CDZ Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Apr 5, 2019.

  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    69,475
    Thanks Received:
    12,497
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +50,947

    Everyone is in on that. I know I am and I don't believe in man made global warming. More energy, available cheap, is the way you make poor people rich, and poor people more comfortable......but the environmental movement isn't about a clean environment...it is about having a hammer to use against your political enemies and a hammer to use to control other human beings......
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Blues Man
    Offline

    Blues Man Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    1,698
    Thanks Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +968
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  3. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    51,691
    Thanks Received:
    8,894
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,173
    Surprisingly --- only the science ignorant part of the left. The GodFather of GWarming himself, James Hansen and a dozen other GW scientists and major Environmentalists signed a statement about nuclear being the ONLY rational way to work out the CO2 emissions reductions.

    The quote from Hansen (paraphrased a bit) was..

    "If you believe we will achieve sufficient reductions to end the GW threat with JUST wind and solar -- you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny..."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019 at 11:41 AM
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    51,691
    Thanks Received:
    8,894
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,173
    You gonna start a moral SMALL energy company anytime soon?? Great sound bite.. No Beef content..

    We now have BIG Wind and BIG Solar companies on Federal/State life support sucking much more REAL budget dollars than the "nasty old ones" get for the SAME DEDUCTIONS and CREDITS that EVERY company gets..
     
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    51,691
    Thanks Received:
    8,894
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,173
    The fact that you power a large house for a year on an amount of nuclear fuel smaller than a AA battery is UNBEATABLE for enviro consequences. If we can handle toxic material in BULK with INFINITE half-lives, like the heavy metals from all those battery cars and buses, then SURELY --- we can handle a AA battery size chunk of nuclear waste for each home..

    It's only because the Govt reneged on their ONE SOLID contribution to building a waste dispository, that this clean-up issue is a problem.. And with new gen nuclear plants that are compact and even modular and buried (as you said) -- you'll no longer have to deal with multi-ton fuel rods and disposal pools.

    Govt should commission an EXPEDITED "run-off" between competing NEW designs in like 3 or 4 year time frame and PRE-APPROVE the winners for installation..

    Because if you're worried about nuclear disasters, we're on borrowed time with about 20% of grid nuclear generation being 50 or more years old and not having replacement parts. I know.. One of my clients had me design a new display device for the control room, because nobody could MAKE the old ones anymore...
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,758
    Thanks Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Standing with Covington Kids
    Ratings:
    +1,470
    I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

    Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. toobfreak
    Offline

    toobfreak Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    13,187
    Thanks Received:
    2,489
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +15,828

    Can't help it if two people come to similar conclusions for two very different reasons. But whereas Adolf wanted to exterminate people other than Germans because he thought them inferior, I merely recognize the scientifically indisputable fact that virtually every negative environmental and societal problem mankind faces today is a function of his massively increasing numbers on the planet. Name me one problem we face today that wouldn't be helped if not solved by cutting world population down to half? And I don't mean by extermination but simply by regulating birth rates to bring things back around eventually to a manageable number over the next 50 years.

    Because, if mankind cannot find a way of doing it, believe me, sooner or later, nature is going to do it for us in the form of famine, war or disease. Which do YOU prefer?
     
  8. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    51,691
    Thanks Received:
    8,894
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,173
    I don't think you had bad intentions at all for bringing up population control.. But it depends on how force and coercion is required. Really don't like forcing population control on emerging countries that NEED a large family to survive for instance. Or loading them up with wind and solar so they will never get past a subsistence, agrarian lifestyle.. That's almost as bad as eugenics and selfish..

    But in reality, what HELPS the environment is NOT lower population density, it's INCREASED standard of living and education. You can clearly see the family sizes DECREASING naturally as incomes and skills increase...

    There's a fantastic TED talk (maybe 2 or 3) by Hans Rowling that uses data visualization from UN and World Bank records looking at all the variables as societies emerge from poverty.. I'll link it in a post below if I can find one.. You MUST see it.. It clearly demonstrates that no coercion is necessary. Only a govt that works towards modernization in smart ways..
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    51,691
    Thanks Received:
    8,894
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +32,173
    Watch this twice to get it all.. I guarantee you'll learn a lot about world sociology and the relationship to family size...

    The best stats you've ever seen
     
  10. toobfreak
    Offline

    toobfreak Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    13,187
    Thanks Received:
    2,489
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +15,828
    Of course not, I don't know why anyone would think that. I didn't say I had a good solution in how to IMPLEMENT that, but the inescapable fact is that in most places of the world, cities are being strained to the limit, their infrastructure, utilities, electrical grid, sewerage, water supply, waste disposal are all being strained to the limit.

    We are running out of places to bury our waste, food production is being pushed to the limit. Hospitals and educational facilities are being overrun. Minerals and resources are being depleted. Oceans are being scooped dry of fish. Our forests destroyed, countless species run to extinction. Whole ecosystems of coral reefs and other things wiped out.

    Our problem is that we are barely keeping up, we have no headroom left. All it will take now is a severe drought, a major power outage from a CME or some disease blight and a LOT of people are going to be in trouble.

    The collective smog and pollution beginning to take a toll on the planet. Cities thick with smog and haze. Light pollution from artificial illumination has wiped out our night skies. We nearly destroyed our ozone with CFCs then went almost as bad with the HFCs which replaced them which turned out to be a terrible greenhouse gas. And we don't know if there is some other yet unseen toxin we've released as yet undetected. As it is, pieces of plastic now turn up in EVERY air sample, every fish sample we test. We ourselves are certainly full of plastics. And I feel certain there is a DIRECT LINK between over-population and urban life, noise and pressure and the crimes we are seeing today. Whatever the long-term technological solution to all of this, all I know is that the immediate short term solution to a cleaner, healthier, better planet is to bring our population back down to maybe half it is today. That alone would cut our impact on the environment by 75%.
     

Share This Page