2 of 3
2
Corporations Over Democracy?
Posted: 08 September 2013 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 07 September 2013 03:33 PM

OK, just to clarify my post for anyone who didn’t get it.  The energy put out by the sun and all stars is the result of nuclear fusion.  As such, when we use solar panels or wind power, it’s from the sun and therefore, ultimately, nuclear.  So I was merely being a wise-ass and saying I’m in favor of it, but keep it on the sun.  I wasn’t arguing for nuclear here.  Geez.

Occam

I have no problem with nuclear power as long as it’s 90 million miles away and no human is in charge of it. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
TromboneAndrew - 07 September 2013 12:39 PM

It is “made safe” in most reactors in the world. We just hear about the problem ones.

So, Fukashima would have been one of the “safe ones” just 3 years ago?
“Cause we didn’t hear about it yet?

All of this is to say nothing of the magical way in which nuclear waste is disposed of.
What do we do with it?
Shoot into space?  Bury it under a mountain?  Dump it deep in the ocean? Try to recycle it?
Wow..sounds like a real well thought out system…

{Parody-not based on facts, yet probably similar scenarios have played out multiple times and will continue in the future.}
Meanwhile….“here’s another fresh 30 tons of waste…, where do you want it?”
“Uhhh, hmmnn,....put it in that ditch for now.  I’m going to call up Moldovia or some country and see if they want to take it.”
“What will they do with it?”
“Oh they’re safe, they have been certified by the world community to dispose of it.”
Actually they just pay some Somali Pirates and they dump it in the sea.

The acquisition of scientific knowledge outpaces wisdom.
Nuclear energy is the perfect example of expediency for growth, outweighing sensible plans for the future.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 06:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2007-04-26

Since we’ve gotten off topic anyway and are discussing energy I think its important to avoid the artificial dichotomy of “good” energy and “bad” energy or green and not green or safe and unsafe. Nothing is that simple.

Obviously nuclear energy has some problems which you have outlined above but so do many other types of energy. All carbon energy sources are dangerous for other reasons but wind, solar and geothermal have shortcomings as well in that they are not universally available especially when they are most needed. They can also have harmful environmental effects through the carbon footprint required to mine the materials as well as manufacture and maintain the equipment. They can be unsightly and they are expensive as well.

Since there is no single energy source or category of energy source that it likely to be the solution to our energy requirements it seems like it would make much more sense to discuss when and where each type of energy ( including nuclear) fits into the overall plan rather than simply labeling some sources as good and others as bad and trying to solve our needs with only the “good” sources.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Until recently, I agreed with you about nuclear energy being a necessary, if temporary, solution to our needs, Macgyver.  However, from a number of articles on current research on improving solar energy recovery, I think by the time we get people to recognize the damage that coal and petroleum do, we may be able to switch over without needing nuclear.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

A friend pushes liquid floride thorium reactors as the answer to safe nuclear power. I don’t know enough about the science to be able to assess it, but from a layman’s point of view, it looks promising.  I agree that we need some alternative to fossil fuels for our future (and present) energy needs but jumping from the frying pan into the fire (which is what we too often do) may not be the best path to take. I hope the scientists on this forum can weigh in on the practicality and safety of this technology. 


http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 09 September 2013 06:30 AM

Since there is no single energy source or category of energy source that it likely to be the solution to our energy requirements it seems like it would make much more sense to discuss when and where each type of energy ( including nuclear) fits into the overall plan rather than simply labeling some sources as good and others as bad and trying to solve our needs with only the “good” sources.

How delightfully lukewarm MacGeyver.
Perhaps you could offer up some ideas on what types of energy should be used, where and when.
Let me guess, solar is good for the daytime , and wind is good for places that have lots of wind.
And Nuclear is good for places like Japan which have virtually no natural resources.
Is that it?

There’s too many people.  And there is too much frivolous energy use.  There is no need to see lit up areas of the Earth from space at night.
There’s no need for 500 cars going down the interstate in one hour, on trips of over 100 or more miles, with one occupant each.
These and many more frivolous energy uses and wastes are why we have nuclear power plants and coal plants poisoning the world.

I knew somebody was going to bring up the hackneyed counter about how fossil fuels are bad too.
No kidding!!!
Can’t we talk about Nukes here?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 03:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-02-02
Occam. - 09 September 2013 12:06 PM

Until recently, I agreed with you about nuclear energy being a necessary, if temporary, solution to our needs, Macgyver.  However, from a number of articles on current research on improving solar energy recovery, I think by the time we get people to recognize the damage that coal and petroleum do, we may be able to switch over without needing nuclear.

Occam

Problem is, human energy needs are always going to increase.  Over a billion people on the planet have either no access to electricity, or only very limited access.  We can’t get them to agree to live in squalor, so they’re going to be building up and demanding energy.  While things like LED bulbs use less juice than a conventional incandescent bulb, Jevon’s Paradox says that because of this, we’re going to wind up using more of them to the point that it erases the energy savings created by adopting them.

Then there’s the technology which is in development, that’s going to put further demands on our energy needs.  Researchers are currently at work on developing a “paint” that will allow you to turn entire walls into an HDTV.  Even if it uses only a handful of watts to run, the sheer number of walls that will be painted with the stuff means that in the end, our demands for energy are going to go up.  There’s also the trend of sticking computer chips and internet connectivity into anything.  Nobody needs a light switch that’s hooked up to the internet, and allows you to control your lights from anywhere on the planet, but they exist.  No doubt, a decade or so from now, we’ll have “smart couches” which weigh you when you sit down, and do other things (monitor your blood pressure, activity level, etc.), and the same kind of tech will be stuffed into anything else you can imagine, and probably a dozen other things that you can’t imagine.

Even if you can build solar cells that are able to turn 99% of the sun’s energy into electricity, we’ll find a way to use it, and there’s only a finite amount of space on the Earth you can put solar cells.  (The plants we need to produce oxygen gotta have light too, you know.)

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2007-04-26

Vyazma of course we can talk about nuclear and that is what I am suggesting, that it not be take entirely off the table when we try to discuss an overall energy plan. If we can come up with a plan that uses no nuclear sources and the overall risk is less than great but if we throw out this option from the start then we may come up with a plan that is even riskier in the long run.

You are correct to point out that I neglected to mention energy conservation as part of the plan but as tucker pointed out it is not the solution, but just another tool in the tool box

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 09 September 2013 03:23 PM

Vyazma of course we can talk about nuclear and that is what I am suggesting, that it not be take entirely off the table when we try to discuss an overall energy plan. If we can come up with a plan that uses no nuclear sources and the overall risk is less than great but if we throw out this option from the start then we may come up with a plan that is even riskier in the long run.

You are correct to point out that I neglected to mention energy conservation as part of the plan but as tucker pointed out it is not the solution, but just another tool in the tool box

I hear ya, Mac.  Obviously balance and realistic expectations are part of the scenario.
I used the term scenario for an important reason though.

I don’t think there is a toolbox.  There never has been a toolbox and there probably never will be.
Tools imply planning and smart utilization.
That is definitely not the case in regards to coal, nuclear, wind, solar or anything.
It could have been.  But we can easily see that it has very little resemblance to anything that was planned based on science.
If it’s based on capitalism, then the planning is very clear.
More power-more people-more products-more energy!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Coldheart Tucker - 09 September 2013 03:05 PM

Problem is…...build solar cells that are able to turn 99% of the sun’s energy into electricity, we’ll find a way to use it, and there’s only a finite amount of space on the Earth you can put solar cells.  (The plants we need to produce oxygen gotta have light too, you know.)

Yes, I agree with everything.(maybe some of the technologies you described won’t pan out, but others will)
That’s why Government must step in and regulate population growth and technology use.  Plain and simple.
Because there is no plan to provide energy for all of that crap you mentioned.
The only plan is to plan on building the cheapest power sources for the most profitable return.
That means coal and nuclear and gas. The dirtiest energy gives the most bang for the buck.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-02-02
VYAZMA - 09 September 2013 04:55 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 09 September 2013 03:05 PM

Problem is…...build solar cells that are able to turn 99% of the sun’s energy into electricity, we’ll find a way to use it, and there’s only a finite amount of space on the Earth you can put solar cells.  (The plants we need to produce oxygen gotta have light too, you know.)

Yes, I agree with everything.(maybe some of the technologies you described won’t pan out, but others will)
That’s why Government must step in and regulate population growth and technology use.  Plain and simple.

Good luck with that.  Current projections have us developing replicator-like technology in less than 2 decades.  Once that happens, all bets are off, when it comes to controlling technology.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 06:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Coldheart Tucker - 09 September 2013 05:47 PM

Good luck with that.  Current projections have us developing replicator-like technology in less than 2 decades.  Once that happens, all bets are off, when it comes to controlling technology.

What is “replicator technology”?  Something you saw on Star Trek, or more over hype about 3D printing?
I kind of mis-spoke when I said “control technology”.  I meant control energy distribution, thereby controlling technology.
We can either do it ourselves, or “Mother Nature” will do it for us.

For starters, we ain’t never going to see all of the Asians and Indians(2.5-3.5 Billions) ever realize anything close to what we Westerners take for granted.
The reason is simple.  There are not enough resources, energy or otherwise to sustain that kind of growth. The air quality and water quality won’t bear it either.

What is it, 25-35% percent of the planet’s population has cars and indoor plumbing…roundabout?
And we are already stretching the environment and resources to the limit. In a quick 150-160 years.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-02-02
VYAZMA - 09 September 2013 06:41 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 09 September 2013 05:47 PM

Good luck with that.  Current projections have us developing replicator-like technology in less than 2 decades.  Once that happens, all bets are off, when it comes to controlling technology.

What is “replicator technology”?  Something you saw on Star Trek, or more over hype about 3D printing?

Its not over-hype, when it comes to 3D printing.  I’m optimistic when it comes to the technology, and researchers are already exceeding my expectations for the stuff.  With modified inkjet printers they can print out organs, and that’s behind what can be done with the machines capable of printing out items in plastic and metal, in terms of R&D.  The pace is going to accelerate next year, when many of the patents on the technology expire. 

I kind of mis-spoke when I said “control technology”.  I meant control energy distribution, thereby controlling technology.
We can either do it ourselves, or “Mother Nature” will do it for us.

For starters, we ain’t never going to see all of the Asians and Indians(2.5-3.5 Billions) ever realize anything close to what we Westerners take for granted.
The reason is simple.  There are not enough resources, energy or otherwise to sustain that kind of growth. The air quality and water quality won’t bear it either.

You try telling the Chinese they can’t continue to build power plants (currently, every year they’re adding as much power generating capacity as exists in the whole of England).  We can block our exports of coal to them, but that just means they’ll continue to mine the stuff they have there, which is far dirtier than anything we have.  Trying other means to stifle their economic growth will only lead to war.

What is it, 25-35% percent of the planet’s population has cars and indoor plumbing…roundabout?
And we are already stretching the environment and resources to the limit. In a quick 150-160 years.

Yup, and the rest of the world has seen what we want, and they want it pretty bad.  You think China and India will sit quietly while we try to tell them they have to continue to live in poverty?  I can’t see that sitting well with them at all, and considering both of them have nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to US soil, I can’t see us forcing them to stay where they are now.  There are technologies coming which can mitigate the damage, but they’ll never eliminate it completely, and reducing the pollution caused by cars by 90% doesn’t do much, when you increase the percentage of cars on the road by a thousand-fold.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2013 04:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Coldheart Tucker - 09 September 2013 07:09 PM

You try telling the Chinese they can’t continue to build power plants (currently, every year they’re adding as much power generating capacity as exists in the whole of England).  We can block our exports of coal to them, but that just means they’ll continue to mine the stuff they have there, which is far dirtier than anything we have.  Trying other means to stifle their economic growth will only lead to war.

Hopefully we won’t have to tell them to stop.  Hopefully they will hit critical mass in a decade or two. There’s lot’s of things that can stifle their economic growth.
When I spoke of Government regulation I meant the US.  But of course I hope every government regulates their own growth in relation to environment degradation.

Yup, and the rest of the world has seen what we want, and they want it pretty bad.  You think China and India will sit quietly while we try to tell them they have to continue to live in poverty?  I can’t see that sitting well with them at all, and considering both of them have nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them to US soil, I can’t see us forcing them to stay where they are now.  There are technologies coming which can mitigate the damage, but they’ll never eliminate it completely, and reducing the pollution caused by cars by 90% doesn’t do much, when you increase the percentage of cars on the road by a thousand-fold.


In both instances I’ve quoted here, you assumed I said we are going to tell those nations to cease growth. You’re saying-“You try telling the Chinese..” and
“You think China and India will sit quietly while we try to tell them to live in poverty…”

I never said we will have to tell China or India or South America anything. I’m saying resources and environment will not bear that load.
That’s all. That’s all it will take.  Plus, a darn good chance of other forms of instability along the way.
I can envision this growth you tout at a world population of about 3-4 billion.  Not 8-12 Billion(or more, which is what will happen with the scenario you speak of.)

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2013 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  451
Joined  2012-02-02

Given that the Chinese government tends to turn a blind eye to the thousands of illegal coal mines and power plants currently operating in China, I can’t see them putting the brakes on growth. If they try, I doubt that the Communist government would remain in power for very long. The chaos and disorder which would arise from a revolution would be far worse, from an environmental standpoint, than the government allowing growth to continue.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2