French Uprising 2018

[pinstripers]

I thought they were revolting before they began to revolt

[wufan]

The protests are supported by nearly 3/4 of France. Up until this weekend I had seen it being reported as working class, right wing populists. Now it is being said that the protests include leftists and middle class.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672862353/who-are-frances-yellow-vest-protesters-and-what-do-they-want

[ShockerPrez]

And there is France surrendering the health of the planet in the face of rioters.... sad.

Climate change doesn't care about rioters. This tax is necessary to save our lives! We only have a few years to act. We cant wait 6 months!

[ShockTalk]

And, yes, the US can put a dent in it, but everyone, particularly in Asia, needs to be on board or it's for not. It is debatable how much control we have over climate change, but we have at least some affect. Pollution of the air we breath, pollution of the ground effecting aquifers, the tons upon tons of garbage, pollution of the rivers, seas, and oceans and the effect on water we drink, put in our fields, the effect on food we eat. All this is directly on us.

[ShockerPrez]

No argument here. I think that as societies advance, we inevitably will become a cleaner society. But depriving society of cheap energy only stifles this progress.

I think higher energy costs is also unfair to the poorest.

[wufan]

I wonder if the car burning is offsetting the carbon saved by driving less?

[C0|dB|00ded]

I'm 100% for being good stewards of the planet. But you cannot ruin the lives of your populace with market disrupting legislation. Incentivize businesses to be thoughtful and clean. Be realistic, non-partisan, and educate the public in a non-confrontational/alarming way.

"Saving the planet" starts with the consumers. Use your dollars to save the planet by buying clean. Stop using plastic all the time, it's not good for you anyway. Go back to washing those dishes. If you buy a battery car consider investing in alternative charging technology.

This is a separate topic but why aren't we using primarily nuclear reactors for our energy? Why do we still use coal? Hydro, wind, and nuclear should be all we need. I think we still obtain 50% of our nation's energy with coal. That seems weird to me.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

Nuclear is “scary” to lots of green groups, despite being ridiculously safe. I believe it was Germany that decided to shut down all its nuclear power and purchase fossil fuels from Russia. That is somehow better for the planet?

Solar and wind are unreliable, which means they must be supplemented by other primary sources and are therefore more costly.

Environmentalists don’t like it when you build hydro damns and change the water ecosystems.

Coal is is super cheap! By providing cheap efficient electricity to more people, humans flourish.

[jdshock]

Nuclear is “scary” to lots of green groups, despite being ridiculously safe. I believe it was Germany that decided to shut down all its nuclear power and purchase fossil fuels from Russia. That is somehow better for the planet?

You're not going to get people on board with nuclear, but it's not just green groups. People in general have hesitations about nuclear. It's gone wrong a couple of times before, and it went really wrong. But you can't just put that on "green groups." It's not like the right is out here saying "let's increase subsidies for nuclear power!" The right, broadly speaking, has hitched their wagon to coal.

I think a lot of environmentalists are less concerned about fears of a nuclear meltdown, and they are more concerned with the fact that nuclear is still a fossil fuel. We're talking about something that is a finite resource, requires mining, and necessarily produces waste (under current technologies anyway). Sure, it's a finite resource that should last indefinitely, it requires significantly less mining than coal, and the waste is relatively small. But there is at least some level of cognitive dissonance if I'm out here saying "coal is running out, the mining industry is damaging, and the pollution is terrible for our planet! so... let's replace it with nuclear!"

Solar and wind are unreliable, which means they must be supplemented by other primary sources and are therefore more costly.

The only logical conclusion from this point is that solar and wind are therefore more costly than solar and wind which didn't need to be supplemented by other primary sources. You cannot logically conclude that solar and wind are necessarily more costly than a primary source. Think about it in an extreme, if solar and wind were 1 cent per kilowatt hour, and coal were 10 cents, you would still drive prices down by supplementing with coal but primarily relying on solar and wind. Maybe solar and wind are more expensive than coal period, but that's a different argument.

Coal is is super cheap! By providing cheap efficient electricity to more people, humans flourish.

Alternatives are rapidly dropping in price and becoming cost competitive in their own right, if they aren't already. Good article on the subject. We are in the infancy of solar and wind tech, and it will only get cheaper. By definition, coal will only get more expensive. That's just pure direct cost alone. If you include externalities, solar and wind are radically cheaper already. I know you and many on here don't really buy global warming as a concept, but if you try to calculate those costs and include them in the price, coal is absolutely not "super cheap."

