Are Renewables Cheaper than Nuclear?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
teo123
Master in Training
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are Renewables Cheaper than Nuclear?

Post by teo123 » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:45 am

Red wrote:We have about 10 years until climate change starts hitting hard.
Where does that come from? I've attempted to debunk such statements in my first YouTube video.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2975
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:05 pm

teo123 wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:45 am
Where does that come from? I've attempted to debunk such statements in my first YouTube video.
The scientific consensus on global warming has been pretty absolute for many years now. It is happening, and humans are about 80-90% the cause, and it is a big threat.

Look into what the World Health Organization and other NGOs say about the matter.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm

What I said is that human operators might be removed perhaps in a situation of "war or civilizations collapsing".

Say you had a invading army that was known to be killing on sight, everyone might run away.

Or a super virus outbreak that was killing everyone.

Or, ironically, a nuclear war.

Or the government collapsed.

Or a targeted attack on the nuclear power plant by an opponent designed to cause disaster by removing the human errors.

Or some other total chaos situation.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2975
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:46 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
What I said is that human operators might be removed perhaps in a situation of "war or civilizations collapsing".
What makes you say those would happen? Again, consider the likelihood of this happening.

Would you say that the benefit of not having any plants for an extremely unlikely event is worth sacrificing the benefits of nuclear that will without a doubt help us?
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
Say you had a invading army that was known to be killing on sight, everyone might run away.
Everyone in the area is gone anyway, and even if the invading army settles down in the area, I'm sure they wouldn't want to be near a nuclear plant without people who have the ability to manage it.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
Or a super virus outbreak that was killing everyone.
That only happens in movies and video games (Plague Inc. is a pretty good game though).

Medicine and disease management has come a pretty long way ever since the Europeans killed 90% of American Indians with their diseases (most of which came from animals, which we all agree shouldn't be domesticating any more of (obstensibly)).

I know not every disease is like it, but to put it into a bit more perspective, think about how quickly we were able to combat AIDS. It was a huge epidemic back in the 80s, which wasn't really that long ago. And while we have created medicines and treatments for it, of course, the best medicine is preventative (i.e. safe sex, no sharing needles). Now it's nowhere near as big of a problem as it was, and even if you have AIDS today, if you live in a country with decent healthcare, you're very unlikely to die from it.

At this point, is it even worth trying to cure AIDS? It's like Heart Disease; Is it more cost-effective to create a cure for it, or just figure out how to educate people to not keep stuffing their pieholes with sludge? Or, better yet, advocate for veganism?
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
Or, ironically, a nuclear war.
Unlikely. All superpowers know that nothing good will come of nuclear war. I'm sure Kim Jong Il had this in mind when it came to his successor.

Not to mention, any nuclear proponents want the uranium in the weapons to be repurposed for energy purposes.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
Or the government collapsed.
Why would it happen though?

Most people want government.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
Or a targeted attack on the nuclear power plant by an opponent designed to cause disaster by removing the human errors.
Sorry, but that just sounds ridiculous. That's probably the closest thing you can do to nuclear war without any nuclear weapons, and we already discussed how that isn't going to happen.

Why would a country take a reactor from an enemy country? A country that needs nuclear power can make its own.

Even if this were to happen, there are laws to make sure Nuclear plants aren't blown up if they are attacked by terrorists.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:36 pm
Or some other total chaos situation.
Like? These are all just hypotheticals, with no real reason to think they'll happen.

If any of these happen, would there even be people in the area to be affected by it? Your hypotheticals seem to hint that the areas would be devoid of life. Nuclear Energy would be the solution to help ensure this all wouldn't happen I should mention.

And as I've mentioned, the countries where these would be most likely to happen don't even have Nuclear Plants anyway.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Master in Training
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:25 pm

Red wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:05 pm
teo123 wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:45 am
Where does that come from? I've attempted to debunk such statements in my first YouTube video.
The scientific consensus on global warming has been pretty absolute for many years now. It is happening, and humans are about 80-90% the cause, and it is a big threat.

Look into what the World Health Organization and other NGOs say about the matter.
The consensus is that the globe has been warming for the last century and that the man-made CO2 emissions have played some role in it. That's where the consensus ends. The claim that it's going to lead to some crazy catastrophe is a fringe theory in science. You need to distinguish between scientific consensus and intellectual climate.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2975
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:39 pm

teo123 wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:25 pm
The consensus is that the globe has been warming for the last century and that the man-made CO2 emissions have played some role in it. That's where the consensus ends. The claim that it's going to lead to some crazy catastrophe is a fringe theory in science. You need to distinguish between scientific consensus and intellectual climate.
I literally just said that the WHO and other NGOs are in agreement about this. Also take a look at the IPCC if you must. Are you skeptical of them now?
And it's not 'some' role, humans are a majority of the role.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Master in Training
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:13 am

Red wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:39 pm
teo123 wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:25 pm
The consensus is that the globe has been warming for the last century and that the man-made CO2 emissions have played some role in it. That's where the consensus ends. The claim that it's going to lead to some crazy catastrophe is a fringe theory in science. You need to distinguish between scientific consensus and intellectual climate.
I literally just said that the WHO and other NGOs are in agreement about this. Also take a look at the IPCC if you must. Are you skeptical of them now?
And it's not 'some' role, humans are a majority of the role.
1. WHO is hardly a reliable source about matters that are somewhat related to politics. During the Cold War, WHO kept publishing statistics that supposedly showed that, for instance, Cuba had good health care.
2. WHO isn't primarily concerned with environmental issues.
3. In what way is WHO an NGO?
4. Why would NGOs be reliable sources about those things? Greenpeace is an NGO, yet it keeps spreading anti-nuclear-energy and anti-GMO pseudoscience.
5. Have you watched my video? Why do you think my arguments against global warming being catastrophic aren't good?

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:03 pm

There are many scientists who think global warming is going to be really, really bad, like nothing we've seen in recorded or at least recent history. Maybe far worse than WW2 in suffering and death. That's not a consensus, but it's certainly not a fringe opinion either. Unfortunately, some of these scientists are a bit slow to put these opinions out there. But journalists and other climate scientists sometimes report that is a common opinion in private.

I think the consensus is that human activities have caused most or all global warming, rather than just some of it. I think Red is right on that one.

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:24 pm

Hi Red, I read your other reply. I don't think it will be productive to carry on this debate. Not because I am annoyed with you or because I thing your points are dead wrong or anything, and neither should you take this as being evidence of me backing off my argument or you winning - I learned long ago that you have to let people have the last word sometimes otherwise these things go on forever.

No, I want to stop because I think it will go round in circles with little of value to be added. At any rate, I don't have a lot of new ideas to add.

I would like to clarity that, although I wanted to explore this one point which is a negative point of nuclear, I am not anti-nuclear power. I am actually pro nuclear power and you and Brimstone Salad have helped me develop my ideas a little on that point in the past. That being said, I must have been at least slightly pro nuclear already since at least 2011 because I can distinctly remember being really annoyed when the Germans decided to close down their nuclear plants after Fukushima.

teo123
Master in Training
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:56 am

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:03 pm
There are many scientists who think global warming is going to be really, really bad, like nothing we've seen in recorded or at least recent history. Maybe far worse than WW2 in suffering and death. That's not a consensus, but it's certainly not a fringe opinion either. Unfortunately, some of these scientists are a bit slow to put these opinions out there. But journalists and other climate scientists sometimes report that is a common opinion in private.

I think the consensus is that human activities have caused most or all global warming, rather than just some of it. I think Red is right on that one.
The fact that there is one or a few scientists supporting some position doesn't mean it's a respectable position. Especially in the case of global warming, there is an enormous pressure on scientists both to claim it isn't happening (from the right-wing politicians, from oil companies) and to greatly exaggerate it (from left-wing politicians). The fact that somebody is very educated doesn't mean he or she is immune to lying for money or for political gain.

@Red, I meant to say that because WHO has many experts on nutrition, their position on, for instance, saturated fat "controversy" should be taken more seriously than your own judgement after you look at the literature (they are much less likely than you are to think fundamentally flawed "controlled" studies should be taken seriously). However, why should you trust WHO more than your own judgement about the hypothetical global warming catastrophe? Do you think those at WHO are even aware of the infrared radiation controversy I mentioned in the video, that most climate models predict infrared radiation from Earth will decrease due to the CO2 in the atmosphere, while it has actually been increasing over time, at a rate which suggests that the effect of CO2 to warm the Earth is about 6 times lower than the mainstream climate models assume?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests