Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Got a show idea? Post them here!

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Algr » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:20 pm

How many people could have died in three mile island if things had gone just a little differently?

If someone accidentally shoots at you and the bullet misses by 3 inches, is that "No big deal"?

And please loose the false dichotomy fallacy. I just showed that less nuclear does not have to mean more fossil fules.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:27 pm

Algr wrote:That's right, the green movement is entirely about fear of a word, and nuclear power makes you more manly! You'll just believe anything, won't you. Now tell us all how three mile island was no big deal.



Coal power kills far, far more people than nuclear power ever did. It's killed far more people than nuclear energy, including nuclear weapons and radiological devices, has ever claimed. For nuclear power to match the pure carnage of pollution-related deaths alone from coal power, we would need an out and out nuclear war. We could have melt-downs all over the nation and not match the destructive power of coal.

Then take a drive to the Appalachians. Well, I mean what's left of them anyway. The drive to dig up more coal results in the removal of mountains, leaving toxic dump sites in their places. The effluents and waste products leach into the water table. It contaminates drinking water for entire communities. The effluents from coal fire plants results in pollution that kills tens of thousands each year from diseases like lung cancer. Unlike the people who are harmed by the extremely unlikely event of radiation poisoning, there exists no means for the victims of the coal industry to ever receive compensation for the damages inflicted by the negative externalities of that industry.

The Fukishima meltdown resulted in five -- yes FIVE -- fatalities. When a single coal mine collapses, we usually end up with at least five fatalities, and they happen at a much higher frequency than nuclear reactor meltdowns.

Fukishima was hit by one of the largest earthquakes even possible for a planet the size of Earth and then immediately thereafter pummeled by a giant tsunami before it blew. NOTHING can reasonably be engineered to withstand that. You are talking about destruction on par with a nuclear bomb, or an asteroid strike. A direct hit by both a 9.0 earthquake and by a giant tsunami is about as bad as it gets for Earth. I suppose you could have a composite volcano blow. Or maybe one of the super volcanoes. I don't know. But reasonably? That was pretty much the top of the line for natural disasters.

And yet you had five casualties. They were five atomjacks fighting to avert the meltdown. I greatly respect guys like that. I would rather honor their legacy. Buying into the coal industry's propaganda hook, line, and sinker does nothing of the sort. Don't kid yourself either.. a huge amount of the anti-nuke "community" is about as genuine as the global warming skeptic "community".
Last edited by Dr. Strangelove on Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36505
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby DrYouth » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:30 pm

It's worth thinking on a different scale - in that independent players with solar, geothermal and wind generating units can now be coordinated using the internet. Rather than having massive energy plants that radiate out onto the grid we can now think about thousands or millions of smaller energy inputs that are coordinated through the internet. In this way every home could be a small energy producer that uses its own energy or sells it onto the grid for another home that needs it. The digital revolution is at a stage that it could coordinate all of these small energy hubs in a way that we never previously could. In this way we get away from giant fields of windmills or solar panels and integrate power generation into the very fabric of society.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby The Mad Zeppelineer » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:34 pm

Algr wrote:How many people could have died in three mile island if things had gone just a little differently?

If someone accidentally shoots at you and the bullet misses by 3 inches, is that "No big deal"?

And please loose the false dichotomy fallacy. I just showed that less nuclear does not have to mean more fossil fules.



Fossil fuels are what you have brother. Barring a massive 100 square mile super project that would cost a couple trillion. (and you do know that there would not be a way to transport that electricity all over the country right? It degrades.)

You are advocating a "wait and see" approach to energy. A "lets see if battery tech gets good enough to make solar viable".

Meanwhile MILLIONS die every year because of it.

Yet for some reason those millions are less important than grandstanding about 3 mile island. Which killed no-one. Was a safety success.


Something goes wrong with a ship. Crew saves the ship. Docks it safely. No-one drowns.

Green response: Ships are unsafe. We must never build or use ships. Not make them safer. Just flat-out quit trying.


Again I ask. Can you show how in any universe nuclear power is deadlier than coal-fired pollution factories? Give me some real data. Numbers. I will give it up. I will eat my fucking hat if you can show that nuclear kills more than the status quo.
Oh, the humanity...
User avatar
The Mad Zeppelineer
Satrap
 
Posts: 4943
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:55 pm

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby DrYouth » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:05 pm

I'm fine with nuclear - but it still uses the old "industrial age" paradigm of massive central investment rather than "digital age" distributed collaborative investments.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:21 pm

One of the root problems of the green movement, like many other movements, is that it places some ideal before humanity and human life in general. To explain this to a radical environmentalist, I point out how radical capitalists place the pursuit of profit and economic growth before human lives. Or perhaps how a fascist places the state before the lives of the citizens. Greens often seem quite willing to sacrifice many human lives for "the planet". That mode of thinking is not really all that different from every other form of tyranny and destructive zealotry that ever plagued humanity.

If you find yourself tacitly accepting the misery and death of so many people for something you consider a greater good than humanity, then something went wrong in your head somewhere along the way. You are dangerous whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not. If more people like you reach a critical mass, then it might become possible for you all to implement those same political, social, and economic programs you know will result in great harm to other people, all because you place some ideal above the value of human lives.

Watch one of my favorite films, Dr. Strangelove, and you will see an exaggerated satire of such characters as well. Men who would destroy half of the United States simply because the goal of defeating communism they considered more important than all the human lives that would be lost.

Radical environmentalists are no so very different. It doesn't take much querying to elicit a response along the lines of human population needing to be culled, or that same result with more pleasant sounding euphemisms.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36505
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby DrYouth » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:13 pm

It doesn't seem to me that radical environmentalism along the lines DSL is thinking of is very common... I mean sure, there are going to be zealots in any movement... But some folks consider anyone who is pro-clean energy to be a radical environmentalist.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:27 pm

DrYouth wrote:It doesn't seem to me that radical environmentalism along the lines DSL is thinking of is very common... I mean sure, there are going to be zealots in any movement... But some folks consider anyone who is pro-clean energy to be a radical environmentalist.



I actually have heard and read plenty of that from their type. Sooner or later, many of them tend to drop comments about humanity being a pestilence to the Earth, or some other such notion.

When people put some ideology before human beings, a lot of misery can result. The only thing holding them back in the end is the rest of us keeping them from convincing other people to join the cause. But in so doing, what portion of their platform might have been valid and imperative ends up diminished.

Another example is third wave feminism. Completely obsessed with death and destruction. Certainly suffrage, equal rights, equal pay, and so forth are very important causes. But now they pursue those causes to the detriment of an entire gender. They are not very different from the misogynists that once oppressed women. They put children and fathers behind the whims of some fanatical mother who thinks she deserves the world, and is willing to indenture a father, strip him of his children, and condemn her children to a broken home all because of what she sees as more important than other people.

A communist will place communism and the communist state before anything else. For them, the end justifies the means, and their ends are not synonymous with human life.

A radical capitalist puts profit and capitalism before everything else. Even when capitalism clearly fails and creates widespread misery and death, they will refuse to acknowledge it because they honestly believe "free markets" (as if that meaningless word had any pragmatic value) can solve every problem better than any other approach, every time. For them, even when you have what passes for a health care system forcing millions to die for profit, it becomes impossible to admit the errancy of the application of capitalism to health care funding.

All of these people have different ideologies, but none of those ideologies are based upon human dignity and human life itself, and they all place those ideologies first in their priorities. That's a dangerous situation. There exist far too many people caught up in that kind of cognitive dissonance which places all of us at increased risks.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36505
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby hondo69 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:28 am

Dr. Strangelove wrote:All of these people have different ideologies, but none of those ideologies are based upon human dignity and human life itself, and they all place those ideologies first in their priorities. That's a dangerous situation. There exist far too many people caught up in that kind of cognitive dissonance which places all of us at increased risks.
Well said.

Extremists have always been around, but only when they gain political power (money) do they become truly dangerous.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby hondo69 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:30 am

A semi energy-related post is my favorite article of the week.

The Boy Who Played With Fusion

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/boy-who-played-fusion?page=all
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby freewomban420 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:01 pm

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Another example is third wave feminism. Completely obsessed with death and destruction.
:lol: Could you give an example of how third wave feminists are ''Completely obsessed with death and destruction.''? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Certainly suffrage, equal rights, equal pay, and so forth are very important causes.
Correct

But now they pursue those causes to the detriment of an entire gender.
So...who exactly are equal rights bad for?

They are not very different from the misogynists that once oppressed women.
:lol:

They put children and fathers behind the whims of some fanatical mother who thinks she deserves the world, and is willing to indenture a father, strip him of his children, and condemn her children to a broken home all because of what she sees as more important than other people.
I'm having a hard time deciphering your anti-feminist rant. Care to explain exactly what your talking about and how it relates to feminists being ''Completely obsessed with death and destruction"?
.
Imagine if we bred with tubes and such and all the effort we currently put into having sex was instead invested in building socialism.-Skengman
User avatar
freewomban420
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:41 pm

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby hondo69 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:21 am

I'm confused with the term "third wave feminism" too. I've read some articles but still can't make heads or tails of it all. The best I can tell it has something to do with bringing Western values to non-industrialized nations around the world. They do seem, however, to be awfully quiet on issues like the global sex slave trade.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Back To Energy

Seems this administration is up to it's old tricks of blaming everyone else for it's own problems. Can't blame Bush this time around since the increase in oil production we've seen nationally is the result of his actions, not Obama's. Of course, that didn't stop the President from recently stealing credit for the increase in production, but hey, don't worry. The media elites will conveniently leave out those messy little facts.

But there is someone to blame. Just this week partisan hacks were ginning up a new foil to shift the blame. Saudia Arabia, those bastards.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/Schumer-Calls-For-Saudis-To-Increase-Oil-Production-140491663.html


The last thing we want to do is to create a national, common sense, simple approach to energy consumption. That would take all the fun out of it. And besides, how am I going to receive my $500 million federal grant for my new invention if we use a common sense approach? I need that money now!

Image


My biggest worry is that this energy crisis will force a few powerful people in Washington to start listening to the real experts. To look at the big picture from a realistic, pragmatic point of view. Time is running out, my federal grant is in jeopardy because these realists are gaining momentum.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Kolokol888 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:36 am

I'm with MadZeppeliner on this. Algr you need to do some serious reseach into the effects of radiation. It's far less damaging than was thought previously. The wildlife in Chernobyl has adapted to the increased radiation levels. There's only a few pockets of high radiation left. Most of the land could be safe for farming already (though they won't, err on the side of caution). They are gonna turn the area into a national park for pete's sake because it now has some of the most abundant and diverse wildlife anywhere in Europe.

Many of horror stories about animals dying in Norway and such may or may not be attributed to Chernoby. Two headed cows are born all the time, but all that was born at the time of Chernobyl everyone said was caused by Chernobyl - not neccesarily true.

How many people will die as a result of Fukushima. My guess is a lot less than 5000

France is an excelent example of how good nuclear is. Cleanest air in Europe, lowest energi cost in Europe, safe storage that hasn't caused any harm and not one accident to show for it.

PS. I would personally not have a problem if they wanted to put a nuclear powerplant in my backyard. Hell I'd much prefer that to a coal plant.
Correct morality can only be derived from what man is — not from what do-gooders and well-meaning aunt Nellies would like him to be

You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
User avatar
Kolokol888
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:44 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Trotsky » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:10 am

Assuming cold fusion is snake oil, long long term all energy we can count on comes from the sun and its direct effects (different water levels, air currents, etcetera). We have to become used to the idea of having less energy to come by. Or at least our grandchildren will.

P.S: Forgot about earth's core. Add geothermal up there.
Trotsky
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:14 am

Re: Energy and stuff; where do we go?

Postby Vox Contra » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:07 am

Trotsky wrote:Assuming cold fusion is snake oil, long long term all energy we can count on comes from the sun and its direct effects (different water levels, air currents, etcetera). We have to become used to the idea of having less energy to come by. Or at least our grandchildren will.

P.S: Forgot about earth's core. Add geothermal up there.

Why would we have to get used to having less power?
The sun kicks out all kinds of energy (3.8 x 10^26 Watts – with at least 1.8 x 10^17 actually getting here)
That’s way more energy then we’d need for a long time.
We’re just using really shitty methods of capturing it.
But if we’re talking long long term I don’t see why that would remain to be true

PS: Most of the heat from the earth’s core comes from the decay of radioactive material, just like a fission plant.
“The truth springs from arguments amongst friends.”
― David Hume
User avatar
Vox Contra
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:22 pm
Location: Portland, OR

PreviousNext

Return to New Common Sense Show Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests