Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 98

Thread: Germany Looking for Nuclear Graveyard to last One Million Years.

  1. Top | #41
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,111
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,699
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir
    I take it from that question that you are entirely ignorant of both the process of evolution and the theory that describes that process.
    Your conclusion is false
    OK. You are well-studied in evolutionary theory and the evidence of precursors to HSS. Not sure how you know the same about B20, to whom I was replying.though. I take it that you simply choose to ignore/deny it. I hate to say it, but ... case in point re conservatives rejecting science.
    I already told you that your conclusion about B20 is false as it should be obvious if you take a look at some of his posts on the matters. But here, you again reply " I take it that you simply choose to ignore/deny it." That assessment mirrors your reply to B20 (i.e., "I take it from that question that you are entirely ignorant of both the process of evolution and the theory that describes that process."). In both cases, what you "take it" is false, but that is not the main problem. The main problem is that it is unwarranted - i.e., it is epistemically irrational on your part to have the belief you have.

    By the way, when they learn about some of my views, right-wingers general call me a left-winger, whereas left-wingers generally call me a right-winger. Those people are all mistaken, but worse, they are holding unwarranted beliefs. Epistemic irrationality is also at the heart of science denialism.

  2. Top | #42
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,376
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,415
    Rep Power
    75
    In recent years I have met quite a few conservative republican voters who when they look at history, point to a clearly liberal development and claim it to be conservative. The best example of this is to claim that the founding of the U.S and it's break with European Monarchy was a conservative event. They will also claim that voting and self-government are conservative inventions. They will also claim that racism is a liberal problem because the southern states were democratic and against civil rights. The KKK is a liberal phenomenon because of southern democrats. Their science and grasp of history would obviously fail examination.

    On one occasion I nearly got into a shouting match with a very conservative workmate who adamantly maintained that using a programmable thermostat to turn down the heat overnight caused a person to use more energy to heat their home. I tried all manner of analogies but nothing would convince him that he was incorrect. When I came back to my desk hours later he had checked me against the internet and apologized, admitting that he was incorrect but preferring not to use a programmable thermostat because the furnace had to run too long to bring the temperature back up in the morning. Duh!

    It was a good example of Dunning Kruger in action. But interestingly there was nothing I being liberal and democratic could tell him about programmable thermostats and scientific fact.

    /derail

  3. Top | #43
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,396
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,609
    Rep Power
    54
    How is identifying liberalism with science letting liberal science deniers off the hooK of being science deniers? On nuclear power in the hands of man, particularly man with a profit motive, I'm absolutely denying science has anything to do with whether nuclear power should be used for energy production. It is the greed and power based attitudes of those who gravitate to profit and control that tip my dials toward "DON'T DO IT" even in Germany.

    So as well reasoned and cogent as bilby's positions be they can't win the argument about whether man should use nuclear power for energy production.

  4. Top | #44
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,111
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,699
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    How is identifying liberalism with science letting liberal science deniers off the hooK of being science deniers? On nuclear power in the hands of man, particularly man with a profit motive, I'm absolutely denying science has anything to do with whether nuclear power should be used for energy production. It is the greed and power based attitudes of those who gravitate to profit and control that tip my dials toward "DON'T DO IT" even in Germany.
    But why would you say that?
    The safety track record of the nuclear industry is better than the others?

    Sure, bad things can happen. The same goes for other energy production industries. But as it happens, worse things happen (overall) with any other one.

  5. Top | #45
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,040
    Rep Power
    13
    I thought Germany's alternate energy program failed

    What will they do for heavy industry like automotive?

  6. Top | #46
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,151
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,127
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    I thought Germany's alternate energy program failed

    What will they do for heavy industry like automotive?
    There is a European power grid. Germany buys power generated in France, Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, etc. and they buy power generated in Germany.

  7. Top | #47
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,077
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,829
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    That's misleading. Yes, nuclear plants during normal operation leak much less radioactivity than coal plants. keywords here are "normal operation" and "leak", cause amount of radioactive waste (not leak) is obviously orders and orders magnitude higher for nukes.
    Note, however, that coal plant emissions kill far more than nuke plant emissions even when you count accidents.

    Also, an interesting bit regarding the waste.

    You have x watts of nuke plant and x watts of coal plant. The waste from the nuke plant is reprocessed so only the useless stuff goes in the waste stream.

    At the end of the year you prepare two storage vaults of the same size. One will hold the ash from the coal plants, one will hold the waste from the reactor. Next year, you have a new supply of waste--and you need to prepare another vault for the coal ash. The nuke waste fits in the original, though. Rinse and repeat. 10,000 years from now you have 10,000 vaults for the coal ash, but still only one vault for the nuke waste--and when you're depositing the waste for year 10,001 you pull out the waste from year 1 because it's now no longer any more radioactive than the environment. The coal ash is just as dangerous as it was the year it was put there, however. A million years from now you have a million vaults for the coal ash--but still only one for the nuke as you've removed 99% of it as the years went by.
    Dude, I have PhD in physics, no need for this manspaining, especially when you are wrong.
    Coal Ash is only dangerous when it gets into the air, flies away, and precipitates somewhere where food is grown or water is collected. Ash is essentially very finely milled stone and its radioactivity is equal that of stone, problem is with the fact that it's in the form of fine particles which leach into environment.
    Buried ash is not really dangerous but you have to capture it first, It's possible to capture it and I am not sure nukes would win in this case.

    Radioactivity of concentrated nuclear waste will not fall to the ambient level for millions and millions of years, so your math about amount of space is wrong too. You either have to dilute it in some inert and stable substance and use a lot of space, or you can keep it in concentrated form but make sure nobody disturbs it for millions of years. Germans are not wrong.
    The fly ash has has a lot of heavy metals.

    And note that I specified that the waste was properly reprocessed. Said waste decays to ambient in 10,000 years--those long-lived isotopes with a reasonable amount of radioactivity went back into the fuel supply, not into the waste. And like the fly ash, it's completely harmless unless it gets loose somehow.

  8. Top | #48
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,077
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,829
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    Great, tell that to Germans and Japanese.
    When has spent fuel ever caused harm to anyone?

    The Germans and Japanese are not fucking interested in hearing it, but it's true - spent fuel from nuclear power stations hasn't harmed a single person in the sixty five year history of the technology.

    Nuclear power is the only technology for generating electricity that completely and diligently manages its waste streams, to the point where these materials have never caused harm to any person or external environment. No other technology for generating electricity comes close to being as effective in managing its wastes safely - and most don't even bother trying, or make the most cursory of efforts with no long-term plans or considerations.
    No--it scared Japan into killing a lot of people.

  9. Top | #49
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,077
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,829
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    The concentration of radiation at nuclear facilities is the issue, not the radiation itself. Kilowatt for kilowatt, nuclear power is less radioactive than coal in terms of pollution and danger to the environment. The reason for government's heavy hand is because that radiation is so concentrated, not because radiation is something uncommon or special. This is true in lots of cases, not just for radiation.
    Except radiation risk modeling is based on linear-no-threshold. Under that model radioactivity is just as dangerous if dispersed than when concentrated, it's just the harm shows up as a lower risk to more people. Maybe you can hide it in the noise but you don't get rid of it.

    (Now, I have a lot of problem with the LNT model and lean much more towards radiation homeostasis. In that case dilution actually is a help.)

  10. Top | #50
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,077
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,829
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    I love how the measure is always against the other things that are toxic. It's no more dangerous than a bullet to the brain. Oh, ok. Well great then!
    Power will come from somewhere. Thus we should be comparing nuke to other forms of power generation, not to a fantasyland where no power is needed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •