Bill Nye on nuclear

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:18 am

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Unfazed by Math.

Interesting.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:50 am

Bobbo

The total number of dam bursts have killed more than a million people, as shown in my reference. EM demanded I post a reference for proof. I have done so. Now in turn, I demand that you or he post a reference to prove that more than a million lives have been saved by dams. If you cannot, I claim you are posting bulldust.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:03 am

Lance: proper in form, but Trump like in its stupidity............as so easily proven with the shortest google: (Yangtse Flooding Deaths): https://www.google.com/search?q=Yangtze ... 8&oe=utf-8

Of note is hit number 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods that includes your dam break as a flood.

On your issue though, lets google (Main functions of dams): "Therefore, dams are constructed for a specific purpose such as water supply, flood control, irrigation, navigation, sedimentation control, and hydropower. A dam is the cornerstone in the development and management of water resources development of a river basin."
ICOLD CIGB > Role of Dams
www.icold-cigb.net/GB/dams/role_of_dams.asp

yeah...... I know. Floods kill people, dams control floods: no proof.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:31 am

http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat13/ ... m1046.html

Longer article on 3GD. It was a year to finish when I visited the site. High on a mountain top that was free from relocation. It was a farmers house and barn but had the feel of a Monastery. I would have been quite happy to move in and spend the rest of my days there. Nice view. Still breeze, Chirping birds. Weirdly....no one else around. Must have gone to town for the monthly shopping? Hmmm!==>I never would have trespassed. Must have been one person who let us in?

Of note is the silting concerns. That sure seems like dam design to me? Have some flood gates at the bottom and water release just for silting be conducted when needed? So interesting all the pollution collection problems caused by accumulations not being "flushed out to sea." Ha, ha........Pros and Cons and who's ox get gored perfectly demonstrated.

In an alt life....being involved in water control/management is endlessly fascinating to me. From dams to waste treatment to desalination. All kinds of tech, pros and cons, and oxen running all over the place.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:11 pm

Bobbo

Your case, which remains undemonstrated, is that hydro dams saved more lives than they took. A very dubious argument.

But, just to enter into the spirit of the thing, let me offer the following.
One of the byproducts of the nuclear industry is radio isotopes used in medicine. Some for diagnosis, and some for radiotherapy for cancer. Since Chernobyl killed only 49 people that we can be sure of, and probably not many we are not sure of, and since literally millions of an cancer patients have been saved by radiotherapy, let me suggest to you that the nuclear industry has saved far more lives than it took.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 04, 2017 5:54 am

Lance, you really think you, and you alone, have discovered the power of amortization ?

Institutional Investors are utterly desperate for reliable long-term investments, some kind of at least AA-grade projects to park money with stable returns for decades to come. But they don't invest in nuclear because the uncertainties are too great: these are the people how hired the smartest brains of the generation to work on Wall Street, and they tell you that current nuclear power on its own is not worth investing in.
Your key claim that it is irrational not to support nuclear power as it is today has been utterly debunked.
own up to it.

Concerning Hydro: not only does it help you control your water supply, they are also the largest batteries around, which make them very useful in conjunction with renewable energy. They are simply in a completely different league from other sources of power.
Yes, they need maintenance, but so do bridges and - gosh - nuclear power plants.
give it up.

And Lance - FYI: nuclear isotopes for medical purposes are not produced in industrial power plants but in laboratory-sized ones.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:00 am

EM

As I pointed out earlier, there are 60 new nuclear power stations under construction. That does not sound like a hopeless investment!
Www.world-nuclear.org have an article on the subject, under the title "Plans for New Reactors Worldwide."

It is not the need for maintenance I was discussing. As you said, everything needs maintenance. It is the simple fact that hydro has a long record of disasters. It is most definitely NOT safer than nuclear.

Your argument that dams can save lives is kinda irrelevant. That does not stop hydro being really, really dangerous!

You might make the following argument.
Surgeons use scalpels to save lives.
Scalpels are knives.
Therefore knives are good.
Therefore knives are not dangerous.
Duh!

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:27 am

And as I have stated repeatedly. those are fewer new nuclear stations than planed, and on those being built construction is slower and more costly than anticipated: both huge warning signs that investors are heeding.

When it comes to hydro, you've completely abandoned rational thinking about causes so that you can use the skewed data to promote your pet power source.
A history lesson: in the Golden Age of dam construction many got built in under-developed countries by foreign companies under World Bank loans or as a sneaking way for Western countries to support their own companies in the guise of foreign aid. After construction, these dam where left with local engineers and support infrastructure and a pile of debt, making it very attractive for local governments to never spend more than absolutely necessary to keep them running; this explains the sorry state many are in and the number of accidents these old and ill-maintained dams had: do you want to honestly tell me that if instead of the Hydroelectric plants the West had built Nuclear power stations in the same countries we would have had fewer accidents?

To make an honest comparison between the risks of running Hydro vs. Nuclear, we should turn to the countries which use these energies for most of their consumption: Norway and Japan. Both countries had decades of expertise, a highly educated workforce and the resources to do their best to prevent accidents.
Now for the quiz: which country had fewer problems with their chosen source of energy?

And WTF do you think you are proving with your stupid line of reasoning that wouldn't equally apply to nuclear power?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:29 am

It is basic numbers, EM.
You are trying to use false sophistry to get around those numbers. Hydro killed more than a million people. Nuclear probably less than 100. Both hydro and nuclear have been run in advanced and less advanced nation's. Chernobyl was in the Ukraine, which at the time was a third world country. That lack of sophistication contributed to the accident, and the accident probably would not have happened in a first world nation. The same applies to hydro accidents, but there have been a lot more and a lot worse hydro accidents.

You want to compare Japan and Norway, and you accuse ME of cherry picking data!!
I am comparing every damn hydro and nuclear plant world wide.

On numbers of nuclear power stations.
There are roughly 450 in operation, and another 60 under construction. That does not look to me like no one believes in them.
As I keep pointing out, the numbers tell a story, but you appear to be unable to understand and accept numbers.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:45 am

At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".[24]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

where are nuclear reactors in underveloped countries running without problems?
By putting Chernobyl in the "reactor run badly by 3rd world country" youve exactly proven my point: neither hydro nor nuclear are safe without the right skill, monitoring and infrastructure.
so you are comparing how safe hydro is compared to no power at all.
that is easily answered: way more people would have died in these countries without electricity.

numbers are a bitch if you cant pull them out of your arse without people complaining about the stink.

tell me: why can Norway run hydro without loss of life but Japan cant do the same for nuclear if the latter is in principle so much safer?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Your case, which remains undemonstrated, is that hydro dams saved more lives than they took. A very dubious argument.

But, just to enter into the spirit of the thing, let me offer the following.
One of the byproducts of the nuclear industry is radio isotopes used in medicine. Some for diagnosis, and some for radiotherapy for cancer. Since Chernobyl killed only 49 people that we can be sure of, and probably not many we are not sure of, and since literally millions of an cancer patients have been saved by radiotherapy, let me suggest to you that the nuclear industry has saved far more lives than it took.


Well.......... this go round......not an absolute rejection of facts you don't like. Progress of a sort?

1. The best evidence we have is that dams save millions of lives. What do you have to counter this except your own momentum?

2. .........Heh, heh..........you don't need to build a Nuke Bomb or Power Plant to create radio isotopes. So....did you even notice yourself doing that? Conflating what is relevant in with what is not???

You have a minus two on this issue.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:21 pm

EM

Absolutely NOTHING is 'safe' without responsibility. Do not pick nuclear out for that. But you keep ignoring the numbers. Nuclear has killed less than 100 people in 60 years. Hydro has killed over a million. You are like those idiots who justify hand gun ownership on the grounds that a person can be murdered with a knife. Yeah, but only a fraction as easily and a fraction as many people die.

Straw man alert! I was NOT comparing nuclear to no power.

Norway versus Japan.
Major accidents with power plants happen maybe once per decade world wide. There are about 195 nation's on our planet. Rather obviously, most have NEVER had a major accident from a power generator. So the fact that Norway has not had an accident means absolutely zilch. Please try to think.

Bobbo

Do hydroelectric dams save millions of lives? Where is your evidence?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:38 pm

EM

On the business of comparing nuclear and hydro, it occurred to me that a far more accurate method would be to look within the same country. Instead of comparing Japan and Norway, why not compare accident rates for each within a country that uses both methods? That would be comparing apples with apples without the logical distortions.

As it turns out, China has many power stations of both types. So we can compare the risk of each within one nation.

Guess what, genius?
China has had at least six hydro dam bursts, to a total death toll of just under a million. But not one death from a nuclear power accident.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: Bobbo

Do hydroelectric dams save millions of lives? Where is your evidence?

Its the direct inference that if the yangtze has a historical record of millions (whatever) dead over the years directly from flooding and millions more from consequences of that flooding (crop failure, disease and so forth) LINKS ABOVE and that after the Yangtze is damned there are no further such events........isn't that a saving a lives? What evidence do you want?

To that end........where did you pull up millions dead from dam failures?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:18 am

Bobbo

I did not say millions dead from dam failures. (Watch that straw man!) I said more than one million. Quite different. And I posted a reference some time back listing major dam failures and the death toll. 'More than one million' comes from adding the death toll of each. Bobbo, if you do not look at my references, you will miss things like this.

Your "inference" still remains, in my mind, probably speculation, since you have not posted a reference.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:43 am

Only quibblers quibble.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:12 am

Lance, you've claimed that in principle nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than hydroelectricity. The only way to check this is to remove all factors that might negativity impact safety that are not intrinsic to the technology itself.
So how do you explain that under best conditions for either technology nuclear still has serious incidents and hydro has not?

The data is clear that even best practices don't prevent significant nuclear accidents. Hydro, due to its simplicity and predictably of reservoir levels can be run safely if done properly.

Now, looking at the worst case, things might be quite different: if the Three Gorges Dam should break it would no doubt be worse than Chernobyl - but then it has more than 22x the energy output, so we would have to compare a meltdown of twenty reactors for comparison, which makes it hard to tell which would be worse.
If you have any interest in investigating the differences in safety across energy types you have to remove the noise from the signal.

To use your truly horrible analogy:
Doctors heal people in all kinds of ways
Doctors sometimes safe lives
If doctors fail to learn new things, forget the old and become drunk, they make mistakes
Mistakes by doctors can cost lives
Therefore we should ban all doctors, right?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:49 am

EM

Cut the crap.

It is very simple.
Nuclear power station accidents have killed less than 100 people. Hydro power station accidents have killed more than a million. How bloody simple is that!

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

Cut the crap.

It is very simple.
Nuclear power station accidents have killed less than 100 people. Hydro power station accidents have killed more than a million. How bloody simple is that!


not simple at all if you have even an ounce of critical thinking in your brain.

Which you haven't.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:20 am

Let's try it in a way you might be willing to understand:

you have two kinds of cars, but one is only driven in countries with good roads by well-off folks and get regularly checked-up and has its safety improved every time one of its kind has an accident. It rarely has serious accidents.

The other car is driven around cross-country a lot, has no check-ups, no safety improvements and no proper spare parts to fix it right. It breaks down periodically and sometimes catastrophically.

Can you tell which car is more reliable?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:29 am

Irrelevant.

Oh, sure, I see what you are driving at. But still irrelevant.

Both nuclear power plants and hydro power plants are in use in both rich and poor nation's. In both, nuclear kills very few people and hydro kills many. In China, which is essentially a third world country in most ways, hydro has killed heaps of people, and nuclear not at all. In both rich and poor nation's, nuclear is 'safe', while hydro is a killer.

Most nation's have NEVER had a bad power plant accident. My country never has. Iceland has lots of geothermal and hydro power, and no accidents. France has lots of nuclear power and no accidents. But world wide, hydro has killed over a million people while nuclear less than 100. Facetious examples based on cars does not change that. Nuclear is much, much safer than hydro. That is a simple fact, backed up by solid data and all your bulldust arguments do not change the simple fact that over a million people have died due to hydro accidents, while nuclear has killed less than 100.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:43 am

France had no accidents?
Really?
I guess you've done your research right?
No?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:10 am

To make it clear: I'm not saying that hydro is safer than nuclear.
I AM saying that it is next to impossible to tell for a very long list of factors.

Because everyone is afraid of a nuclear meltdown, reactors get a tons of attention.

Because a dam feels like it's built for the ages, they get very little.

Dams also provide much, much more than just power, so it is very hard to judge their benefits - unlike nuclear.

So while you are correct that there was way more loss of life due to hydropower failures, you have provided no indication that this is due to the technology itself or just mismanagement - it's an important difference.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:28 am

ElectricMonk wrote: So while you are correct that there was way more loss of life due to hydropower failures, you have provided no indication that this is due to the technology itself or just mismanagement - it's an important difference.

I disagree EM. Seems to me the answer is very dependent on what the question is?

Observe two ways to ask nearly the same question with wildly different answers:

1. How many people die from dam failures?
2. How many people are saved from dam existing?
3. How safe are dams in operation/historically/in fact?
4. How safe are dams in theory if operated with reasonable safety measures in place?

Yeah....I did expand the mix just a bit. but they all demonstrate close questions with different answers.

Lance.....I provide links to the death from dams/flooding links. To my memory, you only provided one link to the dam in South America that collapsed. So.....since you are the only one who "knows" what link are you using to supposed millions of lives drowned from dam failures? Seems to me that data/statistic should be in the wiki link----and its not.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:35 am

Bobbo, we can't tell because without a dam people wouldn't settle so close in such numbers.
The whole comparison is stupid since you could take out all the turbines in a dam and still have the same risk of floodings, proving that it nothing to do with energy generation.

And I've already answered 4) by the example of Norway: hydropower can be 100% safe.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:06 am

EM--it is what it is. but what it is, in this case, is the actual question asked, rather than the one answered.

I'm sure you see the difference.

I was going to make an aside that dams were built for 1000's years before electricity was on the scene. Beavers build dams for the same reasons. Flood control and water supply. Yes......electrical generation is only a late coming additional benefit. Confusing the safety of dam/net benefit of dams with any other "issue" only clouds what clarity there might be.

We don't need more of that! Lets try to keep it simple for Lance.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:09 am

You are right, but one more thing:

We can do without nuclear power (plenty of countries do) but we can't without dams.

Simple as that.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 10:14 am

..............or the Beaver!!!!!!

Pure coincidence: "Beavers should be re-introduced to England to improve water supplies, prevent floods and tackle soil loss, a researcher says." Nice short video at the link..... don't know how to load it seperately.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40048762
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:27 pm

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:21 pm

EM---I assume you won't take insult when I note that your avatar has a beaverish look to it. I think its just your flat feet looking like tail. Nothing more subconscious than that, I hope.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jun 05, 2017 1:56 pm

It's a significant step up from sad TV to beaver!
I feel honored!


Back to the topic (vaguely)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tical-mass

Tesla opened 3 energy storage parks at the beginning of this year which alone account for 15% of all battery storage on the planet. They were built much faster than anyone expected and below costs as battery prices continue to fall.
Tesla is planing to sell 15GW of battery storage/year by 2020.

This year it is also going start to selling its Solar City roof tiles with built-in photovoltaic cells and its Powerwall home batteries, which (given enough sunlight) are a competitive replacement for grid power (depending on local prices of course).



Meanwhile, the UAE actually managed to have four new reactors built, but they can't start them because the people who are supposed to run it lack expertise and training:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kepco ... SKBN1801ZD
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:26 pm

The Arabs can't run it huh?-----and won't pay above slave wages for any foreigner to come in and do it for them?

Reminds me of that refinery that blew up in India some years back. USA designed and built I think but NOT state of the art which would have only required about 15 people to run what with computers and such..... but India wanted a Jobs Program so the plant was designed to be "more manual" to employ several hundred. Wasn't long..... before it blew up. I assume the plant was designed correctly, but too many workers would not swat flies off the Emergency Pressure Relief Control Knob.

"Its like I always say: pros and cons to all we do."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:16 pm

All right.

For the purposes of discussion, let me define the word "accident" in relation to electrical generating plants as being something that kills a human being. Otherwise we get bogged down in trivia. Everything on this planet, including my home, has trivial accidents.

By that definition, France has never had a nuclear plant accident. The Ukraine had the world's worst. No other incident anywhere in the world can be called a nuclear plant accident. But hydroelectric dams have caused numerous accidents, to a total of over a million deaths. Solar panels all round the world have results in accidents. Wind towers all around the world have resulted in accidents. Gas powered plants all round the world have resulted in accidents.

Guys, you are arguing a false case. It is all bulldust, and if you are honest with yourselves, you will recognize that simple fact. The simple fact, backed by solid data, is that apart from geothermal, nuclear power is the safest means of generating electricity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:25 am

accident: An unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury

Always fun to note people slipping into crazy: they make up their own definitions for words.

......................and don't provide links.

I withdraw until link is provided for failed dam deaths............in the millions.

((((a distraction but it is so relevant: accident: Anything that happens suddenly or by chance without an apparent cause. Ha, ha..........by THAT definition there are plenty of Nuke Accidents but NO dam accidents. Note to Rational People: everything is definitional. Its the nature of words..... a human created independent symbolic representation of the world around us))))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:26 am

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... l-disaster

The Three Gorges Dam in China is noted as an environmental disaster. Much better had they set up nuclear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... n_failures

And a list of some of the many hydro disasters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

The above is a description of the single worst hydro disaster, at Banqiao in China, with 700,000 dead and 11 million made homeless. Dr. Cohen estimated that out of all the nuclear power stations, there would be one disaster every 2000 years causing 50,000 deaths. Nuclear has a long way to go to catch up! Over 30,000 years worth.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:43 am

So Lance, you propose to remove all dams and replace them with nuclear power stations?
Bold move.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:54 am

Straw man alert, about the tenth if I did not miss my count.

No, EM. My mission is simply to educate the ignorant.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3072
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:10 am

It's not a strawman, since you've screamed out what a death-trap dams are. If you want to save lives, what is the alternative but no dams in your book?
Lance, what is your point of comparing nuclear to hydro? Because so far it makes zero sense.

Hydro power is even more location depended than nuclear, and where it makes sense to build a dam it often (not always) makes sense to also use it to generate energy.
Like anything, you can go too far (and the Three Gorges is WAY too far), but that tells us nothing about the principle of the technology, which has been around forever and will stay forever. We need dams and the power and energy storage they can provide. We can't scale dams the way we can with other power sources, neither up nor down, which is another reason why there is no point in advocating nuclear over hydro.

So could you stick to coal/gas vs. nuclear and stay on the coherent side of the discussion?
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:18 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-the-worlds-biggest-hydroelectric-dam-is-still-an-environmental-disaster

The Three Gorges Dam in China is noted as an environmental disaster. Much better had they set up nuclear.


thanks for the links...........worse than I suspected................This link is about environmental disasters and towns being "flooded" when the dam filled up===============>NO DEATHS AT ALL. Gonna be hard to get to one million deaths with this kind of a start.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... n_failures
And a list of some of the many hydro disasters.


Yep....and the two of note are 171K at Banqiao in China and 25K dead at Machchhu Dam in China. You gotta confuse gallons of water with lives lost and make up a number for the dams BOMBED in WW2 to get over one million.

xxxxxxxxxxx


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

The above is a description of the single worst hydro disaster, at Banqiao in China, with 700,000 dead and 11 million made homeless. .[/quote]

No. You are wildly off. Crossed Eyed or Hard Liquor at play? FTL: "According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died at the province[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.[15]"

From your past performance, you should only be listing the 26 K to be consistent with Zero deaths from Fukashima?

Your position of dams is simply made up in disregard of the facts. ....................... really. You should evaluate how you allow yourself to do this.

I expect an explanation for your failure to represent your facts accurately or an apology for having a baseless position.

I'll wait.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:34 am

EM

Funny you complain about me rabbiting on over hydro, since you are the one who raised that topic by stating in no uncertain terms that hydro was safer. I was simply correcting your error. My whole point was, and is, that nuclear is the safest, after geothermal, of all generating methods.

Bobbo

I admit error. Funny how memory works. Yeah, it was 170,000 deaths, not 700,000. Not that it makes the slightest difference to the argument.

But let me repeat once more. Nuclear is the safest, after geothermal. The biggest problem with nuclear power is, and has been for a long time, human stupidity, exaggerating the risks that are, in fact, real, though minor. More nuclear power stations to replace coal and gas would be a major step forward towards a more environmentally responsible society.


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest