Bill Nye on nuclear

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: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.


never said that.
you really can't read, can you?
stop projecting your {!#%@}.
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: 9861
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 8:27 am

"Hydro is a lot safer than nuclear, since it keeps people from drowing in floods, starving and dying of thirst on top of producing power. So stop your silly comparison." Written by EM.

EM

The above is from your post 2480. That was the beginning of an argument about hydro versus nuclear safety. You were wrong. You were wrong in your most recent post, and you were wrong in post 2480, and your whole argument is wrong. Nuclear is the safest, apart from geothermal, and the data proves it. That is because with nuclear you get fewer deaths per unit electricity generated. Why can you not admit this simple point?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
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 8:41 am

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-coll ... -risk.html

The first sentence of the above reference says that the risk of an accident releasing significant amounts of radiation is very small, and then it goes on to explain why. But of course, EM and Bobbo know more than the government experts ( The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.).

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:43 am

learn how to link Lance - 2480 is my number of posts, not the number of a post...

The point of the post was to show that we can't compare hydro with nuclear, because it does so much more than create power, something you try remarkably hard to ignore.

we are now long passed the stage where it is clear that nuclear is a one-trick pony and hydro is not.

So you still want to dismantle all dams to save humanity?
Or what is your plan for nuclear vs. hydro?
have you any?
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:23 pm, 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: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 06, 2017 9:46 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: 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.

Well............thats a powerful first step. Too bad you refuse to take the next one? ie: When your facts change, so should your opinion.

But..........even giving you your 700K deaths: YOU STILL DON'T GET TO ONE MILLION.

As you say: "doesn't change a thing."===>IN YOUR MIND/ESTIMATION.

You really should stop mixing and matching issues of Dams and Nukes, direct deaths and consequential ones. You argue like Mr. Potatoe Face==>sticking in facts to your liking here and there as the moment suggests.

.............but what you have at the end of the day is: Mr Potato Face.

((Irrelevant: Just caught the end piece of I think it was Vice News. Interviewing old ladies somewhere and they were complaining about nuke waste still being dumped in their river. "Everyone is sick....but the gubment gives us no help." Evidently, they don't realize how safe Nukes are.))
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: 9861
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 7:54 pm

EM

Please try to give up this bad habit you have of erecting straw men. You and Bobbo both. In this case talking of my plan for hydro. I have never suggested a plan. I am simply making a single point. NUCLEAR IS THE SAFEST.

Bobbo

That is a new low. Ignorant old ladies as references. Duh!

My favorite has not changed except I got mixed up over a number. See above. My point is simple. NUCLEAR IS THE SAFEST.

It is you two guys who are all mixed up. You have got utterly submerged in the misinformation and propaganda pushed out by Greenpeace and it's anti nuclear buddies. They are telling lies. They will have everyone believe that nuclear power is a great bogeyman. And you are idiot enough to believe everything. Again. Duh!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 9369d6709b

Here is a reference from the generally reputable magazine, Forbes, on the subject. On a global scale, nuclear power is shown to be less dangerous than any other (Geothermal is not on this list.). At the same time, it points out the major advantages of nuclear in terms of reduced greenhouse gases. I suggest you guys look at it. You might learn something!

It has always struck me as weird that Bobbo, who claims to be concerned about global warming, opposes a system that has great potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Is this stupidity?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:42 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

That is a new low. Ignorant old ladies as references. Duh!


Speaking of ignorant or intentionally dull witted....most references are not put in parens and labeled "irrelevant." Do you read that fast, or as constantly without comprehension?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: My favorite has not changed except I got mixed up over a number. See above.


What are you referencing as "your favorite?" doesn't follow the flow of the thread.....In context, I could guess you mean your "favorite" energy source??? But I thought your actual "point" was more subtle than that? Is defending your position making you more stupid as it continues?

xxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: NUCLEAR IS THE SAFEST.


Yes, you have established your mantra. Mindless chanting in a state of semi-lucidity. The DATA is IN: the Safest power source is HYDRO from Dams. It saves many more lives than it takes....unless you are only counting the data you fixate on. Again... a concept you fail to grasp: its definitional.

xxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: It is you two guys who are all mixed up. You have got utterly submerged in the misinformation and propaganda pushed out by Greenpeace and it's anti nuclear buddies. They are telling lies. They will have everyone believe that nuclear power is a great bogeyman. And you are idiot enough to believe everything. Again. Duh!


Gee Lance====you are going in reverse. You are presented with new and contradictory facts, even admit to a few, but you always return to home base. PROVE ME WRONG: name 1-2-3 items I advance that are "wrong." Given the state of your comprehension and memory---I request you copy and paste exactly what you think is relevant.

xxxxxxxxxx


Lance Kennedy wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 9369d6709b

Here is a reference from the generally reputable magazine, Forbes, on the subject. On a global scale, nuclear power is shown to be less dangerous than any other (Geothermal is not on this list.). At the same time, it points out the major advantages of nuclear in terms of reduced greenhouse gases. I suggest you guys look at it. You might learn something!

It has always struck me as weird that Bobbo, who claims to be concerned about global warming, opposes a system that has great potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Is this stupidity?


Do you get all/most of your science from a Business Journal?

everyone agrees nukes are carbon free.........you have returned to home base again. Silly statement....but you think its a winner? ha, ha.

Great potentialo for Reducing greenhouse emissions? //// Yeah......but guess what Lance? The world is not unidimensional. Try to keep two ideas or more in mind as you review an 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: 9861
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 11:22 pm

Can you not read, Bobbo.
When I say nuclear is the safest, that is not a mantra. It is a reality, with solid data to back it up. Nuclear accidents have killed fewer than 100 people. No other generation system, bar geothermal, can say that.

Nor is it valid to argue that saving lives obviates the lives that are taken. Ambulances drive fast and save lives. Drivers who drive fast take lives. Driving fast is dangerous, in spite of ambulances. Hydro takes lives. Lots of lives. Therefore it is dangerous. Claiming that dams control floods and sometimes save lives is not justification for a claim that hydro is safer. It is not. It is bloody dangerous! A lot more dangerous than nuclear, since it kills a lot more people.

Your illogic is horrible.

By the way, I am not opposed to hydro electricity. It has its place. But needs to be handled with responsible care. It is an excellent replacement for coal. Not overall as good as nuclear, but still a vast improvement.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:24 pm

Its definitional.
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: 9861
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 11:26 pm

No, not definitional. A dead person is dead regardless of your definition.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:28 pm

I define dead people as dead. Whats your point? Defining safety as number of dead people without counting the number of saved people is.......................... rather "special." .........but what definitional means is: define the word and continue the discussion with that definition. I reject yours as too simple.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:14 am

http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/risk.htm

Well, Bobbo, I guess your rejection is a sign that you accept that nuclear kills fewer people.

The reference above hammers this home. It is slightly different to the Forbes reference in that it is not just electricity, but all energy, including that which drives cars. However, it also makes very clear that nuclear is the safest.

But, Bobbo, you will not find any authority that defines 'safe' as people killed minus people saved. If something is dangerous, it is defined as dangerous because it kills people. It is not some net calculation of killed minus saved. Surgery is defined as dangerous, if there is a sizeable percentage of those undergoing the surgery, who die. Regardless of how many lives it saves. Your definition, frankly, is crap.

Anyway, let me summarize again.
1. Nuclear is the safest form of generating electricity.
2. Nuclear is at the top of the list for least greenhouse gases.
3. Nuclear waste is generated in miniscule amounts, which makes the paranoia surrounding it quite irrational.
4. Because nuclear generates a humongous amount of energy for a very small amount of land used, it is less environmentally harmful than any other forms of electricity generation. Even Chernobyl has turned into an environmental asset, with a radius of 30 kilometers set aside as a wild life refuge.
5. Major accidents will be rare. Dr. Cohen estimates one every 2,000 years. And even that would be tiny compared to Banqiao.

I think the biggest source of misinformation comes from a fear of radioactivity. People do not appreciate that radioactivity is totally natural, and humans, like all other life forms, have evolved a resistance to it. Only extreme events exceed that level of resistance, which is roughly 100 millisieverts. This means that exposure to nuclear accidents, and to nuclear waste for everyone, except a tiny number of people, is harmless.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:33 am

Lance, stop barking up the tree you like whilst ignoring the one we are actually talking about:

you might as well say that Nuclear Power is safer than Dinosaur bites for all the relevance it has to comparing it with hydro: it's a completely different thing, as I have shown on a long list of parameters.
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: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:29 am

safe: Free from danger or the risk of harm //// Again: too simple. How do you protect people from huge area wide flooding that kills 50K people every 10 years? Thats right: build a Nuke Power plant. I think this does demonstrate simple vs layered analysis. Single vs Multiple variables and issues. Rather than what is a "safer" technology defined as you do which is fair enough at first blush.......why not the related issue of what makes a "society" safer? There....Dams lead the way.

Learn to Juggle Lance.

..............and I'm waiting for your ham fisted presentation of what you think I have gotten "wrong" in this thread........ I mean, you know: besides correcting your faulty memory.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:22 am

Neither of you has responded in a rational way. Just rhubarb, rhubarb.

Nuclear is safer. It kills fewer people per unit electricity generated.
Nuclear produces least greenhouse gases.
Nuclear waste is miniscule.
Nuclear is environmentally sound.
Major accidents rare.

Neither of you has produced a single piece of data to deny any of those five points. In other words, you are posting a load of crap.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:53 am

At this point, are you trying to convince yourself, Lance?
You sound pretty desperate in trying to make us accept that a nuclear power plant is the same as a dam in principle.
Reality is not own your side in this one.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:59 am

http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... log/34275/

Just to show you that I read both sides of the story, the above reference is the Greenpeace version.
Read it and see. I have never seen such an apologetic account. They are desperately trying to justify a stance that cannot be justified. And if that does not convince you, read the comments that follow. The Greenpeace readers are not fooled, and they point out the bulldust in no uncertain terms.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:25 am

and what, exactly, do you think this article proves except another of your pathetic attempts to distract from the issue?
The article doesn't even mention hydro-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

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:34 pm

Lance.

..............and I'm waiting for your ham fisted presentation of what you think I have gotten "wrong" in this thread........ I mean, you know: besides correcting your faulty memory.
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: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:57 pm

Nuclear Power in India...
Or rather not.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/nu ... 732213.ece
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:12 pm

EM

India already has successful nuclear power. But there will always be opposition to the high level of investment required, and there will always be those (like yourself) who exaggerate risk. As I pointed out earlier, the capital cost is no higher than wind power or solar power when expressed as a cost per unit electricity generated. A typical cost is $1 per watt, whereas wind power is a little higher and solar panels about $3 per watt. However, a nuclear power plant needs to be big, and may put out 10 Gigawatt, meaning $10 billion dollars investment. To generate the same amount of power using alternatives will cost just as much in capital expenses, or more, but it appears less because the investment is normally for smaller units.

India, interestingly, has a full one third of the world's proven thorium deposits, and the Indian government is working to develop a viable thorium based nuclear power station. If they succeed, it will give them access to essentially unlimited power in practical terms.

Here is a post script, though.
If your objection to nuclear power is the high level of investment required, at least that is a rational objection.
What really gets me is bulldust objections. If someone tries to tell me that it is too dangerous (false), or that nuclear waste is an intractable problem (also false), or that there will be massive nuclear accidents (ditto), or some other piece of total crap, then I get irked.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:16 pm

"Anyone who prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate is spreading bulldust."
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:36 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"Anyone who prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate is spreading bulldust."


No, Bobbo.

It is telling lies that spreads bulldust, and believing those lies that shows gullibility. Organizations like Greenpeace have been telling lies for decades, and people like you have been believing them.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:40 pm

Well Lance: if you would answer questions you don't like we would parse down to the difference between lies and values systems.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:33 am

Bobbo

I have real problems with your approach to communication. So many times I have seen one of your posts, seen nothing in it, and essentially ignored it, only to have you criticize me for not answering questions. You are not, I am afraid, very good at passing on your points. If you have a genuine query, that you want me to answer, then state that query in unambiguous terms. I will do my best to answer it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:44 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance.

..............and I'm waiting for your ham fisted presentation of what you think I have gotten "wrong" in this thread........ I mean, you know: besides correcting your faulty memory.

Whats missing from this direct question now posted three times?
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:58 am

I have ever already answered it, several times over. Enough is enough.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:09 am

No you have not. You have only made a general conclusion. Prove me wrong: copy and paste.

For instance: I have never said the waste could not be disposed of....but you post as if I had. Same with every generality you have issued.

Just look.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:19 am

OK Bobbo

Then let me see you make a firm statement to the effect that my five propositions are correct.

Nuclear is safer. It kills fewer people per unit electricity generated.
Nuclear produces least greenhouse gases.
Nuclear waste is miniscule.
Nuclear is environmentally sound.
Major accidents rare.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:28 am

whoops.... the thank you posted in error.

No Lance....as all too often you are NOT responding to the question put to you. I am very happy to answer your questions but right now........ I have asked you the same simple question 4 times and you don't respond: "...I'm waiting for your ham fisted presentation of what you think I have gotten "wrong" in this thread........ I mean, you know: besides correcting your faulty memory."

YOU SAID...I was wrong on so many points. Should be easy to pick one.

What this all goes to is: you not paying attention. Stuck in your own rut, essentially not really engaged in your own discussion.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:30 am

Evading the point again.

However, if you look at early posts, we have you saying that nuclear is not clean, not safe, and with a major waste problem. You also claimed that solar energy was safer. As far as I can tell, you have not reversed your view on any in spite of the fact that I have posted good data to show you were wrong.

Of course, the words 'clean, safe, and waste problem' all have meaning only in relation to other things. As I clearly pointed out, nuclear is better than its competitors with respect to safety, is cleaner than coal and gas, and the waste problem is minimal compared to most polluting industries, including coal for electricity. In fact, I am willing to bet that in Tons per kilowatt hour, nuclear produces much less toxic waste than solar panels, since those solar panels have to be manufactured in very large numbers, and that manufacturing process will involve generation of waste.

Would you care to change your point of view at this stage?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:30 am

Lance, you are making a systematic mistake:
the costs of energy are as much a factor as its safety or environmental impact: if one power is much, much cheaper but only much worse in terms of health and waste, then the savings from production can be used to offset the damage caused: "Clean Coal" was such an attempt, which didn't make coal harmless but did dramatically reduce the environmental and health problem is causes, whilst still remaining competitive. We can think of many ways to make power absolutely safe, but they make no economic sense.
So it is not enough for nuclear power to be safer than many other forms: it has to be so under market conditions.

And if two major manufacturers of nuclear power plants go bust that is a rather huge dead canary in the mine telling you that the industry is in major trouble. If you read the article, it shows how even economists in India could see that the plants would never be competitive without hidden subsidies, just like in the US, France or anywhere else. For now, nuclear power is not worth bothering with from a purely economic standpoint. That is the consensus among in the market, and countries are only building what they have already agreed to, but nothing more. I already showed you that about twice as many plants are going to go offline as are being replaced.

Now, safety and harm to the environment is a related issue, one you are harping on about in the hopes that it will justify overspending on nuclear power for. In order to do this, you are trying to discredit all over forms of energy.
But why is nuclear power so safe?
Answer: because everyone is afraid of it.

Just like hardly anyone would fly if the FAA didn't force airlines to adopt the lessons learned from the last crash, voters, politicians, bankers and the Boards of Directors won't invest in Nuclear Power Plants unless the are fitted to prevent failures that happened in other plants in the past.
In short: Nuclear Power is safe because we think it isn't.

Contrast that to basically all over forms, which we assume are ok until something major happens, like widespread lead poisoning from gasoline, or acid rain from coal etc. - or- dramatic dam collapses. Only then we (might) change the processes to make them safer for men and earth.

So what you bemoan as the unfair demonization of Nuclear Power is actually its greatest protection against really bad accidents.
Hydropower, for example, doesn't have the advantage of elevated alertness because it is such an old technology that everyone assume that it can't be improved anyway. Solar power on the other hand seems to harmless that no one thinks it could do anything bad for people or the environment (which of course can't be true).

Our current data for all forms of energy isn't sufficient to really tell us what's best in terms of price, safety and environmental friendliness: we have to explore and monitor them and in doing so keep a mix of energies. And of course the favored sources will shift due to economic and public demands, both of which currently favor solar and wind over nuclear.
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: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Evading the point again.

How can I be evading the point when it has been you not answering the same question until the forth request?

But you do now follow up close enough for gubment purposes:

Lance Kennedy wrote: However, if you look at early posts, we have you saying that nuclear is not clean, not safe, and with a major waste problem.
And.........is this not accurate? I think you make EXACTLY these same points but you are stuck on the notion that I am disagreeing with you, so the fact that you say the same thing totally misses your attention. You confuse various arguments regarding degrees and options and preferences with an outright disagreement.===>aka: any nuance or discussion at all.

xxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: Of course, the words 'clean, safe, and waste problem' all have meaning only in relation to other things.
Exactly so.......but as you consistently do.....you will now go on to discuss these issues from only YOUR point of view and definitions as if no others have validity.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: As I clearly pointed out, nuclear is better than its competitors with respect to safety, is cleaner than coal and gas, and the waste problem is minimal compared to most polluting industries, including coal for electricity.


The repetition is past being BORING. But since I know it took Herculean Effort on your part to actually answer a direct question, I will repeat the discussions already had that you think somehow have changed by the magic of your persistence: Safety is not measured by number of direct deaths from accidents alone, Nukes dont emit co2 so they are cleaner than coal and gas on that measure, just as coal and gas are cleaner than Nukes if you define it has not creating radioactive waste with half lives of 500K years ((==>good on you for not saying cleaner than every other power source with the exceptions only to be found later on))..... and I see some movement on your part about waste products compared to Green Energy as well. What do you know.......you are not completely insensate

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Oops....I spoke too soon. Now you imagine new terrors:
Lance Kennedy wrote: In fact, I am willing to bet that in Tons per kilowatt hour, nuclear produces much less toxic waste than solar panels, since those solar panels have to be manufactured in very large numbers, and that manufacturing process will involve generation of waste.


Solar panels create toxic waste much worse than Nuclear waste??? Is THAT what you are willing to Bet on Bunky?????? Well....anyone can bet on anything they wish.......but is your statement accurate? And the answer is NO. I agree that claim is made to various aspects of mining the raw materials...but no one makes a stand on it. So, I'll bet such waste is quite minimal and not as toxic as Nuclear Waste. I trust you will prove me wrong if you can remember to...... as opposed to just repeating your position.

Just a note: "generation of waste" which is true, does not equate automatically to generation of toxic waste although I agree there should be some of that given how mining is done, and THAT does not equate to the same toxic waste created by Nukes which is done in the same way in the mining process ...so that is a break even, but MADE WORSE....by the purification and collection of the uranium.
xxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: Would you care to change your point of view at this stage?
I've posted where I changed my view. But, come to realize...you still haven't answered the question:

Ask No FIVE: "I'm waiting for your ham fisted presentation of what you think I have gotten "wrong" in this thread" Telling me "to look at my earlier posts"==>is not even close. Do you understand what a direct question is? A direct answer????

Show me by actually doing it.
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:44 am

EM

On costs.

Nuclear is competitive at 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour, and I have posted this before. Meaning you simply ignore the data. The only way nuclear is at a cost disadvantage is in that it needs more money up front to invest. But if a nuclear power plant puts out 10 Gigawatt of power, then wind or solar to put out the same amount will cost even more. The lower capital cost of those forms of power only applies if you are building small scale.

You said people are afraid of nuclear power. That is one of the few things you got right. Yes they are. This is a fear that comes from misinformation and propaganda. The fact is that it is silly to fear it, but most people will never be exposed to correct data on the subject. If the nuclear industry is in trouble as you say, it is primarily because of that fear. That irrational and incorrect fear.

Bobbo

You say coal is safer than nuclear if you define it as producing less radioactive waste. In fact, if you read Scientific American you will realize it actually produces more. Coal contains radioactive elements, and these become concentrated in coal smoke and coal ash. For every kilowatt hour generated, coal actually puts more radioactive material into the environment than an equivalent nuclear power station would if all its waste were so released. According ot SciAm, it is 100 times as much. In fact, since there is more than four times the generating capacity with coal, there is more than 400 times the radioactive waste of all nuclear power plants put together. The big difference is that radioactives from coal simply disperse into the environment. And guess what? They do no harm whatever. The harm from burning coal is from the chemicals in coal smoke that people breath. Not from radioactives.

On waste from solar panel manufacturing get. Again you come out with a straw man. I did not say worse waste. I said more waste. That is a very important difference. The reason it would be more is :
1. The amount of waste made by a nuclear power plant is miniscule
2. To produce an equivalent amount of electricity its using solar panels requires vast numbers of panels, meaning a he'll of a lot of tons of material used in manufacturing.

You have failed to answer my query, about the five propositions.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:40 am

Lance, you ignore the actual data that shows ​the need for subsidies for nuclear power.

So get lost with your fake numbers (or at least outdated).
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:46 am

EM

They are not my numbers. They are generated by teams of specialist engineers. I appreciate that it is inconvenient for you to accept them, but they are correct.

There is, however, the problem of up front cost. When ten billion dollars is needed to build a plant, a subsidy may be given. (More likely, a loan.) That does not alter the fact that the cost of nuclear power, averaged over the life of the plant, is quite competitive.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:49 am

My numbers are days old.

Yours are estimates from years ago.
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: 10153
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:37 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
On costs.

Nuclear is competitive at 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour, and I have posted this before. Meaning you simply ignore the data. The only way nuclear is at a cost disadvantage is in that it needs more money up front to invest.


On repetition and ignoring counter arguments:

I posted a link showing the cost of Nuke was 29 cents per KW (39?) and that was the number I was sticking with until the link was shown to be wrong. Finding a link with any lower cost is just drinking Nuke Koolaide. The secret subsidies and financial 3 Card Monty are used for a good reason: to bring in the rubes. On any subject you want to name.....do you think the range of data that is most likely correct at the high end, the low end, or somewhere in the middle? Even your lowest end Nuke Cost is only on par with Green Energy. The ONLY RATIONAL CONCLUSION to reach is that Nuke while reliable for base line generation.....its more expensive too.

xxxxxxxxxxx
Lance Kennedy wrote: But if a nuclear power plant puts out 10 Gigawatt of power, then wind or solar to put out the same amount will cost even more. The lower capital cost of those forms of power only applies if you are building small scale.


Gee Lance....that is complete BS.... you've lost track of your own posts/links. "The Cost" comparitively between sources is made "per unit generated" or KW or MegaWatts or LCOE. This is how you cherry pick and then Potato Head your data. Mix and match.
xxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: You said people are afraid of nuclear power. That is one of the few things you got right. Yes they are. This is a fear that comes from misinformation and propaganda. The fact is that it is silly to fear it, but most people will never be exposed to correct data on the subject. If the nuclear industry is in trouble as you say, it is primarily because of that fear. That irrational and incorrect fear.


EM covered this quite well. Anyone with a brain is afraid of Nuke Power====>because it is so freaking dangerous. Most of the cost of the power is intertwined with trying to deal with this level of INHERENT danger. What other power source comes with Skull and Crossbones to advise even the illiterate to stay away?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: You say coal is safer than nuclear if you define it as producing less radioactive waste. In fact, if you read Scientific American you will realize it actually produces more.
//// The argument is assumed by all parties to get off coal asap. The problem as stated or closely implied is that Nukes CONCENTRATE the radioactivity making it dangerous in that aspect. MORE concentrated and of a different sort than what Coal generates. You are fogging the issue.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lance Kennedy wrote: On waste from solar panel manufacturing get. Again you come out with a straw man. I did not say worse waste. I said more waste. That is a very important difference. The reason it would be more is :
1. The amount of waste made by a nuclear power plant is miniscule
2. To produce an equivalent amount of electricity its using solar panels requires vast numbers of panels, meaning a he'll of a lot of tons of material used in manufacturing.


Baby Lance: you framed solar was worse than Nukes because of the amount of waste, and thats what I was referring to when disagreement. You switch definitions of what is being measured because you are just arguing from supposition. By volume...the greatest component of a solar cell is GLASS. Safely made from silicon. Some rare earth I think in making the chips is where any toxicity comes in. The issue is not what "drives" the comparison of Nuke vs Solar. Absent a LINK...I'll hold the issue in abeyance.

xxxxxxxx

Lance Kennedy wrote: You have failed to answer my query, about the five propositions.


It is entirely self centered to think YOU are entitled to not even try to answer a question FIVE TIMES posed now and then complain about the quality of the answer to your own question. Where is the dialectic? The fair Q&A? The honest response???

SIX TIMES NOW: .I'm waiting for your ham fisted presentation of what you think I have gotten "wrong" in this thread........ I mean, you know: besides correcting your faulty memory."
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: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:57 pm

Bobbo

Wrong on all counts.

Subsidies, sure. In the USA. For a lot more than nuclear power. Even oil is subsidized. But for the rest of the world, no.

Costs.
Please do not get mixed up, Bobbo. My last post discussed CAPITAL cost. The overall cost of nuclear power over its lifetime is 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour, which includes capiltal and decommissioning cost. The CAPITAL cost may be an upfront investment of ten billion dollars. Be smart, Bobbo,and try not to get confused.

Nuclear power is NOT more dangerous than other forms. Any competent skeptic knows that the scientific approach, which MEASURES risk is the way to go. For this risk, the measurement is deaths per unit electricity generated. That has been calculated, and is lowest for nuclear and geothermal. You are letting your lower and baser emotions do your thinking for you. A rational person goes by the scientific result.

I am glad you are at least a little bit rational, and oppose coal. Now the rest of the way and support nuclear as the most sensible alternative.

On waste.
Solar panels contain a lot of silicon, sure. But they also contains at least five different metals, including selenium which generates toxic waste. Since the total tons of selenium mined for solar cells is very large (way larger than the total tons of uranium mined for nuclear), then the total amount of toxic waste is probably greater also.

What have you got wrong in this thread?
All of the above.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9861
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:39 am

I have just been doing a little surfing of the Internet on capital costs.

Solar energy is less than 1% of world electricity generation. The capital cost tells us why. Compared to an equivalent gas fired plant, it cost 14 TIMES as much to build the solar power plant compared to gas, per kilowatt hour output.

Wind power costs between $1-50 and $2 per watt continuous output as capital cost. A big nuclear plant costs $ 10 billion but puts out more than 10 Gigawatt. That means the capital cost is less than $1 per watt continuous output.

Lower capital costs do exist, but for fossil fuel operated power stations. Coal and gas burners cost less to make, when calculated as dollars per watt. That is probably why they are the dominant method for generating electricity. The reason France has so much nuclear power is simple. It is because it has little in the way of domestic coal or gas. Had France more coal, most of its power would be generated that way. But it IS worth noting that France did NOT build wind or solar power stations as a dominant method of generating electricity. They calculated that nuclear would be better, and so it has proven.

On the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant.
the biggest so far decommissioned was the Yankee Plant in the USA which cost $608 million to decommission. A lot of money, but still only 6% of the cost of building it. Adding capital cost and decommissioning costs per watt output still leaves these costs well below wind or solar. Bearing in mind that a nuclear power plant costs 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour to run, this keeps costs very competitive.

I also note that the USA subsidy for nuclear power takes the form of loan guarantees. Since these have to be paid back, they do not lower the cost of generating electricity with nuclear power.

In short, pretty much every everything EM has said about the high cost of nuclear power is total crap. The only real problem is that it takes a bigger investment up front.


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest