The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

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.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9467
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: The 'Green New Deal' is Stupid, Grade-A Counterproductive Bullshit

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:05 pm

Red wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:49 pm
According to his Wikipedia page, he has a Ph.D. in theoretical particle physics, and an Ivy League Bachelor's degree in Physics, so he has no excuse for this type of thinking.

So is he inane or insane? Or both?
It's not the particle physics he's wrong about, it's the probability of terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into a nuclear power plant.
He's speaking outside his expertise and out of his ass, which is common when scientists try to do that.

The appropriate person to speak on the chances of terrorists targeting a nuclear plant would be a CIA counter-terrorism specialist or something, not a theoretical physicist.

But yes, he's nuts, it's his fear mongering (plus his apparent qualifications to the layman) are very damaging.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:38 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:05 pm
It's not the particle physics he's wrong about, it's the probability of terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into a nuclear power plant.
He's speaking outside his expertise and out of his ass, which is common when scientists try to do that.

The appropriate person to speak on the chances of terrorists targeting a nuclear plant would be a CIA counter-terrorism specialist or something, not a theoretical physicist.

But yes, he's nuts, it's his fear mongering (plus his apparent qualifications to the layman) are very damaging.
Well, I more was trying to say that he seems to be an intelligent man who is denying an energy source that has a little relation to what he majored in. I've said before that it should generally be a rule of thumb that good scientists would be more humble in regards to the other disciplines they have little or no understanding or expertise of. Am I being too charitable?

I mean, I've seen it happen a few times; Sam Harris, a neuroscientist talk about nutrition, or Carl Sagan, an astronomer, talk about biology, but how widespread could this be?

Anyway, going by what you're saying, I think he's just pulling asinine reasons out of his ass so he has some reason to be against nuclear (and maybe he's a bit racist?). That's just a guess though.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:49 pm

Read the posts but nothing of value to add at the moment. May check out the Pandora's promise video.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9467
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:34 pm

Red wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:38 pm
Anyway, going by what you're saying, I think he's just pulling asinine reasons out of his ass so he has some reason to be against nuclear (and maybe he's a bit racist?). That's just a guess though.
Judging by how he apparently treated his staff and coworkers, apparently a shitty person in general.


@Jamie in Chile
I looked over that study. They made a few important errors:
Uranium mining and milling Bird fatalities from toxic waste ponds and mill and mine sites 0.228
Plant operation Bird collisions with nuclear cooling towers and equipment 0.188
Total 0.416
They combine plant operation with Uranium mining/milling, but Uranium recycled from nuclear weapons and likely breeder reactors as well do not have this issue. That would cut the number in half or more.

They also failed to account for the industrial pollution and mining from the manufacturing of wind turbines. This may be less for wind, but given the life spans and energy intensivity it's likely non-zero.

They also didn't account for the differences in EROEI. Again, very important.

Wind is around 16 and nuclear is around 75.

That means you have to add on 1/16th more deaths for wind, and only 1/75th more for nuclear.

That raises the wind total from .269 to .285, vs. the cooling tower only deaths for nuclear at 0.191.

Realistically we're going to end up mining Uranium at some point, but it's also worth pointing out that there are ways to actually mitigate avian deaths from both cooling towers and mining operations... some ways that have been implemented after the collection of the data they use.
This is an omission verging on dishonesty on the part of the authors, although it could have been ignorance it would be irresponsible ignorance for somebody publishing a STUDY on this.

For example, just using flashing lights instead of non-flashing lights can make a big difference: https://www.partnersinflight.org/what-w ... ollisions/
However, birds are much less attracted to flashing tower lights and elimination of the non-flashing tower lights reduces the numbers of bird collisions by as much as 70%.

In 2015 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) changed tower lighting requirements to eliminate the use of non-flashing lights. Eliminating levels non-flashing lights and using only the accompanying levels of flashing lights maintains aircraft safety while decreasing tower lighting costs, maintenance costs, and migratory bird collisions.[...]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and FAA encourage owners of towers lit with non-flashing lights to update their tower lights and use only flashing lights. The FCC describes the simple process for completing this cost-saving task.
Most of the collisions they're counting happen at night, since birds were attracted to the non-flashing lights used at the time those tallies were taken. Otherwise, towers are solid and pretty visible during the day.

A 70% reduction would bring the nuclear total to 0.0573 from tower collisions.

Even if you added on ALL of the mining and milling fatalities, that would bring the total to 0.28834 (accounting for the EROEI). Not significantly more than wind. And that's only if you ignore recycling of weapons fuel, breeder reactors (which we need to use) etc.

There aren't really clear ways to mitigate risks from wind turbines... at least that aren't highly speculative and verging on science fiction today:
https://grist.org/climate-energy/for-th ... ollisions/
Most of those methods, if effective, could also be employed to further mitigate avian deaths from nuclear power, so they aren't really unique to reducing the footprint of wind.

The point is that given the data we have you can not say that Nuclear causes more deaths per energy output than wind, in fact it is probably less.

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:49 pm

I think the major point here is that both nuclear and wind, and solar cause FAR less deaths than fossil fuels. Criticizing wind for deaths is like criticizing vegans for mice dying in fields or methane bubbling out of rice paddies. Getting off fossil fuels is the key here. Looking at it from a deaths point of view, we need to replace fossil fuels by wind or nuclear or both. From a deaths point of view, it doesn't matter which.

I did watch the Pandora's promise video. I think it was useful and educational and entertaining.

I think that the case for nuclear is getting weaker over time though and will continue to do so, however. In retrospect, we should have gone to nuclear in the past (1990s or 2000s) when the chance of getting to close to 100% green/renewables looked very difficult, or at least very expensive. Even since the Pandora's promise video was made, wind and solar have fallen in price and in many places are now just cheaper than nuclear.

The case for nuclear is still good though. Just in retrospect, with how things are playing out on climate change, if we go back in time to when solar panels were a science experiment (1970s) it probably was very clear that we should have gone more to nuclear at that point.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9467
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:20 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:49 pm
I think the major point here is that both nuclear and wind, and solar cause FAR less deaths than fossil fuels. Criticizing wind for deaths is like criticizing vegans for mice dying in fields or methane bubbling out of rice paddies.
Sort of, but we could also compare it to something like palm oil.
Why support the worse option?

This is also particularly relevant given it's worse in virtually every way. More expensive, major issues with intermittency and storage, etc.
Much like palm oil is also inferior in terms of health compared with other vegetable oils.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:49 pm
Getting off fossil fuels is the key here. Looking at it from a deaths point of view, we need to replace fossil fuels by wind or nuclear or both. From a deaths point of view, it doesn't matter which.
But if one is not a viable replacement, then that's about as meaningful as saying we need to replace it with unicorn farts, nuclear, or both.

The bottom line is that anybody who thinks wind or solar are really viable on their own is not looking critically at the evidence. If people are rejecting nuclear for some irrational reason we need to try to sow doubt in wind and solar options so they'll reconsider (even with arguments that are more superficial emotional appeal). If they would accept the major arguments of EROEI and general points about viability on their own then those lesser arguments wouldn't be necessary.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:49 pm
Even since the Pandora's promise video was made, wind and solar have fallen in price and in many places are now just cheaper than nuclear.
Well, they're being manufactured with fossil fuel power.
Also, subsidies don't really count. The unfair levels of insurance required for nuclear plants are a problem too; since they have so much lower deaths per energy production, why is this necessary?
It's also questionable as to whether taking advantage of wealth disparities and lower standards for worker safety by manufacturing in China and importing is really fair either if we're to do a real head-to-head.
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:49 pm
The case for nuclear is still good though. Just in retrospect, with how things are playing out on climate change, if we go back in time to when solar panels were a science experiment (1970s) it probably was very clear that we should have gone more to nuclear at that point.
Viable and cost effective storage still is a science experiment, though. Solar will never be able to make up anything more than a fraction of the grid and will likely have to be supplemented with fossil fuels until that issue is solved.

Point of use off grid panels, particularly for non-essential functions,makes a lot of sense.
So too something like air conditioning where you can make a safe bet that energy use maps to sunlight availability.

The thing is that solar needs to accompany reliable base load power. It's not up to the task yet.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:04 pm

So the Green New Deal seems to be picking up steam and at school I've just been exposing it for the insane cuckery that it is. This obviously isn't enough though, but at least some people are sane:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... d5e42588d5

I'm becoming increasingly worried if someone like Cortez gets her way. Trump, I hate your fucking guts, but PLEASE veto this bill.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:24 pm

Forbes are biased against accepting the reality of climate change. Don't trust them.

However, now that I read that article, I actually think that particular article you posted is a good one.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:47 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:24 pm
Forbes are biased against accepting the reality of climate change. Don't trust them.

However, now that I read that article, I actually think that particular article you posted is a good one.
It's often a mixed bag when it comes to journalism and news stories and whatnot. Even Buzzfeed or FOX News have decent articles once in every 5 whiles.

It's pretty difficult to find a reliable source (Wikipedia is often my go to, but for news or politics related things, it's much less reliable), but if the article is advocating a scientific position, it's more than likely a good article (no guarantees).
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:18 pm

I've talked about PragerU so much on this forum that there's probably already enough to fill a book with, however, I saw this video and thought of this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erjenH3qKDY

I think this sort of proves what I said a while back in another thread about how very few people caring that much about nuclear power. PragerU is in favour of nuclear power, and yet not one of the criticisms they raised in this video focus on the Green New Deal's fantasy of getting rid of nuclear. We can only hope that those opposed to nuclear power are as dispassionate opposing it as they are defending it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests