how does that make my words weasel-esque?
So he's counting the phrase "France's emissions" to mean emissions that leave the country France, rather than emissions that leave power plants operated in France to become waste.
No I am not. I am talking about emissions that leave the plant and are dumped into the atmosphere. Nuclear does not release uranium into the atmosphere while coal does.
he counts the radioactive elements emitted by burning coal in Germany as some unstated positive value,
No. Burning coal is a negative while use of nuclear is a positive.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading your posts I am even more convinced you are cognitive dissonance. Stop being a lunatic. Be brave enough to admit you are wrong,
And fuck you for making me see dead babies. And what type of asshole uses duckduckgo anyways. And for the record Iraq did not have wmds so your birthdefects were not caused from nuclear energy or weapons.
It is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
You are a liar. Tell us more about the 1000's of dead people you personally witnessed.
No it is not.
That does not follow.
It does follow. You are just so cognitive dissonance on this issue that you are incapable of thinking about nuclear power rationally.
The only moral solution is to reduce humanity's energy consumption.
Well maybe you should start by giving up your internet, electricity, transportation, sewage, hospitals, etc before you ask poor 3rd world people to not use it. I hate hypocrisy. This anti-nuclear argument goes back to the 1960's. It turns out to be false. When people have more electricity societies problems decrease. Population growth slows. Education increases. Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Nice post. You taught me a couple of new facts which I appreciate.
What are you talking about? Only 34% of German electricity is clean. Only 32% of US electricity is clean. Germany is still a major polluter.
Not according to the new york times. Scroll to the chart halfway down the page You will see that that Germany is only 2% cleaner then the United States (34% vs 32%). You should remove the adjective "much" from your statement. Germany is slightly cleaner than America.
You mentioned wifi routers hurting dna. I was not attacking a strawman argument because I was attacking the exact argument you made. And of course if we do nothing about climate change millions will die. I want to stop that from happening. According to the world's leading scientists. nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change. So yes it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Aren't you the guy that wants to ban wifi routers because they damage dna? I do not have to take your crazy nonsense seriously. Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
These issues are regularly dismissed by nuclear advocates.
They are dismissed because they are bullshit. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Not only does Germany pay more, they pollute more. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and they are still **10x dirtier** then France. Any way you put it Germanys energiewende is a failure . Here is a second source And here is a previous slashdot story about it.
As for your claim that one needs to differentiate the reasons for the reactors - why exactly? A reactor that produces electricity and a reactor that enriches plutonium are both reactors, with a risk of radioactive contamination. There have been accidents and releases of radioactive material in both. Quite often the same radioactive materials. And the claim was that reactors was safe, not that electricity producing commercial ones were. Moving the goal posts doesn't help..
They are different. They do not use the same radioactive materials. Uranium for nuclear energy is only enriched to approximately ~1%-4%. Weapon materials needs to be enriched to ~80%+. So they are different. They also function differently. The mechanics and physics are different. Nuclear energy is also the safest form of power including solar and wind. That is a statistical fact that the IAEA acknowledges. 4th generation reactors are even better. We are not moving the goal posts. You anti-nuclear people are moving the goal posts. 5 of those example occurred before I was even born and the last two occurred with technology older then I am.
It's just as disingenuous, and is easily refuted by statistics showing that cancer death rates have indeed gone up both in the aftermath of Fukushima and Three Mile Island.
I am going to need a credible source for that and not any of that ecowatch bs.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Kyshtim was a weapons production facility in the USSR.
Sellafield was a weapons production facility located in Great Britain.
Idaho Falls was a military experiment that killed 3 people from a steam explosion not radiation.
Jaslovske Bohunice was due to a leak of carbon dioxide not radiation
Three Mile Island resulted in 0 dead.
Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture was the result of an explosion from bad procedures at reprocessing plant. It was not at a nuclear power plant.
Fukushima resulted in 0 dead from radiation.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
Yeah I am strong supporter of thorium reactors along with other 4th generation reactors such as Terrapower. I have even lectured a congressman about the benefits of Thorium.
Nuclear power is finite. You are again implying it is infinite.
I never did that. Not once did I say nuclear was infinite. I just said solar was finite(which it is), and nuclear is sustainable(which it is). I was countering the argument that because nuclear is finite we should not build them.
Who's We?
The human race stupid. The adoption of nuclear energy benefits the entire human race and every other species on this planet.
Do you work in the nuclear industry designing nuclear reactors?
No. My background is in math, comp sci and computational neuroscience.
Well out with it then - let's see what your plan is.
I can not speak for the rest of the world, but for the United States we need to triple our nuclear capacity. There are a lot of ways of doing that, but I would focus on development of 4th generation nuclear. The United States built the first 4th generation reactor called the Experimental Breeder Reactor II. GE has developed plans for 10x version of the reactor called the Prism. Bill Gates' Terrapower is building their first reactor in China. NuScale has filed paper work with the NRC for a factory built small modular reactor. Terrestrial energyis developing a thorium reactor based on a successful experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960's. And of course Russia has a working 4th generation reactor which they are already exporting to the rest of the world. There are 50 other companies doing related work. We need to make the NRC accept and support 4th generation nuclear plants. We need to provide loan guarantees, and we need to restart nuclear R&D. I could list more but it is getting late.
What, specifically, do you blame the fossil fuel industry for?
Other then greenhouse gasses? You do know climate change is real right?
What is it that is so bad that they are doing to the nuclear industry?
Their constant lawsuits artificially increase the price of nuclear. Having a judge stop construction for years is expensive. Even right now the Koch brothers are backing lawsuits against the nuclear industry all over the United States. The fossil fuel industry spends billions of dollars convincing people such as yourself that nuclear is bad when in fact it is the safest and cleanest energy source.
I was being polite so I didn't embarrass you by calling it complete and utter bullshit.
You were being stupid. It is not a strawman argument. My arguments are also based on facts(which I cite)
and you continue to make unsupported accusations.
The second sentence from the wiki page said "Friends of the Earth was founded in 1969 as an anti-nuclear group by Robert O Anderson." Anderson was an oil tychoon. There are more examples then just Friends of the Earth, but you can use google those yourself.
You're a shill.
No I do not get paid. I just have a moral obligation to leave a better planet for the next generation.
Without saying what you what question you want to answer
What is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Scaling up nuclear power is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was not a mistake for France to use nuclear. It was a mistake for Germany to stop using it. I do not know why you do not understand that. Germany picked coal over nuclear which is a grave mistake.
And comparing to Norway is simply moronic
Norway is the cleanest country in the world. 97% of their electricity is clean. See the chart half way down You will see Norway is 1st, Sweden(91%) is 2nd and France(89%) is 3rd. Not mentioned in the article is Iceland which is also very clean because they use geothermal. Not every country can build enough hydro or geothermal to power their society because of environmental concerns. Germany is really bad because they are only at 34%. That means energiewende has been a failure.
Comparing successful countries (Norway, and France) to unsuccessful countries (Germany and the United States) is basic analysis. It is not moronic. It is basic logic.
Why is France cleaner then Germany?
The answer is of course nuclear power.
Comparing Germany's failures decarbonizing their grid with countries that have successfully reduced carbon emissions(France and Norway) is not a strawman. It is actually a sound scientific comparison because it uses accurate statistics.
If Germany is so great why is their electricity so much dirtier then France?
Yeah, that's what you did. You tried to imply the resources of the nuclear industry exceeded the suns energy
No I did not. I made a rhetorical point against a strawman argument(Nuclear is finite). I never said resources from nuclear exceed those of the sun. In fact by continue this line of argument you are making a strawman argument. Go to wikipedia for friends of the earth
If Germany is so great why do they pollute 10x as much as France from electricity production?
More lies from the lying fucktard
I already showed you the WHO analysis. That makes you a liar.
Not without a massive re-engineering of the entire Nuclear Industry, this comment is essentially a strawman and I doubt you have considered it deeply.
Luckily we have companies developing 4th generation reactors. The integral fast reactor is one type of reactor. Terrapower has a traveling wave reactor. We are re engineering the entire nuclear industry. I understand what it would take to decarbonize our planet better then you do. A strawman is a logical fallacy of "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." We have had the technology to build 4th generation rectors (See experimental breeder reactor 2) for decades. These new reactors can power our civilization for millenniums. It is not a strawman.
It's a lot easier to blame greenies and NIMBYS than Oil and Coal interests that control energy production in the world, so it is unlikely we will see any advancement in nuclear power, battery technology or anything else to produce the outcome you describe that threatens their dominance of those industries.
I do blame the greenies, yet I blame the fossil fuel industry more. The entire anti-nuclear movement was founded and funded by the fossil fuel industry. See Friends of the Earth.
these weasel words
The previous post said "France's emission of uranium is infinitely larger than Germany's" which is factually not true. The burning of coal does emit uranium and Germany burns a lot more coal then France. 75% of France is nuclear which releases 0 emissions, and 89% of the power is carbon free. So how does that make my words weasel-esque?
So he's counting the phrase "France's emissions" to mean emissions that leave the country France, rather than emissions that leave power plants operated in France to become waste.
No I am not. I am talking about emissions that leave the plant and are dumped into the atmosphere. Nuclear does not release uranium into the atmosphere while coal does.
he counts the radioactive elements emitted by burning coal in Germany as some unstated positive value,
No. Burning coal is a negative while use of nuclear is a positive.
More lies from angle o sphere. France backpedals on pledge to cut reliance on nuclear power Thankfully scientists in France have more political pull.