|
Ardennes posted:Fishmech ... reductio ab absurdum. Truly shocking.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:I am going from page 6 to 10 and I have already seen some examples. If someone refers to "rabid greenies" then they probably don't have a high regard for an alternative solution. It has always been a echo chamber in here, scroll through the thread from the beginning. This strikes me way more as you projecting your own biases than people really fitting into the category you claim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:This strikes me way more as you projecting your own biases than people really fitting into the category you claim. The thing is I don't even have a problem with nuclear power (if that is your strategy) but I have a problem with ONLY nuclear power, and thats why I have always disliked this thread. If you don't call out the Fishmech, you claim his stink.... just don't directly engage it. Another thing I have noticed is the technocratic/anti-democratic nature of the discussion (just has sort of come up in the example of France). If public opinion has shifted dramatically against nuclear power, you might have to respect their will even if there is an loss of efficiency. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
I have no strategy. And since when did public opinion dictate what we discussed on a private internet forum. So people have opinions that are different from yours and express them. That is anti-democratic? I'm still trying to figure out how not believing renewables are ready to take over baseload generation is equivalent to being an anti-green earth rapist. Your posts are really  Acting like you are persecuted minority and not just someone who is incapable of articulating your position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Another thing I have noticed is the technocratic/anti-democratic nature of the discussion (just has sort of come up in the example of France). If public opinion has shifted dramatically against nuclear power, you might have to respect their will even if there is an loss of efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I have no strategy. And since when did public opinion dictate what we discussed on a private internet forum. So people have opinions that are different from yours and express them. That is anti-democratic? A government ignoring clear public opinion (if not voting) on an issue is anti-democratic. The French public (unfortunately) may I add, doesn't seem to be interested in nuclear power. How is baseload an argument against a mixed portfolio? quote:Your posts are really The lowest move is to pretend those who disagree with you are just insane. quote:Acting like you are persecuted minority and not just someone who is incapable of articulating your position. I like how some of that jargon like "persecuted minority" leaks out a bit. I am pretty clear in my position, there has been a pro-nuclear/anti-green group of posters in this thread that probably should be acknowledged as actually existing. quote:Well, that depends on what your definition of "respect" is. If you mean not literally revolt against the government of France IRL, then sure. If you mean not call them a bunch of hidebound shitheads in a thread on the Internet, I think you're asking a bit much. Our D&D megathreads for democratic countries aren't 100 pages of "welp, gotta respect democracy." So explain to me why they are a bunch of "hidebound shitheads"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I like how some of that jargon like "persecuted minority" leaks out a bit. I am pretty clear in my position, there has been a pro-nuclear/anti-green group of posters in this thread that probably should be acknowledged as actually existing. Why does this even matter? It's an internet discussion thread that's had lots of contributors. "Acknowledged as actually existing" doesn't make any difference as to whether their arguments are salient or stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The lowest move is to pretend those who disagree with you are just insane. I'm not even sure what we disagree about. quote:How is baseload an argument against a mixed portfolio? I don't think I ever said it was. Mixed generation is the best way to go in my opinion. The real goal of any system should be to stop burning coal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I'm not even sure what we disagree about. Then I don't know why tinfoil needs to be brought up. quote:I don't think I ever said it was. Mixed generation is the best way to go in my opinion. The real goal of any system should be to stop burning coal. You may have not have, but the discussion is over if it is a discussion between "reasonable" folks for mixed generation and yes insane environmentalists. At what point does it take to get you labelled as a "insane" environmentalist? Can you be "pro-nuclear" but think there should be strict regulation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
Yeah. I'm just going to stop posting because I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Then I don't know why tinfoil needs to be brought up. Because you are acting really nutty dude! Like these
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You may have not have, but the discussion is over if it is a discussion between "reasonable" folks for mixed generation and yes insane environmentalists. At what point does it take to get you labelled as a "insane" environmentalist? Pretty much every pro-nuclear poster in this thread is in favor of mixed generation, and as far as I know they're all in favor of strict regulation, but that doesn't really get talked about that much since nuclear is already incredibly regulated, especially when it comes to the basic plant design. The insane environmentalists are the ones who hate nuclear so much that they've managed to increase the amount of coal being burned in Germany, or the people who seem to think that we can switch to 100% renewables right now. Please stop making GBS threads up this thread with your persecution complex. All of your posts have been vague rants against unspecified people in this thread who hold opinions you find wrong in ways you have failed to elucidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Then I don't know why tinfoil needs to be brought up. Stop making vague hypothetical accusations and make a point anyone can actually respond to. Any point. Please convey some sort of specific idea, or respond to some specific piece of science or policy put forward in the thread. Please reply to an actual post and not a nebulous straw man "people in the thread" or "reasonable people" or "insane environmentalists".