[Kung Wu]

Would be interesting to require companies operating nuclear plants to build two of them in geographically separate locations, but where they both power the same grid. Then one runs for, say, 5 years while the other is offline, then vice versa (based on the half life of the fuel there is probably a better duration -- just throwing an example out there). Then the offline plant can be properly maintained and upgraded during it's "off" years. This also gives proper redundancy in the event of an earthquake/tsunami/fire/catastrophic vent, and the ability to shut one down at a moment's notice.

[wufan]

You're not going to get people on board with nuclear, but it's not just green groups. People in general have hesitations about nuclear. It's gone wrong a couple of times before, and it went really wrong. But you can't just put that on "green groups." It's not like the right is out here saying "let's increase subsidies for nuclear power!" The right, broadly speaking, has hitched their wagon to coal.

I think a lot of environmentalists are less concerned about fears of a nuclear meltdown, and they are more concerned with the fact that nuclear is still a fossil fuel. We're talking about something that is a finite resource, requires mining, and necessarily produces waste (under current technologies anyway). Sure, it's a finite resource that should last indefinitely, it requires significantly less mining than coal, and the waste is relatively small. But there is at least some level of cognitive dissonance if I'm out here saying "coal is running out, the mining industry is damaging, and the pollution is terrible for our planet! so... let's replace it with nuclear!"



The only logical conclusion from this point is that solar and wind are therefore more costly than solar and wind which didn't need to be supplemented by other primary sources. You cannot logically conclude that solar and wind are necessarily more costly than a primary source. Think about it in an extreme, if solar and wind were 1 cent per kilowatt hour, and coal were 10 cents, you would still drive prices down by supplementing with coal but primarily relying on solar and wind. Maybe solar and wind are more expensive than coal period, but that's a different argument.



Alternatives are rapidly dropping in price and becoming cost competitive in their own right, if they aren't already. Good article on the subject. We are in the infancy of solar and wind tech, and it will only get cheaper. By definition, coal will only get more expensive. That's just pure direct cost alone. If you include externalities, solar and wind are radically cheaper already. I know you and many on here don't really buy global warming as a concept, but if you try to calculate those costs and include them in the price, coal is absolutely not "super cheap."

I didn’t mean to infer that “only greenies” are against nuclear power, but they have the platform when it comes to the discussion. A lot to unpack in your post, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don’t. Will try and return to this thread to discuss more in depth. In the meantime, would you agree that the purpose of energy is to increase human flourishing, and that the net benefits need to outweigh the costs?

[jdshock]

would you agree that the purpose of energy is to increase human flourishing, and that the net benefits need to outweigh the costs?

Broadly speaking, that's probably right, but it doesn't really get us closer to the answer. Lots of terrible things have been justified throughout history for "the greater good." It just comes down to how you calculate benefits vs costs.

For example, we could just look at costs to consumers. Maybe with coal, an average consumer gets 7 cents per kilowatt hour of benefit and productivity, but it only costs 4 cents. Maybe if you add in price increases and cost increases due to global warming (price changes due to food, etc.), you have a 7 cent benefit vs a 7 cent cost. Even that level of analysis is pretty easy. But how do you value the utility from not strip mining beautiful mountain landscapes? How do you value the life of a coal worker developing long-term health effects? How do you value US companies moving to the forefront of tech innovation in renewables? There are a lot of considerations that are difficult if not impossible to value, and that's if we can agree on a specific cost to attribute to global warming and pollution caused by coal.

You can't just have direct cost to consumers. If you relied only on direct cost, slavery would be justified because the average consumer would be better off with slavery. Not that I think you're advocating for that. I'm just saying benefits outweighing costs doesn't get us anywhere without agreement about underlying costs. My first post, however, was simply about the price to a consumer and the indirect costs of global warming/pollution. That's probably a fine starting point.

[wufan]

We can certainly disagree on cost or how to solve the problem, but this agreement starts us off on a good faith discussion. We both want the same thing. I’m not advocating for the death of the planet so we can have cheap energy, and you’re not advocating that we should kill off part of the population in order to decrease harm to the earth.

[jdshock]

ShockTalk - It's definitely one of the stumbling blocks. The second you mention global warming, people line up on their partisan lines thinking it's a political issue. Every year, there are fewer and fewer people who do not believe humans have a significant effect on global warming, so I'm not convinced it's a stumbling block in the long term.

As for the pollution argument - I do appreciate that it's a compelling argument even to people who don't agree on the global warming points, but I don't think it fully resolves the issue. Outsourcing oil refineries or coal production does little for global warming, even if it resolves our local air quality problems. If it gets you on my team for the renewable discussion, I definitely welcome it. And I do think there are external costs associated with air quality problems, but I don't think I, or other proponents of renewables, need to ignore a separate large issue simply because some people view it as a political one.

[ShockTalk]

jdshock, that's the key. Find ground on an important issue that relates to a next step. Waiting years upon years to gain enough support on "one side's" hot topic does nothing to solve a very related subject. A subject that can bring people together for the better good of all. Making a difference now. People of different political views seeing how this working together has positive, tangible results. Having that kind of success on this related issue may be a bridge to the "next step". Instead, one side can't wait to get a hold of tax returns or impeachment that will not fly, but more importantly, wastes time and further divides.

Aside from this topic, the same thing is happening regarding immigration. The last 4 Presidents have all said about the same thing and that's having orderly, legal immigration. None mentioned "open boarders". That type of approach only divides. Much like building a wall. The only difference is that the problem is growing bigger and bigger and becoming more uncontrollable making that idea more of a must or something akin to it.

[Kung Wu]

I think a lot of environmentalists are less concerned about fears of a nuclear meltdown, and they are more concerned with the fact that nuclear is still a fossil fuel.

Say whuuut?

[jdshock]

Did you stop reading at that sentence you quoted? I said that it is not at risk of running out. I'm not out here advocating any of these arguments. I'm explaining cognitive dissonance that people may have when they advocate for nuclear energy over other renewables for environmental reasons.

[Kung Wu]

No, I didn't stop reading. It's just an invalid argument for anyone to assert, so there is no cognitive dissonance on the part of the environmentalist to replace coal with nuclear in this regard.

[jdshock]

I mean, I feel like this is becoming kind of a strange pissing match here, but you can certainly have cognitive dissonance with a false belief. I'm just trying to explain why a certain number of people feel the way they do. My entire point was that people on both sides are nervous about accidents, people on the right are in bed with coal, and some people on the left are nervous for x, y, and z reasons (see above). All of it is an argument as to why it's not going to catch on. You saying the underlying belief is wrong doesn't mean people don't believe it.

It's an invalid argument for anyone to assert that global warming isn't happening. Doesn't mean people don't believe it, ya know?

[wufan]

As mentioned above, from a renewable energy standpoint, the anti-nuclear position is not logical. Environmental impact is extremely low compared to other fossil fuels, and maybe even solar.

From a safety standpoint, the accidents are certainly horrific and scary, but in the 50 years of nuclear power world wide we are talking about total deaths in the hundreds. I think the “not safe” argument is bunk, but will listen to a counter position.

[C0|dB|00ded]

"huge swaths of land"

Are you using that Global Warming math again?

Chernobyl (1986), Fukushima (2011), Three Mile Island (1979). The rest of the pollution comes from crazy ass bomb making/testing (Russia) or mining practices of the past.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1,000 sq. miles. Maybe that's not a huge swath of land, but it's roughly the size of Rhode Island. I dunno.

Again, not out here saying nuclear is bad. I'm explaining people have the perception that it's dangerous. I'm completely flabbergasted that people are thinking that's a controversial statement. Telling me the argument is bad doesn't prove me wrong. You'd have to say people don't believe what I'm saying.

[C0|dB|00ded]

1000 sq. miles - 30x30. About the distance from Wichita to El Dorado east, and then El Dorado to Newton north. Not a "huge swath" when we are talking the entire planet. And Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident ever. And... RUSSIA!


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/111329...s-france-korea "Why America abandoned nuclear power (and what we can learn from South Korea"

Here's some education for ya'll. (Didn't know Vox actually produced real news.)

TL;DR version of the answer to the article's question: Libtards is why we don't have more nuclear power.


T


...:cool:

[Dark Lord]

If it were not for our own government and regulations we would have much more nuclear power today and we would all be better for it. Instead, applications are drawn out and regulations have increased costs significantly. So basically, it is our own damned fault that nuclear is not where it should be.

[wufan]

jdshock said, “Nuclear isn't happening. Relatively low levels of deaths, but huge swaths of land that are still unusable today. It's a boogeyman. I just don't think there's any chance nuclear gets widespread adoption in the US given predicted costs of solar and wind over the next decades.”

Yes, nuclear is the boogeyman. When my kids are scared of the boogeyman, I don’t pretend that they are correct and refuse to talk about it anymore. We need to talk about the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear specifically because it is the boogeyman. The best way to get people over their phobias is to expose theM to them. We need to talk about nuclear now.

[SHOCKvalue]

Are we inventing methods to retain and store wind/solar energy from whole cloth, or just ignoring the 747-sized fly in that ointment?

[pinstripers]

Ocean transport, or even semi-tractor-trailer