|
Ganguro King posted:Number of officially recognized deaths from the stress of evacuation: 1,660 (as of Jan. 2014)* Yeah, those deaths were caused by hysteria, not nuclear. Sorry. Would you like to play again?
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:I know this. You're missing the point. There will always be people who learn something new when we reiterate these points, but most already know and get annoyed and lose interest, especially considering that our energy and climate change threads don't have much going on otherwise. Everything wrong with modern-day capitalism is coming together in climate change, an event of scale not before matched in human history, and all goons can talk about most of the time is one topic. Because all a lot of other goons talk about is "let's have a renewable plan that doesn't have nuclear because fukashima". ToxicSlurpee posted:Well, no. The major reason that big, mass production farms exist is because of corn subsidies. Like really, the government pays people to grow as much corn as they can, which leads to utterly massive corn farms, corn being in literally everything we eat, and corn being used to feed meat. Part of the reason we rely so heavily on artificial fertilizer is because growing gently caress tons of corn every year is guaranteed profit. Mass production farms exist for more than just corn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Struensee posted:Yeah, those deaths were caused by hysteria, not nuclear. Sorry. Would you like to play again? The hysteria is implicitly tied to nuclear at this point. It may not be physically connected to nuclear, but it's not like the cause is somehow completely independent of Fukushima. If Fukushima had not happened, those deaths would not have either. Now we can agree that we should work to reduce hysteria, but being forced from your home is inherently stressful, and the reality of nuclear power today is that people are irrationally scared of it, which encourages psychological stress and related harms. Until you can change society's opinions on nuclear power, you have to accept that psychological harms will be part of the human cost of a nuclear disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Honestly embrace that because the more tacked on bullshit deaths nuclear takes credit for the easier it is to show just how insanely disproportionately better it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
If we had a Fukushima every couple of years that would be like a percent of the fossil fuel death toll even if we count botched evacuations and the (linear no threshold model based) Jacobson paper cancer estimate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:29
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The hysteria is implicitly tied to nuclear at this point. It may not be physically connected to nuclear, but it's not like the cause is somehow completely independent of Fukushima. If Fukushima had not happened, those deaths would not have either. That really isn't a good argument against anything. Actual psychological harm isn't the same as fears caused by ill-informed opinions, or else we might as well renege on gay marriage and include room for creationists on science programmes because a large number of idiots feel actual distress that their lovely views aren't given due credence. It's also pretty bleak to suggest that the fear is implicit; anti-nuclear fears are grounded in perception and opinion, and that means they can be changed. To suggest otherwise is pretty loving defeatist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:That really isn't a good argument against anything. Actual psychological harm isn't the same as fears caused by ill-informed opinions, or else we might as well renege on gay marriage and include room for creationists on science programmes because a large number of idiots feel actual distress that their lovely views aren't given due credence. The fears and hysteria of the anti-nuke brigade I agree can probably be dismissed provided that we work to educate the populous. I am more saying that we cannot dismiss the very real health effects of stress that being permanently removed from one's home and being shunned by the hysterical (see the many reports of victims being shunned for having previously lived in the exclusion zones) results in. Now of course these health effects are not in isolation. You don't die solely from stress, an intelligent evacuation scheme would likely reduce the number of newly homeless, and the social shunning would not exist absent the underlying hysteria of the population, but you can't simply wave away the increase in mortality induced by these effects, since the increase would not have happened absent Fukushima. To wave away the increase and pretend it is completely unrelated is as intellectually dishonest as trying to wave away warming trends as "just a natural cycle" in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 15:55
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:To wave away the increase and pretend it is completely unrelated is as intellectually dishonest as trying to wave away warming trends as "just a natural cycle" in my opinion. Yes because the negligible deaths from fukushima should be recognized in the same way that global climate change is. Quit being a huge baby, nuclear is safe, get over it. "Hysteria-related deaths" hahaha you have to be kidding me it's a nuclear power plant not a crowded bridge
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Quit being a huge baby, nuclear is safe, get over it. "Hysteria-related deaths" hahaha you have to be kidding me it's a nuclear power plant not a crowded bridge I agree that nuclear is safe. Don't take my opposition to your willfully turning a blind eye to the health effects of stress caused by treating those removed from Fukushima like hibakusha as an evidence that I believe that fossil fuels are preferable to nuclear, because I agree that fears are overblown. What I am arguing is that, just because we agree that fears are overblown doesn't mean the fears (and the effects of those fears) don't exist. To do otherwise is to willfully blind yourself to what is really happening. Own up to it and argue that the socioeconomic impacts of nuclear are still outweighed by the health and economic impacts of coal. You can't win fights against an irrational opposition by refusing to accept their facts as facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Now of course these health effects are not in isolation. You don't die solely from stress, an intelligent evacuation scheme would likely reduce the number of newly homeless, and the social shunning would not exist absent the underlying hysteria of the population, but you can't simply wave away the increase in mortality induced by these effects, since the increase would not have happened absent Fukushima. To wave away the increase and pretend it is completely unrelated is as intellectually dishonest as trying to wave away warming trends as "just a natural cycle" in my opinion. Then blame the people who perpetrate the lies and mistruths; blame the media, politicians and educators who can't seem to effectively communicate the relative benefits and dangers of nuclear. I'm sorry, but ignorance is NOT implicit to nuclear, and attempting to tie perception to science as though one is an implcit, unavoidable consequence of the other is only going to exacerbate the falsehoods - it is, to use your phrase, intellectually dishonest to do that, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:17
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:What I am arguing is that, just because we agree that fears are overblown doesn't mean the fears (and the effects of those fears) don't exist. To do otherwise is to willfully blind yourself to what is really happening. Own up to it and argue that the socioeconomic impacts of nuclear are still outweighed by the health and economic impacts of coal. You can't win fights against an irrational opposition by refusing to accept their facts as facts. Yes and we should be careful about letting the gays get married too because we don't want mississippi to have a heart attack. Think of the stress induced deaths! Here's how you win a fight against an irrational opposition: A. you realize that there is no "irrational opposition" that has any power, the government could build nuclear if it wanted to B. dont read lovely news articles and start believing the bullshit they spew ComradeCosmobot posted:You can't win fights against an irrational opposition by refusing to accept their facts as facts. Wrap it up Martin Luther King, civil rights aint happening today
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Hey guys, I heard that Large Hadron Collider causes black holes, let's not build it. Hey guys, I heard vaccines cause autism, let's not inoculate our children. And so on. Doctor_Fruitbat fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yes and we should be careful about letting the gays get married too because we don't want mississippi to have a heart attack. Think of the stress induced deaths! Losing your house and getting poo poo in compensation because of a nuclear disaster. Being discriminated against because people think you are a defective or dirty person for having lived near a nuclear power plant before it blew up and being forcibly relocated by the government as a result. Having to live with the realization that two people of the same gender who gently caress each other can also get married. One of these things is not like the others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:47
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:One of these things is not like the others. quote:just because we agree that fears are overblown doesn't mean the fears (and the effects of those fears) don't exist. To do otherwise is to willfully blind yourself to what is really happening. Own up to it and argue that the socioeconomic impacts quote:You can't win fights against an irrational opposition by refusing to accept their facts as facts. ComradeCosmobot posted:If gay marriage had not happened, those deaths would not have either.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I agree that the Fukushima disaster was mostly overblown, but I wouldn't consider it an insignificant release of radiation. Estimates based on airborne readings put the Iodine release at around 20% of Chernobyl or about 10 Million Cu. This is I-131 so most of the danger related to Fukushima was very short lived.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:00
|
|
Duckaerobics posted:I agree that the Fukushima disaster was mostly overblown, but I wouldn't consider it an insignificant release of radiation. Define significant
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
I have found the (constantly returning) "what about nuclear" conversation very useful. No irony there. I do have a kind of concern about nuclear. I have worked in industrial safety a fair amount and there are two main types of safety concern in general, not limited to nuclear. One is personal safety at the level of the individual and individual action. The other is process safety at the level of process violations or failures usually leading to large scale accidents or disasters. Nuclear is safer in both these areas than legacy energy. Processing and production from hydrocarbon is a contained explosion. Disasters match that. The asset base is aging and not well maintained in many cases due to the artificialities of cost and profit involved. Most large scale safety disasters occur downstream. Scaled environmental disasters can occur anywhere along the supply chain. Nuclear's upstream is both safer and cleaner, though still has what you might call "normal" safety issues involved with industrial process. Production/generation is safer and catastrophic failures of a different nature than hydrocarbon altogether. The waste processes are getting safer. I have participated in the design and delivery of a bunch of scenario based strategy simulations with energy companies and organizations. Mixes with nuclear often, but not always, "win". Some of the difficulties, many mentioned here. There is not a cultural acceptance of nuclear as an alternative. There are many causes to this it seems to me. Part of it is a culture of profit. Part of it is Cold War legacy about nuclear as the thing that when weaponized is going to kill us all. Without the cultural acceptance the build out is probably impossible. The is also a root problem really working with climate effect in general. Nuclear has never been shown to be profitable. Personally I do not think that is a fatal flaw of any sort, but in the current industrialized world it is. It also means incurring unnecessary risk since in the current system maintenance and investment follows profit. This is one of the real problems with the hydrocarbon infrastructure without even considering emissions. There are only minimal forces that move the owners of the assets to take any responsibility for the real lifetime of the asset or even responsibly maintain it. In the absence of profit they simply don't. This tends to be worse in the US than many places. There are no viable plans for remediation of such assets and this will eventually fall to governments, e.g. tax payers. The difficulties stemming from the regulatory envelope are all cooked into this. In the current system, that would build and maintain assets, regulation is viewed as a cost and liability. This is the classic example of profit from public resource being privatized, based on a maximization and consolidation of profit, and the liability then being returned to the public. It is this same area that is my concern about nuclear. It's not profitable in a completely for profit system. It might be made profitable, but there is no real working model or example of that. The lifetime of the asset is much, much longer than hydrocarbon assets. This is true both with respect to operational maintenance, waste (defined as the ecosystems ability to re-absorb by-product) and what minimal remediation of the site is even possible over time. We don't tend to do a very good job of really considering the lifetime of an asset. It is is nigh on impossible to get people to think clearly about including the processes involved in something going out of existence while they are building and designing it. In short, I don't really trust the stability of our social contracts or nature of our design processes in the face of the time scales involved in nuclear. It's not just waste disposal, which is getting much more viable, it's the lifetime of the assets. I think there are also the same grid issues associated with renewables since you probably can't simply build on the existing grid. Again, cultural as much as anything else. I think those things can be handled, but it is on the same scale and social complexity as the cultural shifts involved in handling climate effect itself. Such cultural shifts are actively resisted by a hydrocarbon based system of profit. Sogol fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Define significant I would consider 10 million curies a significant release. Japan was very lucky that prevailing winds took the majority of the radioactive material high into the atmosphere and across the pacific. Had the material remained in the area it would have been much worse. If we look at the EPA's exposure limits for Iodine you can see how little it takes for dangerous levels to develop. For air the limit is 7.9 pCi/m^3. For water it is 20 pCi/L. Rainwater samples were collected as far away as Greenland that were over this limit. I would consider that significant. I still consider Nuclear the safest industrial energy source, but I think we should be realistic about the safety concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
The UK is building a new kind of pumped heat energy storage facility to test it out. It looks kinda interesting. Of course companies regularly promote their pet pie-in-the-sky projects as the Next Big Thing to get research funding so who knows. They claim it's as efficient as pumped hydro with a round trip efficiency of 72-80%. I guess we won't know until a few years time when it's up and running but how significant would it be if it actually works as claimed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIxt6nMf-IQ http://www.isentropic.co.uk/ http://www.eti.co.uk/eti-invest-14m-in-energy-storage-breakthrough-with-isentropic/ edit vvv: I don't think it matters that much. Pumped hydro is by its nature limited in capacity and restricted to areas with valleys and rivers which means areas with fertile land and natural beauty. Even if this has a bit worse energy density than pumped hydro does it matter if some farmland or desert is converted to store hot rocks? I mean you can put this right in the city where it's needed. Bates fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The UK is building a new kind of pumped heat energy storage facility to test it out. It looks kinda interesting. Of course companies regularly promote their pet pie-in-the-sky projects as the Next Big Thing to get research funding so who knows. They claim it's as efficient as pumped hydro with a round trip efficiency of 72-80%. I guess we won't know until a few years time when it's up and running but how significant would it be if it actually works as claimed? How energy dense is it, i.e. for a given amount of energy stored, does it cover less of the landscape than an artificial lake would?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
On the subject of carbon taxes in the US: what would be the most effective means to implement them and redistribute the revenue to aid in climate mitigation and adaptation? Would a carbon tax be best implemented in a gradual ramp-up over decades or as a flat tax? Tied to capital or wealth in a progressive fashion? Which taxes should be lowered in accordance, if any?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Since climate change is real and unavoidable at this point, I foresee that it's going to be a big PR nightmare for the Republicans and every current denier once climate change becomes too obvious for any of them to deny it (I don't know what it's going to take, short of Lower Manhattan getting swallowed by the sea). It makes me wonder how these guys will deal with their credibility nightmare once the backlash starts. Late to this, but not a chance, watch them clain 'it's a natural cycle, if the climate wants to change what could we puny humans do about it, storms have always happened!'. I really think that most current politicians will be dead or at the very least retired before a real backlash starts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:I guess we won't know until a few years time when it's up and running but how significant would it be if it actually works as claimed? for context, here's a chart from page 12 of this thing: http://refman.et-model.com/publications/1726/download/IRENA_201205_Electricity%20Storage%20and%20RE%20for%20Island%20Power.pdf?1349946053  Isentropic is claiming a $35/MWh ($0.035/kWh) LCOE, so its more expensive than pumped hydro or compressed, but cheaper than flow batteries. Isentropic also claims to be cheaper than pumped hydro though, there is probably room for disagreement on everybodys numbers. The key point from the article is: quote:1.5MW/6MWh energy storage device that will operate on a UK primary substation owned by Western Power Distribution (WPD) in the Midlands. It is hoped that once tested, it could be rolled out across the UK where there are approximately 5,000 substations with a suitable power range of between 12MW and 24MW This basically helps in two ways: - provides an extra ~10% capacity at the end of transmission lines without having to upgrade them - provides a buffer that will allow for a much greater % of overall capacity to come from intermittent renewables (wind/solar) without risking outages
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html this is showing up on da facebooks
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
The big block of text at the end of the article is by...let me google it... Professor Andrew Mountford Professor Department of Economics Macroeconomics, Development and Finance Econometrics Well then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
joeburz posted:The big block of text at the end of the article is by...let me google it...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
I want an antarctica version of https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
NZ is still working on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
I thought increasing surface ice had something with salinity from run off elsewhere in the vortex? Or at least that was one of the theories. It's not like it's getting cooler down there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Sea ice extent in Antarctica has been trending upwards for years. Conversely, sea ice extent in the Arctic has been trending downwards for years.  The total sea ice extent is declining.  It proves nothing relevant. It's a propaganda point. In case you were wondering, that's 11129 date measurements. The smaller gaps are due to less data points and my laziness in not scaling them up. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I thought increasing surface ice had something with salinity from run off elsewhere in the vortex? Or at least that was one of the theories. It's not like it's getting cooler down there. Fun fact sea ice increase with warming was actually predicted by the OG climate modeler, Syukuro Manabe, in one of the earliest Antarctic climate models from 25 years ago (p795): http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf Elotana fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
On a related note to that point about the fluctuation of Antarctic sea ice, the whole Antarctic/Arctic comparison favored by skeptics also cruises past the fact that the Arctic and Antarctic play dramatically different roles in the earth's climate systems, so it's not apples to apples at all. Increasingly, when I see an article taken out of context by skeptic-friendly media and am locking horns in the comments, I'll just email the scientists directly. Typically it's some study that's being distorted to cast doubt on AGW (that volcanic forcing on WAIS is a good example), so I just find the scientist or team who was actually out there on the glacier or whatever, and ask 'em point-blank if his/her work has anything to do with it. I get a response probably 80% of the time, typically a brief/polite note or a link to some science blog or cryonet post or some such; I'm concluding it is at this point best practice for researchers to avoid actually answering questions and just point to somewhere credible where they already answered it; there's too much risk of creating some flap, no matter who neutral the statement. Plus they're too busy, you know, rivetz fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Crosspost of this bit of sad real-life comedy from the dittoheads thread: 'Hmm, what analogy could I use to defend a poisonous chemical gas? I KNOW!' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIlQYab6KJo quote:CNBC's Climate "Expert": "Demonization Of Carbon Dioxide Is Just Like" Demonization Of "Jews Under Hitler" 'Lord Dracula does wonderful things for the community!' said Renfield, shortly before devouring a passing housefly. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:57
|
|
"clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide," 
is the chairman of the Marshall Institute , which received $865,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998 to 2011.
|
Spacedad posted:Crosspost of this bit of sad real-life comedy from the dittoheads thread: Honestly it's poo poo like this that crazy conspiracists should point to for proof of Illuminati/Nth-Dimensional Lizard People, because even I am having a hard time believing that a human being can say those things and not die of shame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Honestly it's poo poo like this that crazy conspiracists should point to for proof of Illuminati/Nth-Dimensional Lizard People, because even I am having a hard time believing that a human being can say those things and not die of shame. The Plants use CO2 to grow. Blowing CO2 at them in greenhouses makes them grow faster. We need more CO2 so plants all over the world grow faster. If you do not believe this, you must be literally Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Did you know that trees sometimes produce CO2? I thought you hippies liked trees. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The Every tree is a killer of COJews. The Brazillian rainforest is a literal Treblinka.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Every tree is a killer of COJews. The Brazillian rainforest is a literal Treblinka. And CCS is Auschwitz 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Isn't the logical extension of that argument to increase CO2 emissions, even if it costs money to do so? Why don't they ever make that argument?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Isn't the logical extension of that argument to increase CO2 emissions, even if it costs money to do so? Why don't they ever make that argument? Ha ha you thought they didn't. http://www.plantsneedco2.org/ quote:Join us as we explore these and other important benefits that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are bestowing on plants. Carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels should not be feared; they are something to be celebrated!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 22:49
|
|