OlwenaSedai

Help me understand: religiosity

Recommended Posts

Ive always supported Nuclear and never understood the hatred for it. Its greener than coal, and when done correctly is actually pretty dang stable. It took a 9.0 magnitude earthquake leading into a tsunami to take out the Fukushima plant, and even in that there are no recorded deaths from radiation nor was there an increase stillbirths or birth deformities in the region. Thats pretty dang solid.

 

When done right, a Nuclear plant can power ALOT and be safer than any oil transport ship/pipeline. SImply put, Nuclear is superior to fossil fuels in every way.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Ive always supported Nuclear and never understood the hatred for it. Its greener than coal, and when done correctly is actually pretty dang stable. It took a 9.0 magnitude earthquake leading into a tsunami to take out the Fukushima plant, and even in that there are no recorded deaths from radiation nor was there an increase stillbirths or birth deformities in the region. Thats pretty dang solid.

 

When done right, a Nuclear plant can power ALOT and be safer than any oil transport ship/pipeline. SImply put, Nuclear is superior to fossil fuels in every way.

Well as long as you can get someone to house a spent fuel site.  

 

But yes, nuclear is much better then not only fosil fuels but so-called renewable sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Well as long as you can get someone to house a spent fuel site.  

 

But yes, nuclear is much better then not only fosil fuels but so-called renewable sources.

 

Newer plants (pebble-bed) reactors have less waste anyway, and honestly, deep storage in stable geologic areas/continental cores (northern ontario, north baltics, siberia), come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Certainly, I have no objections about further research in fact I think that we definately should do much more research.  What I do object to is changing the entire structure of our economy and spending hundreds of trillions of dollars before we have a clear idea of the actual science, much less how any efforts we do will actually on balance serve to benefit society.

 

Just because climate science needs continued study does not mean we don't have a clear idea of what's happening. Medical science is also being continuously studied and theories revised or updated, does that mean your doctor doesn't know what he's doing?

 

23 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

I do not claim that the climate is not changing, I simply do not buy that the change is man made, or that even if it is whether the strategies that have been put forward will do anything but redistribute wealth from the Developed world.

 

As for reverting to the Daark Ages, the only way to actually mitigate climate change that has been suggested is to drasticly cut use of fluro-carbon's since we are not willing to go the nuclear root the fact is that there are no alternatives today or any likely in the next several decades that would substitute for the use of carbon based energy sources. Which if we really try to mitigate climate change brings us back to the Dark Ages.

 

No, we can mitigate the need for fossil fuel by investing in renewable energy and reducing consumption. One way to do that is to put a price on carbon emissions. This both creates an incentive for private enterprises to shift away from fossil fuel and creates a fund for renewable energy R&D. No Dark Ages.

 

23 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Have you ever heard or seen what the Dutch have done to protect their territory. Also simpliest solution for some areas is to simply move. New Orleans for instance while a beautiful city (at least in part) is 15 feet below sea level. In history we have hundreds of examples of whole populations movig due to wheather issues and the rise and fall of great cities for the same reason. Why expect that the future should be any different.

 

You were talking about the economic costs of policies to mitigate climate change, yet now you write off entire cities as if there would be no economic consequences. Most of the world's population live in coastal areas, that means most of the world's cities will need to be relocated under your scheme. Do you seriously think that will have less of a negative impact on the world economy than introducing a carbon tax?

 

It's not just the cities either. Agricultural output will be heavily impacted by changing weather patterns, loss of coastal lands, and loss of biodiversity. Do you think skyrocketing  food prices won't affect the economy?

 

23 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

At this time without any alternative but other fosil fuels, my answer would be a resounding yes. Also these great weather models you speak of haveover the last 30 years proven to not acutally have predicted the wheather very well. Again not saying that scientific research in the area is wrong or bad, but basing economic and social policy on a world wide bases for a hundred years or more on models that have proven time and again to be not very good at actually predicting long term weather is a rather stupid exercise in inefficiency if not insanety.

 

Again, not true:

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

 

As I said before, it's not a matter of science for you, it's a matter of belief. You don't want to believe in climate change (and all the dire consequences that entails) so you refuse to believe the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No, we can mitigate the need for fossil fuel by investing in renewable energy and reducing consumption. One way to do that is to put a price on carbon emissions. This both creates an incentive for private enterprises to shift away from fossil fuel and creates a fund for renewable energy R&D. No Dark Ages."

 

Presupposes to rather iffy conclusions. First that energy sources are easily replacable. That is that you can get off fosil fuels and into renewable fuels immidiately or nearly so. And to the extent that you are suggesting that the taxes from the carbon tax will go to finance the R&D of renewable fuel sources, I think that is a rather large stretch since most countries are having trouble financing social welfare programs like health, etc. 

 

Also what happens when you reduce consumption of fosil fuels but do not have renewable sources able to take up the slake? That is the scenerio I meant by saying a return to the Dark Ages. No matter how efficent we become (and efficiency itself has a rather large cost that you are not considering) there is no way that renewable sources will be able to make up for the shortfall in the short and medium term and without that their simply is not long term.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Presupposes to rather iffy conclusions. First that energy sources are easily replacable. That is that you can get off fosil fuels and into renewable fuels immidiately or nearly so. And to the extent that you are suggesting that the taxes from the carbon tax will go to finance the R&D of renewable fuel sources, I think that is a rather large stretch since most countries are having trouble financing social welfare programs like health, etc. 

 

Also what happens when you reduce consumption of fosil fuels but do not have renewable sources able to take up the slake? That is the scenerio I meant by saying a return to the Dark Ages. No matter how efficent we become (and efficiency itself has a rather large cost that you are not considering) there is no way that renewable sources will be able to make up for the shortfall in the short and medium term and without that their simply is not long term.

 

Nobody is saying this will happen right away. Obviously there needs to be a transition period where we still use fossil fuel, but the key point is that we need to invest in renewable energy and green technology. We have already seen a lot of progress in solar and wind energy, electric cars, and biofuel. Of course there is still a long way to go before we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, but we need to make the effort to get there, and not just sit on our asses hoping climate change isn't real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, solarz said:

 

Nobody is saying this will happen right away. Obviously there needs to be a transition period where we still use fossil fuel, but the key point is that we need to invest in renewable energy and green technology. We have already seen a lot of progress in solar and wind energy, electric cars, and biofuel. Of course there is still a long way to go before we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, but we need to make the effort to get there, and not just sit on our asses hoping climate change isn't real.

And we aree making the effort. The small improvements in renewable energy technalogy that we have experienced is a testiment to that. However, a carbon fuel tax or such schemes have only one purpose to reduce the use of fosil fuels at a time when there are no reasonable alternatives. The logic of that leads to a New Dark Age. It would be one thing if we already had the proven technalogy for renewable energy and if real hard dollar costs of gearing up such industries was anywhere near comparable to the maintenance of our fosil fuel infrastructure but neither is the case. 

 

There is obviously a need for renewable energy. The best way to have it developed is through market mechanisms and the private sector. Government intereference will only through a lot of money into politically motivated ventures and actually delay the advancement of the needed knowledge and application of the technalogy. 

 

This however, will take time, and it's actually counter-productive to artificially lower energy consumption in the mean time through the use of carbon taxes or similar "altruisitic" but rationally idiotic measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

And we aree making the effort. The small improvements in renewable energy technalogy that we have experienced is a testiment to that. However, a carbon fuel tax or such schemes have only one purpose to reduce the use of fosil fuels at a time when there are no reasonable alternatives. The logic of that leads to a New Dark Age. It would be one thing if we already had the proven technalogy for renewable energy and if real hard dollar costs of gearing up such industries was anywhere near comparable to the maintenance of our fosil fuel infrastructure but neither is the case. 

 

There is obviously a need for renewable energy. The best way to have it developed is through market mechanisms and the private sector. Government intereference will only through a lot of money into politically motivated ventures and actually delay the advancement of the needed knowledge and application of the technalogy. 

 

This however, will take time, and it's actually counter-productive to artificially lower energy consumption in the mean time through the use of carbon taxes or similar "altruisitic" but rationally idiotic measures.

 

The purpose of the government is to direct the efforts of a society toward a better future. That includes directing the market through taxes and incentives. Left on its own, tobacco companies would be trying to get kids to smoke. Government intervened once we realized the dangers of smoking, introduced taxes on cigarettes and restrictions on tobacco advertising.

 

Likewise, left on its own, the market would happily use up all the fossil fuel we have, leading to an economic collapse in 100 years. You yourself have pointed out that renewables won't be economically profitable for a long time yet, so how would market be able to transition on its own to renewables? All R&D requires significant investment, which is why we have patent and copyright laws in order to make private sector R&D profitable, but some R&D necessitates government intervention, and renewable energy is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The purpose of the government is to direct the efforts of a society toward a better future. That includes directing the market through taxes and incentives. Left on its own, tobacco companies would be trying to get kids to smoke. Government intervened once we realized the dangers of smoking, introduced taxes on cigarettes and restrictions on tobacco advertising."

 

The purpose of government is to protect from foreign and domestic threats to the society. 

 

 

"some R&D necessitates government intervention, and renewable energy is one of them."

 

Really? What makes renewable sources of energy in the 21st century any different then the development of steam and then combustion engine power in the 18th and 19th centuries? What makes it different from the development of oil as an energy source in the 19th centrury or natural gas in the 20th century? You are making a claim based on your preconceived notions of the limitations of the market not on any rational argument based on hard facts.

 

The government intervention as such only quickened the market reality. Once the nature of tobacco smoking was scientificly known the rate of smokers began to decline. The purpose of the taxation of tobacco like all "sin" taxes was to raise revenue on the backs of products with only limited sociatal acceptance.

 

The market would certainly use fosil fuels rewards of the market would also incentivise the development of knew renewable and cheap sources of fuel. As the supply of fossil fuels would begin to decline and prices would rise, there would be greater and greater market incentive for private parties to develop renewable energy sources. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 4:53 PM, CUBAREY said:

Really? What makes renewable sources of energy in the 21st century any different then the development of steam and then combustion engine power in the 18th and 19th centuries? What makes it different from the development of oil as an energy source in the 19th centrury or natural gas in the 20th century? You are making a claim based on your preconceived notions of the limitations of the market not on any rational argument based on hard facts.

 

We can argue what the "free market" can or cannot do, but that's beside the point.

 

The point is that climate change is real, and that human kind needs to take action to mitigate that change. Whether you think that is best achieved through government intervention or left to the market is another debate, but first we need to acknowledge the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, solarz said:

 

We can argue what the "free market" can or cannot do, but that's beside the point.

 

The point is that climate change is real, and that human kind needs to take action to mitigate that change. Whether you think that is best achieved through government intervention or left to the market is another debate, but first we need to acknowledge the issue.

First we have to determine whether it's an issue, how large it is, and whether we can do anything constructive about the problem without driving ourselves into bankruptcy or the dark ages. Then we can debate wether governments should have any real role in providing the solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CUBAREY said:

First we have to determine whether it's an issue, how large it is, and whether we can do anything constructive about the problem without driving ourselves into bankruptcy or the dark ages. Then we can debate wether governments should have any real role in providing the solutions.

 

Scientists have determined that yes, it is an issue, and yes, it is large.

 

However, questioning whether we can do anything about the problem is beside the point. The obstacles we face right now is not one of technology and engineering, but one of will. Too many people still refuse to believe in either climate change, or the serious consequences of climate change. They prefer to argue the finer points or pass the buck to other countries or future generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, solarz said:

 

Scientists have determined that yes, it is an issue, and yes, it is large.

 

However, questioning whether we can do anything about the problem is beside the point. The obstacles we face right now is not one of technology and engineering, but one of will. Too many people still refuse to believe in either climate change, or the serious consequences of climate change. They prefer to argue the finer points or pass the buck to other countries or future generations.

Except of course that it is still very much an open scientific question whether it's a real issue (beyond natural climate change which may be in fact entering into a volitile phase which we have not experienced for hundreds if not thousands of years. Also, even if we agree that it's in fact a major issue you still have to show that any of the current proposals will address the issue in a way that is not as devastating or worse for our civilization. You address all those issues and then we can talk about will or technalogical feasibility.

 

And what does all this to do with explaining religiosity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really not an open issue on if man has contributed to it. The only "open" aspect of the question is "how much". But there is a consensus that yes, it is a thing, and yes we have contributed to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lenlo said:

Its really not an open issue on if man has contributed to it. The only "open" aspect of the question is "how much". But there is a consensus that yes, it is a thing, and yes we have contributed to it.

Again that there is climate change I do not dispute. That it is man made or that we have significantly contributed to it is still an open question. But even if I were to agree for arguments sake that its totally man made you would still have to show that it's actually a significant threat and even more importantly that we can do anything that will significantly lesson the change without destroying the level of our civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Its not a question, man HAS contributed to it. Thats not disputed by any respectable scientific group on earth. Everyone but you agrees that, YES, this is most likely our fault. I swear your like a highschooler than can't believe they got a C- on a report card.

 

2) Renewable/non-fossil fuel energy. Replace coal and oil with nuclear and solar. Reduce our consumption of plastic by actually reusing thrown away plastic, so we don't need to constantly make more. Reduce the massive deforestation campaigns that have been going on, plant more trees, because trees reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 8:31 PM, CUBAREY said:

Well as long as you can get someone to house a spent fuel site.  

 

But yes, nuclear is much better then not only fosil fuels but so-called renewable sources.

 

Nuclear is *a* solution, but not *the* solution.

 

The problem with nuclear energy is that it is not portable. You can't power cars with nuclear energy, unless it's indirectly through a conventional battery. Production is only half the battle, the other half is transportation.

 

The other issue is, as you said, spent fuel. Right now it may not seem like such a big deal, because of our energy needs are still being met by fossil fuel, but if nuclear energy started to be the main power source of the planet, then nuclear waste would become a big problem.

 

The third problem is malfunction. Breakdowns may be rare, but the consequences are extremely severe. Only two nuclear reactors in Japan created radiation clouds that spanned half the globe.

 

For those two reasons, nuclear energy has an effective scaling ceiling. There are research in better nuclear technologies though, such as molten salt reactors. Perhaps one day, we may even master fusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, solarz said:

 

 

The third problem is malfunction. Breakdowns may be rare, but the consequences are extremely severe. Only two nuclear reactors in Japan created radiation clouds that spanned half the globe.

 

 

This is BS.

 

There have been -3- serious nuclear events in, what, 60 years of nuclear power? Two by human error (preventable by better safety systems) and one by a 9.1 magnitude earth quake.

 

How many oil spills have there been?

Tanker explosions?

Mining cave ins?

 

Carbon extraction and transportation is much more dangerous than nuclear power, but, somehow, not as scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyzack said:

 

This is BS.

 

There have been -3- serious nuclear events in, what, 60 years of nuclear power? Two by human error (preventable by better safety systems) and one by a 9.1 magnitude earth quake.

 

How many oil spills have there been?

Tanker explosions?

Mining cave ins?

 

Carbon extraction and transportation is much more dangerous than nuclear power, but, somehow, not as scary.

A 9.1 magnitude earthquake followed by a Tsunami, which then had 0 death attributed to nuclear radiation and was generally safely handled.

 

Nuclear is far safer then opponents would have you believe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyzack said:

 

This is BS.

 

There have been -3- serious nuclear events in, what, 60 years of nuclear power? Two by human error (preventable by better safety systems) and one by a 9.1 magnitude earth quake.

 

How many oil spills have there been?

Tanker explosions?

Mining cave ins?

 

Carbon extraction and transportation is much more dangerous than nuclear power, but, somehow, not as scary.

 

Chernobyl is still uninhabitable.

 

How many oil spills, tanker explosions, and mining cave-ins do you know of is still deadly after 30 years?

 

4 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

A 9.1 magnitude earthquake followed by a Tsunami, which then had 0 death attributed to nuclear radiation and was generally safely handled.

 

Nuclear is far safer then opponents would have you believe

 

Fukushima happened only 6 years ago. The health effects of radiation can take decades to manifest. The Chernobyl disaster resulted in thousands of cases of thyroid cancer among children. Already, a 2012 screening program reported that 36% of children in the Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands.

 

You talk as if earthquakes were rare. They're not. The 9.1 magnitude earthquake happened undersea. If it had occurred on land, a far lesser earthquake would have caused a lot more damage.

 

Nuclear energy is generally safe, but part of that is because it's not our main source of energy. If nuclear plants became more ubiquitous, we would be seeing a lot more incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, it wasnt the earthquake that broke the plant. The plant was fine after the earthquake. What took it out was the Tsunami. The earthquake caused the reactors to shutdown, as their failsafes are want to do. The Tsunami took out emergency generators which powered cooling.

 

So yeah, im not worried about earthquakes. The plants are built to deal with those. A "far lesser earthquake" wouldnt even put a dent in a plant like the Fukushima Daini Plant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Like I said, it wasnt the earthquake that broke the plant. The plant was fine after the earthquake. What took it out was the Tsunami. The earthquake caused the reactors to shutdown, as their failsafes are want to do. The Tsunami took out emergency generators which powered cooling.

 

So yeah, im not worried about earthquakes. The plants are built to deal with those. A "far lesser earthquake" wouldnt even put a dent in a plant like the Fukushima Daini Plant. 

 

That's the funny thing about accidents: you don't expect them. Fukushima is a good example. The designers of the plant accounted for earthquake, but failed to account for a tsunami.

 

In any risk calculation, you have to take into account both the probability and the outcome. Nuclear accidents have far more severe consequences than an oil spill, however bad that already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your basically saying "Im afraid of us not doing it right, so lets not do it at all"?

 

When the alternative is Fossil fuels, which are destroying the habitability of our planet.

 

Tell me, how many nuclear disasters have taken place in America? Even though we have 99 nuclear reactors in this country? Id wager you didnt even know we had that many. Thats a pretty good sign that there hasnt been any trouble since nuclear power started being prevalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How many oil spills, tanker explosions, and mining cave-ins do you know of is still deadly after 30 years?"

 

Have you ever heard of Centralia, PA. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-abandoned-pennsylvania-town-has-been-on-fire-for-53-years_us_55df6490e4b08dc09486d4a0

 

 

"In any risk calculation, you have to take into account both the probability and the outcome. Nuclear accidents have far more severe consequences than an oil spill, however bad that already is."

 

 

According to you Catastrophic Climate Change is a certainty unless we quickly and drasticly curtail fusil fuel use. "Renewable Sources" of energy do not represent a viable alternative at present. They very well may in the midterm future 30-40 years. But according to you we cannot wait that long to cut our dependence on fusil fuels if we want to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change. It seems to me that under that scenerio Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative. We can switch from fusil fuels to nuclear in a much shorter period then we could switch to "renewable" sources since the technalogy is not their yet. 

 

While nuclear power does include certain risks, such risks pale in comparison to what you describe are the sure effects of catastrophic climate change. In any risk assessment one much not only measure the risks but the benefits. According to your own estimations the risks of Climate change are cataclixmic. Since nuclear power is the only alternative readily available today it must be embraced even though it brings with it risks. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lenlo said:

So your basically saying "Im afraid of us not doing it right, so lets not do it at all"?

 

When the alternative is Fossil fuels, which are destroying the habitability of our planet.

 

Tell me, how many nuclear disasters have taken place in America? Even though we have 99 nuclear reactors in this country? Id wager you didnt even know we had that many. Thats a pretty good sign that there hasnt been any trouble since nuclear power started being prevalent.

 

This is a false dichotomy. Nuclear energy is not the only alternative source of energy.

 

According to this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.7ecf9baf419a

 

There are 61 nuclear power plants in the US.

 

 

15 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

 

That is interesting, but an underground fire doesn't create radioactive fallout. It is hardly comparable.

 

15 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

According to you Catastrophic Climate Change is a certainty unless we quickly and drasticly curtail fusil fuel use. "Renewable Sources" of energy do not represent a viable alternative at present. They very well may in the midterm future 30-40 years. But according to you we cannot wait that long to cut our dependence on fusil fuels if we want to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change. It seems to me that under that scenerio Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative. We can switch from fusil fuels to nuclear in a much shorter period then we could switch to "renewable" sources since the technalogy is not their yet. 

 

While nuclear power does include certain risks, such risks pale in comparison to what you describe are the sure effects of catastrophic climate change. In any risk assessment one much not only measure the risks but the benefits. According to your own estimations the risks of Climate change are cataclixmic. Since nuclear power is the only alternative readily available today it must be embraced even though it brings with it risks. 

 

Again, false dichotomy. The calculation of nuclear energy is not just in comparison to climate change, but rather in comparison with other sources of alternative energy.

 

Like I said, nuclear energy has a scaling problem. Its two major challenges, safety and waste, would get exponentially more difficult to manage as the number of nuclear plants increase. It can be a part of the solution, as one source of energy among others, but it cannot by itself resolve the challenges of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now