|
The massive Chinese hydro dams are some of the worst ecological catastrophes that can be traced to a single source, right? I remember an accident with hundreds of thousands of casualties. But we must remember, an overwhelming majority of Germans thinks about nuclear as much, or less, favourable than Libluini. We will not be able to convince these people with hostility. I also have much respect for this position. While it's factually incorrect, it's also morally very relatable. Given reasonable priors, nuclear power should be something to distrust. It's huge business playing around with poison that can be used for terrible bombs. And it's the energy industry, possibly the worst industry in the world. Of course you'll distrust them. So we should be much more understanding when talking to the overwhelming majority of Germans who're deadly afraid of nuclear power. And being factually right doesn't mean we can allow ourselves to be dicks about it.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:to be honest i'm surprised that Die Linke has such a relatively low tolerance for dictatorship Yeah. I honestly expected the party of "East Germany had some good ideas" to contain more idiots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Randler posted:None, because newspapers suck at understanding technical language? Well, there was that CSU guy in Bavaria who literally repeated Nazi propaganda about Jewish Bolshevism a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah. I honestly expected the party of "East Germany had some good ideas" to contain more idiots. Well, the former PDS was only one half of the SED after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The massive Chinese hydro dams are some of the worst ecological catastrophes that can be traced to a single source, right? I remember an accident with hundreds of thousands of casualties. We can't trust energy companies, therefore we shouldn't do this objectively reasonable thing for the benefit of the country and the species, rather than nationalize the everliving gently caress out of energy production and distribution and stop destroying the environment that allows us to live.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Why yes, a fair representation of my point. This is about being pragmatic. Nuclear is pragmatic. Being respectful is pragmatic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The massive Chinese hydro dams are some of the worst ecological catastrophes that can be traced to a single source, right? I remember an accident with hundreds of thousands of casualties. Yeah. However, I have little patience with people who descend to "anyone who is pro-[thing I don't like] must be a paid shill/insane" at which point I might as well be arguing with an anti-vaxxer or against GMO hysteria. Anectdotally, properly explaining the observed effects of radiation exposure, the sorry state of nuclear power, and the actual estimates for health and environmental damage for various methods of power generation can work, but it takes forever and a good proportion of people just goes "even if nuclear power is better and cheaper I'd rather spend ruinous amounts on an all-renewable grid that will function maybe i'll just stay in the ivory tower and smugly 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah. I honestly expected the party of "East Germany had some good ideas" to contain more idiots. It built quite a few nuclear reactors!  e: the GDR, that is
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:It built quite a few nuclear reactors! and all of them are old pieces of poo poo that should be replaced by new nuclear reactors (didn't a whole bunch shut down shortly after reunification, or am I misremembering?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:(didn't a whole bunch shut down shortly after reunification, or am I misremembering?) The two power nuclear power stations in east Germany were shut down in 1990 and construction of a third one was stopped. They were all Russian VVER reactors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the main environmental problem of nuclear energy is the mining and excavation of fissile material and the construction and maintenance of the plants themselves, to which there are direct analogues in every major renewable energy source bar possibly wind. i would invite you to make a decent, scientifically grounded argument against nuclear energy that is not essentially general to energy production as such, as you have been exposed to decent, scientifically grounded arguments in its favour previously, but you won't, because you can't. Some of these arguments were like "You get more radiation by flying a lot, therefore nuclear power is safe!" Which is obviously false and not very well-thought out. I still point out nuclear power plants have their own added problems which we don't really need. But you somehow missed were I said if it comes down to choosing between fossil fuel and nuclear power, I would go with nuclear power. So I guess your post is wasted, since it attacks a position I've abandoned already. blowfish posted:Yeah. However, I have little patience with people who descend to "anyone who is pro-[thing I don't like] must be a paid shill/insane" at which point I might as well be arguing with an anti-vaxxer or against GMO hysteria. Anectdotally, properly explaining the observed effects of radiation exposure, the sorry state of nuclear power, and the actual estimates for health and environmental damage for various methods of power generation can work, but it takes forever and a good proportion of people just goes "even if nuclear power is better and cheaper I'd rather spend ruinous amounts on an all-renewable grid that will function Additionally, some renewable sources of energy involve burning biomass, some kind of oil-like sludge made out of pressed biomass, bio-gas made out of biomass or straight-up burning trash. All those things essentially work like bog-standard fossil fuel power plants, minus the coal, oil and gas. They reduce impact on the environment by helping to reduce the huge mountains of garbage human civilization generates. They don't even have, strangely enough, a large impact on climate change, since every tree chopped down and burned is generally replaced by another one growing up and sucking the same amount of CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Coal, oil and gas in the conventional sense are a problem because those plants and animals have been dead for a long time and can't be replaced in the timeframe we're digging it out and burn it. So this destroys the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere between consumption and output, which leads back to all those problems too much CO2 in the atmosphere entails. For some reason many people just look at that part of renewable energy and go "But burning bio-gass is just like burning normal gas, how can it be renewable??" Then they just mentally file it under conventional power technology without really thinking about it.  Germany could very well survive on a good mix of renewable energy production and even get a more reliable, more dezentralized power grid out of it. Neither nuclear power nor fossil fuels are needed. The problem here is conservative politicians keep choosing old and reliable technology (like coal and oil) over what they see as new and untested. Hard to change if people in Germany keep voting CDU. (I mean that party is black, like coal. It makes you think, doesn't it?  )I can tell you right now, if people hadn't flipped their poo poo, Merkel would have gone nuclear instead, since it's also old and reliable in a politician's mind. But voters flipped their poo poo, so the CDU started supporting black coal instead. Because that's also old and reliable, and therefore a perfect choice for conservative politicians. I would have hated Merkel doubling down on nuclear power, too. But it would have been better for my lungs, I guess. Edit: The gist of this is essentially: When building coal and oil power plants is so cheap and easy, why not build renewable plants who work on the same principles instead? And presto, the problem of the power grid changing too slow to stop climate change is solved! Now we have time to work out the rest. Libluini fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Germany could very well survive on a good mix of renewable energy production
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Some of these arguments were like "You get more radiation by flying a lot, therefore nuclear power is safe!" Which is obviously false and not very well-thought out. How can you say this is false when it... objectively isn't? But no, Forbes/BBC/NHS/Guardian are all hugely disreputable news sources, how dare I quote those rags.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Show me the numbers. Not now, of course. Sadly I can't look into the future. Just imagine geothermal energy replacing part of electricity production and most of heat production, then the different renewables replacing the rest of electricity and heat production. It's probably a long process and one which is just possible, not a reality, thanks to our politicians being hell-bend on building coal power plants instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Why yes, a fair representation of my point. What makes you think I was trying to represent your point? Because I wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Drone posted:How can you say this is false when it... objectively isn't? Uh, nothing of this has anything to do with claiming flying in a plane is comparable to living near a nuclear power plant. Those links just claim nuclear power plants aren't as dangerous as people make them out to be, which is a moderate position I can agree on. Saying something like "You get more radiation by flying a lot" is dumb and false not because it's literally false, it's dumb and false because living near a power plant is not the same as flying in a plane. That could only be comparable in bizarro world, where people live on planes 24/7. Magic planes that will never land. In all other cases the additional radiation averages down to a lot less, I'll wager. Now, if you could link me a study where people regularly fly with jets have been as well researched as people living near nuclear plants and it turns out they are indeed suffering under more average radiation over the years as people living close to a nuclear plant, then I'll apologize.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Additionally, some renewable sources of energy involve burning biomass, some kind of oil-like sludge made out of pressed biomass, bio-gas made out of biomass or straight-up burning trash. All those things essentially work like bog-standard fossil fuel power plants, minus the coal, oil and gas. They reduce impact on the environment by helping to reduce the huge mountains of garbage human civilization generates. They don't even have, strangely enough, a large impact on climate change, since every tree chopped down and burned is generally replaced by another one growing up and sucking the same amount of CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Coal, oil and gas in the conventional sense are a problem because those plants and animals have been dead for a long time and can't be replaced in the timeframe we're digging it out and burn it. So this destroys the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere between consumption and output, which leads back to all those problems too much CO2 in the atmosphere entails. As long as you actually only burn trash in them, biomass powerplants are mostly ok. The problem is that they're more profitable to run on consistent input materials, i.e. tons of maize (not helped by subsidising maize over trash). Say hello to pointless land use and destroyed habitats, as the Subventionsbauern need areas to dump slurry from animal farming onto to keep their subsidies and can dump tons of low-quality produce in the nearest Biogasanlage. We need less agricultural land use, not more. Agreed that Merkel would have probably liked to go nuclear (also recall she is a physicist and therefore likely to have a soft spot for the mighty atom personally)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
Libluini posted:Saying something like "You get more radiation by flying a lot" is dumb and false not because it's literally false, it's dumb and false because living near a power plant is not the same as flying in a plane. That could only be comparable in bizarro world, where people live on planes 24/7. Magic planes that will never land. In all other cases the additional radiation averages down to a lot less, I'll wager. Maybe you should read up "Sievert", the unit for radiation dose measurement. If you fly by plane from NY to LA you will get a dose of 40 micro Sievert in that time, while living near a nuclear power plant will expose you to 0.09 micro Sievert per year. That means the radiation you absorb during your (idk) 6h flight is much, much more (over 4000 times) as much as the radiation you absorb in a whole year living near the power plant. Basically, if you ever flew in an airplane (or had and x-ray) the radiation from living near a not malfunctioning nuclear power plant is negligible. The weakness of such calculations is of course the "black swan event" of an nuclear disaster.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Not now, of course. Sadly I can't look into the future. Just imagine geothermal energy replacing part of electricity production and most of heat production, then the different renewables replacing the rest of electricity and heat production. It's probably a long process and one which is just possible, not a reality, thanks to our politicians being hell-bend on building coal power plants instead. You claimed it's possible. We know nuclear can power a country (France). We know how dangerous it is. We also have reasonable projections for what renewables can do - and I know of none that match what you claim. Would it not be reasonable to only put your money on all-renewable when there is any reasonable projection that this can actually work in the time frame we know we need? Cause, you know, climate change doesn't wait, and neither does air pollution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The weakness of such calculations is of course the "black swan event" of an nuclear disaster. They're not pretty. But they're for now not as bad as our projections for climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Greens should be for nuclear power. If a plant melts down you instantly have a new environmental protection zone! But seriously. We can discuss all day long what alternative to fossil energy is the best, but we should really heavily invest in fusion, fission and renewables at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Greens should be for nuclear power. If a plant melts down you instantly have a new environmental protection zone!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
blowfish posted:stop injecting sanity into Energiepolitik https://youtu.be/bp32_OVljRs?t=54
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Libluini posted:it's dumb and false because living near a power plant is not the same as flying in a plane. Yes because flying in planes is actually far more dangerous and deadly than living near a nuclear power plant. And not just because of the radiation. But maybe we should do away with flying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Uh, nothing of this has anything to do with claiming flying in a plane is comparable to living near a nuclear power plant. Those links just claim nuclear power plants aren't as dangerous as people make them out to be, which is a moderate position I can agree on. Short intense bursts of radiation are likely to do more damage than the same amount of radiation received over a longer period of time because cells are not rocks and have repair mechanisms that can chug along fine repairing occasional DNA damage forever but will get overwhelmed trying to fix multiple broken things at once. Which means flying for an hour should be equivalent to even more hours of sitting next to a reactor than simply adding up dose over time would suggest (though actually both are so low they can't overwhelm repair mechanisms).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Saying something like "You get more radiation by flying a lot" is dumb and false not because it's literally false, it's dumb and false because living near a power plant is not the same as flying in a plane. That could only be comparable in bizarro world, where people live on planes 24/7. Magic planes that will never land. In all other cases the additional radiation averages down to a lot less, I'll wager. You really, desperately need to read up on what you're talking about, dude. Jesus. Especially when you want to call people calling you out "paid by the nuclear energy industry" or whatever it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:You really, desperately need to read up on what you're talking about, dude. Jesus. Hey at least he's also trying to make an actual argument (even if it's wrong) instead of just shouting "nuclear bad" like most of the country
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
How about we talk about a less aggressive topic... Grüne Gesundheitspolitik - Globuli für alle!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Randler posted:How about we talk about a less aggressive topic... gently caress off, I just had this debate with a coworker who gave her sick cat sugar pills and then it got better, thus proving once and for all that homeopathy works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess I heavily underestimated the power of the universe raining down on airplanes, sorry. Makes me glad I only used a plane myself like, once.Badly Jester posted:gently caress off, I just had this debate with a coworker who gave her sick cat sugar pills and then it got better, thus proving once and for all that homeopathy works. This makes me depressed and I need to hug my cat now. Cats can't even taste sweetness, this poo poo is just cruel. blowfish posted:As long as you actually only burn trash in them, biomass powerplants are mostly ok. There was a nice article in this months Spektrum der Wissenschaft about this. Some new method where a lot of small collecting points take in wood and other garden trash from gardeners, street cleaning services and so on, then turn them into some kind of weird plant-sludge for easy transport. In a special biomass power plant this plant-sludge is used to produce electricity, or even gasolin. The process produces enough biogas as a bi-product, it runs practically without using outside-energy: The biogas is used to get the energy necessary to cook the oily plant-sludge into gasolin. The first ten runs turned out great, they're planning on building more test plants now. If the planned test plants work out OK, we will get another kind of biomass power plants without the need to destroy land to feed it and a cost-effective fallback in case we finally suck the Earth dry. Chemically, this method uses pressure and heat to do the same thing the Earth does on its own, just faster and without burying everything in the ground.
Libluini fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Libluini posted:There was a nice article in this months Spektrum der Wissenschaft about this. Some new method where a lot of small collecting points take in wood and other garden trash from gardeners, street cleaning services and so on, then turn them into some kind of weird plant-sludge for easy transport. In a special biomass power plant this plant-sludge is used to produce electricity, or even gasolin. The process produces enough biogas as a bi-product, it runs practically without using outside-energy: The biogas is used to get the energy necessary to cook the oily plant-sludge into gasolin. The first ten runs turned out great, they're planning on building more test plants now. Which is always what happens when people argue against nuclear. Next stop: the Netherlands become the Nethersea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Great, and we're back to burning carbon for fuel again. You missed something, go back a few posts
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Randler posted:How about we talk about a less aggressive topic... Can we please have us all lieb again and talk about the real elephant in the room? How are we going to pays all that reparations money to Greece? Do we still have some hidden Nazi gold laying around or do we really need to raise taxes? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Can we please have us all lieb again and talk about the real elephant in the room? How are we going to pays all that reparations money to Greece? Do we still have some hidden Nazi gold laying around or do we really need to raise taxes? Same way we paid back Israel. First we lower the sum (significantly, as Greece probably does not actually have the claim it claims to have), then we split it. One half in credit/cash, the other cash in military hardware. Instant subvention to our home industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Libluini posted:At this point I'm asking myself how many of you are delusional, or just getting money from the nuclear industry to post this poo poo. ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. you're a literal conspiracy theorist
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
i, for my part, am getting well paid by the large nuclear lobby in norway to promote their german interests on internet message boards, i dunno about the rest of y'all
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
my check should be coming in any day now
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
He admitted he was wrong in his argument, so we can assume he'd discard that hyperbole as well, let's be a little less D&D and keep this more Diskussion&Deutschland, where we occasionally get too drunk, accuse eachother of adultery, throw some punches, have a good, old-fashioned brawl and then wake up in an entangled hug of hungover forgiveness, please? I mean, unless he actually votes black, in which case we'd need to sacrifice a 2015-reg to Lucy Heartfilia. Sachsen koennen kein Deutsch
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Gaensefleisch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Randler posted:Same way we paid back Israel. First we lower the sum (significantly, as Greece probably does not actually have the claim it claims to have), then we split it. One half in credit/cash, the other cash in military hardware. Instant subvention to our home industry. Do you actually think we are going to pay anything?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:05
|
|