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:The real goal of any system should be to stop burning coal. Good news then, we're already switching from coal to natural gas!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Good news then, we're already switching from coal to natural gas! Natgas is better than coal in a lot of ways. So I'm okay with that in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Then I don't know why tinfoil needs to be brought up. I deal with the regulatory side of nuclear power on a daily basis. I think some regulations are very good and necessary. I think government should be very active in policing private industry because without such regulation holy poo poo the world would be an awful loving place because profits > all to corporations. I think the process for going from 'idea for new nuclear plant' to 'digging earth on a new nuclear plant' is too convoluted and filled with potential landmines that pro-fossil and anti-nuclear factions can abuse. There are no laws against lying about nuclear power risks or spreading misinformation about radiation. Every major famous nuclear accident is a result of very old (TMI/Fukushima) or very bad (Chernobyl) technology. Those aren't solved by regulation so much as they are by increasing sophistication of modern designs, which should be welcomed and made EASIER to produce, not harder. What is more frightening are the examples of willful neglect, such as David-Besse, where plant managers wanted to save money and so ignored a potentially disastrous situation regarding boric acid eating away at the pressure vessel head of a reactor, leaving only a quarter inch of stainless steel preventing a rupture. THAT is where an active, strict regulatory presence is a necessary good. Making sure that if a corporation wants to value profit over public safety, they are not allowed to have the keys of a nuclear plant. Ardennes posted:I would say they are far from it, I remember quite a few discussions that wind investment should be "minimal" because of peak load, and solar technology being useless. Even if you suggested a mixed portfolio you experience "group criticism."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Pretty much every pro-nuclear poster in this thread is in favor of mixed generation, and as far as I know they're all in favor of strict regulation, but that doesn't really get talked about that much since nuclear is already incredibly regulated, especially when it comes to the basic plant design. To be honest, I don't think they are looking at the history of this thread. As for unspecified people, Fishmech is already a pretty good example, Kathun hasn't been great either. It is a 48 page thread filled with arguing. If anything, who are the "crazed enviromentalists" in this thread who want to switch to 100% renewable right now? If anything the framing of "crazed enviromentalists" shows itself a complete bias, especially when talking about this thread. The issue is that there has been very clearly two sides going back and forth (and I don't think either one is insane) rathier than "reasonable people" trying to talk down insane environments who want to destroy the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Natgas is better than coal in a lot of ways. So I'm okay with that in the short term. I'm not okay with either on any level. I do not agree with the assessment that drinking water won't be harmed by fracking, and fracking is really the only influence stabilizing natural gas prices enough to make natural gas so profitable at the moment. Historically, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly, and it's best use has been for heating applications. Collecting the natural gas expends a lot of freshwater and puts reservoirs at risk. Burning it to generate electricity still contributes a vast amount of carbon dioxide (if not the really nasty poo poo found in coal), which people tend to downplay far too much. I think calling it better is like saying a gunshot wound to the abdomen is better than one to the head. Best to just put the gun away in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:To be honest, I don't think they are looking at the history of this thread. As for unspecified people, Fishmech is already a pretty good example, Kathun hasn't been great either. It is a 48 page thread filled with arguing. I don't know why you're looking for conflict when, even if there have been some unreasonable jackasses in the thread's past, we've kinda hit upon a pretty reasonable balance of opinion now. If you're getting real butt-hurt that people on the internet have been calling other people names based on differing ideologies, then you should probably avoid the internet entirely at this point to save yourself from some pearl-clutching fainting spells. Cause for the internet, this thread has been a pretty drat good example of argument/counter-arugment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm not okay with either on any level. I do not agree with the assessment that drinking water won't be harmed by fracking, and fracking is really the only influence stabilizing natural gas prices enough to make natural gas so profitable at the moment. Historically, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly, and it's best use has been for heating applications. Collecting the natural gas expends a lot of freshwater and puts reservoirs at risk. Burning it to generate electricity still contributes a vast amount of carbon dioxide (if not the really nasty poo poo found in coal), which people tend to downplay far too much. Right. But fossil fuels and fracking are here to stay in the short term whether you like it or not. In fact the use of fracking is increasing exponentially all around the world. So if you have to take the bullet(which we do). Your chances of surviving a gunshot wound to the abdomen are better than surviving one to the head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
quote:Stop making vague hypothetical accusations and make a point anyone can actually respond to. Any point. Please convey some sort of specific idea, or respond to some specific piece of science or policy put forward in the thread. Please reply to an actual post and not a nebulous straw man "people in the thread" or "reasonable people" or "insane environmentalists". I was directly responding to Quarkjets' post about "groups" within the thread. Do you agree with his assessment or not? I don't. quote:I think you're wrong here, to the point that I'm very confused by your assessment. I think SA is pretty left-wing on the whole. As in, being loudly pro-Zionist will probably get you poo poo upon, frequently. Being pro-coal and natural gas in this thread has led to negative reactions ranging from disapproval to mocking. I think some pro-nuclear people have gone a bit out of their way to belittle solar/wind, but part of that has been in response to the theory of 100% solar/wind/geothermal/hydro and 0% nuclear. That last strategy may work in very certain situations (Iceland, maybe Australia in 30 years), but it lacks rigorous critical examination with regard to not-so-prime territory like the US, Europe, and Asia. SA is really not left wing man, check out GBS some time. Seriously the anti-transsexual threads, barely concealed racism against people from South East Asia (especially India), and random call out threads against minorities and leftists. That isn't even talking about FYAD, or TFR so on. There really isn't much of a leftist presence on the forums anymore, they pretty much left. Then you got this forum which has turned way right, seriously the environmentalist/hippy bashing around here is pretty spectacular. Hell even opinions about Israel may be changing. It isn't like the Middle East thread is leftist or anything either. I won't go into the weird Eastern Europe thread. As best you have a thread defending Obama's legacy...Obama isn't a leftist. I guess the Canadian/UK/Aus thread are relatively untouched for now. Who is giving this 100% "renewable" theory in this thread? If I have to give examples then you should as well, and don't say "you."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Right. But fossil fuels and fracking are here to stay in the short term whether you like it or not. In fact the use of fracking is increasing exponentially all around the world. Yeah. But I don't want to stop yelling or showing scenes of water catching on fire to people, because public sentiment needs to be acutely aware of the fact that freshwater reserves are a finite resource, the aquifers are getting low, the Colorado is a fraction of what it used to be, and fracking is a huge, unnecessary risk to add on top of that. Maybe it's my own personal crazy point, but I think water resources are within the next 50 years will be more valuable than oil is presently, and the incredibly water-expensive steps to frack coupled with the risk of contamination pose risks that far outweigh the benefits. It's not going away in the short term, but I'd be a lot happier if people were working to make it go away. It's kinda hypocritical that I fully support fracking NIMBYism even as I oppose nuclear NIMBYism, but I feel both of those stances are built around the best education available and the best health for the environment in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Another thing I have noticed is the technocratic/anti-democratic nature of the discussion (just has sort of come up in the example of France). If public opinion has shifted dramatically against nuclear power, you might have to respect their will even if there is an loss of efficiency. Respecting democratic opinion isn't something I value inherently, no. I want the best outcome for the people, not what the people think will give them the best outcome. I recognize that going against public opinion has costs in terms of faith in government/likelihood for an outcome to succeed, but that's just another line in a cost-benefit analysis when considering options. Plenty of things are not left up to democratic opinion for good reason. The public would have had no place voting in brown vs the board of education or japanese internment during ww2, and I also believe this to be true for a nationwide energy policy. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Who is giving this 100% "renewable" theory in this thread? If I have to give examples then you should as well, and don't say "you." I'm too lazy to look up his name but some lovely troll who thinks that solar is god but we're all too blinded by atoms to realize it. There's a lot of people who come in the thread to randomly poo poo on nuclear with no real sources but are "totally against fossil fuels".
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I was directly responding to Quarkjets' post about "groups" within the thread. Do you agree with his assessment or not? I don't. Hobo Erotica was, but I think he's kinda accepted nuclear more as the thread's gone on (I think it was more looking from Australia alone to a more global view). There are several concern trolls who are anti-nuclear as gently caress, like Silence Kit and Insect Court in recent pages (not just from months or years ago), where no argument will ever sway them or get them to admit it's not a black and white issue where SOLAR GOOD and NUCLEAR BAD. Basically if you can admit you see the strengths and weaknesses of both solar and nuclear, you can argue here pretty well and anyone who goes out of their way to insult or harangue you should be mocked. If you maintain only one has strengths and only one has weaknesses you're either a troll or ignorant as poo poo, and probably should either lurk more, ask questions instead of posting opinions, or leave. And I still argue against your opinions, but most of my D&D visiting is limited to the Political Cartoon thread which is pretty solidly left in most opinions. I stay the gently caress out of GBS nowadays, and I don't have the time to dive through a whole lot of other D&D threads, so maybe they're turning a bit rightward. It'd surprise me a bit, cause a lot of my D&D politcal exposure is the 2008/2012 election threads which seemed a LOT more left than right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Respecting democratic opinion isn't something I value inherently, no. I want the best outcome for the people, not what the people think will give them the best outcome. I recognize that going against public opinion has costs in terms of faith in government/likelihood for an outcome to succeed, but that's just another line in a cost-benefit analysis when considering options. Plenty of things are not left up to democratic opinion for good reason. The public had no place voting in brown vs the board of education or japanese internment during ww2, and I also believe this to be true for a nationwide energy policy. Yeah, I find that creepy and to be honest, I wouldn't like you or this thread making decisions for the public. I understand the scientific argument for nuclear power but that (what you said) is what I have a problem with and to be honest why I think this thread has become a echo chamber to its detriment. quote:I'm too lazy to look up his name but some lovely troll who thinks that solar is god but we're all too blinded by atoms to realize it. There's a lot of people who come in the thread to randomly poo poo on nuclear with no real sources but are "totally against fossil fuels". Yeah that isn't very convincing especially considering the anger boiling in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I find that creepy and to be honest, I wouldn't like you or this thread making decisions for the public. I understand the scientific argument for nuclear power but that (what you said) is what I have a problem with and to be honest why I think this thread has become a echo chamber to its detriment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Respecting democratic opinion isn't something I value inherently, no. I want the best outcome for the people, not what the people think will give them the best outcome. I recognize that going against public opinion has costs in terms of faith in government/likelihood for an outcome to succeed, but that's just another line in a cost-benefit analysis when considering options. Plenty of things are not left up to democratic opinion for good reason. The public had no place voting in brown vs the board of education or japanese internment during ww2, and I also believe this to be true for a nationwide energy policy. Broad popular support sure as hell makes things easier. Maybe in the US with the relatively large amount of open space it has getting around local, i.e. up to state government, resistance is doable but Yukka Mountain suggests otherwise. Elsewhere locals and local government can put up a pretty spirited opposition to Nuclear plants that can delay things for years. Further if you take the public out of the planning process entirely you're going to get whoever pays the biggest bribe getting to build whatever they want wherever they want and the Nuclear lobby can't outspend the Fossil Fuels lobby. Even if one were to agree with your contention about national energy policy superceding the democratic will if the public don't support nuclear or are actively hostile other, usually less desirable forms of energy, are going to be the ones to benefit from an energy policy that ignores public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:Hobo Erotica was, but I think he's kinda accepted nuclear more as the thread's gone on (I think it was more looking from Australia alone to a more global view). There are several concern trolls who are anti-nuclear as gently caress, like Silence Kit and Insect Court in recent pages (not just from months or years ago), where no argument will ever sway them or get them to admit it's not a black and white issue where SOLAR GOOD and NUCLEAR BAD. Silence Kit posted:lol. The only posts about solar energy in this thread that I have made have been to correct misconceptions regarding solar cells. If you take a closer look at the posts that I have made in this thread, since you seem to be all about snooping through my post history, you'll find that nowhere have I claimed that solar cells are a perfect or miracle energy generation technology. This is to be contrasted to the posters in this thread who bend over backwards to apologize for and blame outside factors for every drawback to nuclear energy generation technology He doesn't sound that nuts to me...if anything I see a pattern here. quote:Basically if you can admit you see the strengths and weaknesses of both solar and nuclear, you can argue here pretty well and anyone who goes out of their way to insult or harangue you should be mocked. If you maintain only one has strengths and only one has weaknesses you're either a troll or ignorant as poo poo, and probably should either lurk more, ask questions instead of posting opinions, or leave. I don't think that is quite true though looking at some of the rather recent back and forth. quote:And I still argue against your opinions, but most of my D&D visiting is limited to the Political Cartoon thread which is pretty solidly left in most opinions. I stay the gently caress out of GBS nowadays, and I don't have the time to dive through a whole lot of other D&D threads, so maybe they're turning a bit rightward. It'd surprise me a bit, cause a lot of my D&D politcal exposure is the 2008/2012 election threads which seemed a LOT more left than right. Fair enough I don't blame anyone for staying away from D&D but to be honest, I think it comes down to the issue of what "leftist" means in America is pretty much different anywhere else. I think the change is mostly away from the "left" in SA being at least partially socialist or even Marxist to much more "Democrat" or " American liberal" and the forums really went far more in that direction since December. quote:So, you're in favor of public sentiment, regardless the intent? Do you realize that the most valuable function of the Constitution of the United States is generally built to protect society AGAINST public sentiment? Public sentiment can be good or evil, and often if left unchecked will result in a tragedy of the commons. In the case of energy policy, it'll result in unchecked CO2 pollution irrevocably changing the environment in potentially catastrophic ways. I don't think public sentiment should be ignored especially when it is very strong. To be honest, I have a very different explanation for the fear of Nuclear power (or even GMOs), a much greater loss of trust in government and the ability to trust not science so much but how science is publicly portrayed. That lack of trust is really what is holding back nuclear power. Also I don't think the US Constitution is that democratic in general and probably isn't that great of a constitution for the modern era. I think it was rather ahead of its time in the 18th century and much of the 19th (especially before and after the French revolution). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Fair point: I'm arguing from memory here. I really really don't feel like going back into the thread to find quotes. But in general, my issue with Silence Kit is that he seems to have an agenda around avoiding ever mentioning that nuclear power could be good or that solar power could have faults. He doesn't seem to be taking an honest tack toward the discussion. If someone brings up a new nuclear design that sounds promising, he'll poo poo on it as a fantasy. If someone argues that a new/theoretical solar design isn't practical, he'll call them out for being against solar. Again I may be mis-remembering, and it may have been someone else doing it, but he's been the most vocal and my gut is telling me he's done something like that. Insect Court ABSOLUTELY was trolling nuclear people, in a manner more inflammatory (but not too far) compared to the path you've taken now: "My point is good, and anyone arguing with me is a pro-nuclear anti-solar zealot". I think that banded pretty much everyone in the thread against him because it was so absurd. My question to you Ardennes: What do you think the proper mix of energy should be for, say, Australia? And/or the USA? Rather than decrying how the thread's been, why not contribute directly and see what the response is? What is your personal theory, and how do you see it best implemented?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Most people I know on the left like to "bash" hippies because honestly a lot of their views are incredibly conservative and reactionary. There's the sort of "environmentalist" who has absolutely no scientific understanding of any issue and is just lashing out, mostly emotionally, at things they're scared of like "chemicals" or "radiation". Increasingly those sorts of environmentalists are against actual measures that will objectively improve the environment because the solution hits one of their emotional buttons, and they lack the knowledge to fairly understand the issues they claim to be so passionate about. That's the sort of "hippie" a lot of people in the thread mock and it does nothing to show there's some right-wing shift within SA, just a low tolerance for unscientific reactionaries trying to hijack science and energy policy. What I'd like to see, policy wise, is far less red-tape needed for the construction of nuclear plants. Get rid of or correct the regulations that only exist due to greenpeace and political lobbying, basically get rid of the regulations that have no grounds in science and were added specifically to cripple nuclear or make it artificially expensive. I'd like to see the government far more involved, preferably entirely as I don't trust private business to do anything for the public good, and utilities are absolutely a public good. I'd like to see a few latest-gen designs standardized and mass-produced to once again save money and save on regulations/approval. I'd like to see far more science-based regulations for what is considered nuclear waste and how it needs to be stored, with an eye to future recycling. I'd also like to see all subsidies related to fossil fuels phased out. They can be quite sneaky, tax breaks for gas exploration here, subsidies for coal mining there. I want the government to so heavily invest and mass produce such cheap nuclear technology that "only the rich burn gas". At the same time I'd like to see north america catch up to europe in terms of energy efficiency. I'd like to see building codes improved to demand higher R ratings, and I'd like to see land-use addressed to curb sprawl and thus reduce the need for driving. I have a hard time really fitting "renewables" into any situation though. Your off grid cabin? Your desert town baking in the sun all year? I guess my question is: with the unreliability of solar and wind and the inability to store power, what good is any supply that isn't reliable? If any "renewables" need base-load backups, why not just build and run the backups instread? For instance in a situation where a city has a nuclear plant that has the capacity to power the city, plus a bunch of rooftop solar and some off-shore wind, is it actually justifiable cost savings to reduce the nuclear plant's output during a windy week, or to tweak its output daily based on the output of the solar? When you take into account how much it cost to build that wind and solar, and how much it costs to maintain them, is it actually worth it vs just building the nuclear capacity you need? I honestly don't know because it's so bloody hard to find any good numbers for anything. Pro-renewables sources will of course give you stats based on the most optimal wind/sun conditions and take into account current subsidies, and anti-nuclear sources will add in all sorts of crazy poo poo to massively inflate the costs of nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:He doesn't sound that nuts to me...if anything I see a pattern here. The US Constitution hit it out of the park with the Bill of Rights, but had significant flaws that weren't fixed until the 13th-15th amendments (basically ending slavery), and it's still not been all that great at preventing public will from exercising such odious factors as Jim Crow laws, segregation, and discrimination (which tends to morph to always frame an Other as meriting discrimination be it blacks, latinos, or LGBTs). Even now the religious side is trying to push "Freedom of religion" to mean "I can make others follow my religious beliefs", which is scary as gently caress to me. I just hope that people understand that even if a majority of people believe in some Thing (e.g. there is a god, nuclear power is bad for the environment), policy should still be made built around what's actually good for society, rather than merely serving beliefs. People are pointlessly burning coal just to spite the President here because he wants to curb coal burning. These people should not by virtue of numbers be able to dictate energy policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
At least for solar a key benefit is that the peak generation time coincides with the peak demand time (especially in the summer). Because of that, you can generate a fair amount of power without having to invest quite as much upfront in nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm not okay with either on any level. I do not agree with the assessment that drinking water won't be harmed by fracking, and fracking is really the only influence stabilizing natural gas prices enough to make natural gas so profitable at the moment. Historically, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly, and it's best use has been for heating applications. Collecting the natural gas expends a lot of freshwater and puts reservoirs at risk. Burning it to generate electricity still contributes a vast amount of carbon dioxide (if not the really nasty poo poo found in coal), which people tend to downplay far too much. Speaking of natural gas - I don't think I've seen this posted here yet: http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/27/Shale-Gas-Drilling-Treadmill/
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Phayray posted:Speaking of natural gas - I don't think I've seen this posted here yet: http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/27/Shale-Gas-Drilling-Treadmill/ Interesting read. I was a bit skeptical at first, trying to determine if anything mentioned had been peer reviewed, but some of the follow-on links appear legit and make for good reading (the Dutch analysis of the Fort Worth drill site is accessible and informative). It really doesn't make an environmental argument against natural gas, instead pointing out that the falling price of natural gas coincidental with the unexpected difficulty in mining have made natural gas drilling, at times, very unprofitable. That's an angle I hadn't expected. I figured it was boomtimes for drillers, not a diminishing returns no-win situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Pander posted:Interesting read. I was a bit skeptical at first, trying to determine if anything mentioned had been peer reviewed, but some of the follow-on links appear legit and make for good reading (the Dutch analysis of the Fort Worth drill site is accessible and informative). That's pretty much the way it is with all resource extraction, though. The easiest/cheapest to mine stuff comes out first, then the more expensive as the price of the material rises. I guess the question is about how steep the curve is - how much is available at various price points and whether the gas boom can sustain itself. If gas can wean us off coal, then that leads to even better technologies, it's a good thing. If the end of the gas boom means a return to coal, then it was pointless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say they are far from it, I remember quite a few discussions that wind investment should be "minimal" because of peak load, and solar technology being useless. Even if you suggested a mixed portfolio you experience "group criticism." Yeah, I think you're nuts with that last bit, but there's actually something good to talk about in the first bit here. Nuclear and wind/solar are actually extremely synergistic. Wind/solar have a variability problem, but nuclear also has a very slow reaction time problem as well. It turns out the solution to both problems is grid-scale batteries. Batteries can smooth out the variable generation of those types of renewables, and they can also respond instantly to demand changes, giving nuclear reactors time to adjust their output. This not only makes the grid more reliable, but more efficient as well, as excess capacity is put to use charging the batteries, instead of just wasted. On the battery front, I recently came across this ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy I forget where I saw it, I hope it wasn't this thread.  But that's two years ago, anyone have any good articles on progress in grid batteries?Baronjutter posted:Increasingly those sorts of environmentalists are against actual measures that will objectively improve the environment because the solution hits one of their emotional buttons, and they lack the knowledge to fairly understand the issues they claim to be so passionate about. I agree with this bit. It's frustrating. Baronjutter posted:I have a hard time really fitting "renewables" into any situation though. Your off grid cabin? Your desert town baking in the sun all year? I guess my question is: with the unreliability of solar and wind and the inability to store power, what good is any supply that isn't reliable? If any "renewables" need base-load backups, why not just build and run the backups instead? They really are cheaper. We do have to solve the grid batteries problem before that's actually provably true, as right now you can argue the other way because we haven't (as far as I know) got a good grid battery solution, but I think you might even have to solve this problem for a pure-nuclear approach. After all, building 10 nuclear plants to supply enough to meet peak demand is likely more expensive than 5 + a grid battery system that can meet the peaks. Demand varies too, something still has to account for that. So if grid batteries are the cost effective route anyway, and solar/etc is on pace to be cheaper than coal in 4 years (or so I've read), then they're an obvious part of the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
quote:The D&D energy thread has historically been very anti-green/pro-nuclear to an extreme. I am actually pro-nuclear expansion to an extent, but this thread has always creeped me the gently caress out. That said, since SA has gone pretty right-wing, a lot of threads have. Okay, you're going to have to produce some quotes to back this up. I don't even remember one poster that was anti-green/pro-nuclear, much less a trend of posters. I recall many pro-nuclear posters arguing against a 100% renewable strategy while promoting a portfolio strategy, which is not an anti-green position. I think that what's happening here is that you are reading someone listing off the downsides of a 100% renewable strategy and are then assuming that they are anti-green when in all likelihood they support an energy portfolio. A few people have made this accusation before but they never bothered to back it up when pressed. It's probably because the accusation is baseless, or due to a misunderstanding, or they may be remembering the opinion of one poster as the position held by many. Regardless, when people have made this argument it has never been substantiated. Can you substantiate it? Repeatedly posting "it's totally true!" is not enough. I'm talking quotes, here quote:For example Fishmech citing how many solar panels it would take to take care of the energy generation of the US, reductio ab absurdum. That's not an anti-green position, it's an anti-100% renewable position. That argument supports a portfolio strategy. quote:How is baseload an argument against a mixed portfolio? It's not, and no one has made a baseload argument against a mixed portfolio
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah that isn't very convincing especially considering the anger boiling in this thread. What anger?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah that isn't very convincing especially considering the anger boiling in this thread. Who's angry? I don't see any posts on this page that even imply that a poster is angry
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 19:37
|
|