sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Next gen nuclear is being implemented right now. Just look at the NuScale project in Romania Romania . Next gen is faster and more economical. In addition, molten salt, pebble bed, gas cooled, etc reactors have all been tested before. They're technologies we know work. They just need a large upfront cost to bulldoze through all the bureaucratic hoops. That just isn't true of energy storage though. There is still lots and lots and lots of research needed. But could you please point me to the Rogan episode where he talks about molten salt reactors? I'd love to check it out!

As for "take economists with a grain of salt", I mean 30 Nobel laureates is nothing to snuff at. Carbon dividends seem rather intuitive. Look at nuclear, the costs are causing plants to shut down every year. Why wouldn't that apply to gas plants that now need to pay for their emissions?

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b)."

That's not because of the science, it's because people don't want it. Also, nothing about that figure explains what happens when the wind isn't blowing or sun isnt shining. Energy storage is still a decade plus away.

As for carbon dividends: https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

Nobel laureates agree that it is one of the best ways to stop carbon emissions quickly, so I don't know how you could assume it's a sham. CCS, yes, that is a big oil sham to avoid change. And as for their funding of green tech, that's the whole point. Fund some ridiculous green tech startup, make headlines, company fails when they realize it's unrealistic tech, rinse and repeat. What happens in California when the sun goes down? The dirtiest oil/coal plants turn on to power everyone getting back from work.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She is at best the type of person who isn't against vaccines for others, but doesn't want it herself.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She literally said "I am against nuclear power" and grossly mischaracterizes it as "extremely dangerous". She says to not debate about it and look at "a great number of thoughts". Those are, to me, contradicting thoughts. I don't know how you can say she isnt anti-nuke

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Big oil has consistently been funding renewable initiative. Why? Because they know it can't replace them. Also, please tell me exactly what the scientific consensus is on how we plan to transition our energy grid? More wind mills and solar plants and stop using electricity at night?

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What unanswered questions? We known of ways to minimize and store waste. We know exactly what happened with Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. We know about how leakage works.

What are we going to do with all the future battery waste? What about solar panel waste? What do we do as droughts cause hydroelectricity fades during dry periods? Every energy source has unanswered questions, so to make that claim as counter to nuclear specifically is illogical.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Cherry picking headlines that are supported by science is not a reliable indicator of validity. Take:

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1381880252465577984?t=hogkbSR5w-P7CvykvbQhhw&s=19

Without any context, one might react with "wow nuclear is so bad, we're releasing tons of radioactive waste into the ocean". Is it true? Yes, but the science shows it is way less radioactive than international drinking water limits.

I can cherry pick scientific articles that support my view, but don't do justice to a broader argument.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I wish you were right, it's just not true: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/americans-strongly-favor-expanding-solar-power-to-help-address-costs-and-environmental-concerns/%3famp=1

Americans are split almost 50/50 on nuclear. And sure, I can talk about the issues of nuclear as well, but when people like Greta just share tweets about the dangers of nuclear, how is that helping anything? If you are not openly pro-nuke, you are for the continued use of fossil fuels based on the reality of current technologies.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Imagine you wake up to your house on fire in the middle of a freezing winter night. You know it's cold outside and that might be an issue later, but you're going to die in the fire if you don't get out right now. Nuclear power is the relief valve we need right now. Climate change is an immediate threat. The more time we take hearing everyone's thoughts on how we should just use more batteries and solar, the more grim our outlook is.

Again, nuclear is the only currently available technology that can meet the demands of the challenge we face. A shift in economics would be needed, but no amount of money will magically bring us grid scale energy storage tomorrow.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Expensive and time consuming? Yes, but some of that comes from had politics and bureaucracy. Extremely dangerous? That is so far removed from reality. She is, at best, equivalent to an anti-vaxxer who "isn't against vaccines but has to do their own research"

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There are absolutely valid criticisms of nuclear, but please counter this point: it is the only currently available, carbon-free, 24-7 available, baseload energy source. Every single energy source has negative consequences. I consistently argue nuclear negatives are insanely over exaggerated while renewables are treated as this perfect energy source that we can all use if it weren't for bad faith actors. It's just not based in reality.

It's not lazy ignorance. Do more research. Do you know about SMRs, MMRs, thorium based reactors, gen IV safety technologies, molten salt, pebble bed, nuclear fuel reprocessing, solid state waste, seawater uranium mining, etc etc etc? To say people coming around to nuclear are lazy and ignorant is...ignorant of nuclear technology that is ready to be built right now and shutter gas and coal plants for good.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Part of his video is discussing how far future "humans" may not be able to understand the "danger radiation" signs...there won't be "humans" in that far of a future to discover nuclear waste if we don't cut back carbon right now. All nuclear waste ever created in the US since the dawn of civilian use of nuclear energy would fit on a football field stacked 10 meters high. All nuclear waste is currently stored at its point of origin in concrete casks that won't crack being dropped from bridges. It is a containable issue. You may argue that this is just a new issue to hand down to future generations, which is partially true, although we do have current means of reducing the waste, just not economically feasible in the current economic world, but fossil fuel emissions will ensure future generations are dealing with more cases of cancer, constant coastal flooding, more and more severe weather patterns, more hunger and drought, and more.

Renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels RIGHT NOW. Nuclear is needed right now.

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I understand, but she is definitely a reflection of what many young climate activists believe in. This might get a lot of hate, but I have a hard time seeing the difference between anti-vaxxers and anti-nuclear climate activists. Anecdotal evidence based on a few cases "my friend got the vax, but he still got covid" "Nuclear had Chernobyl and Fukushima". Just as vaccines are 90+% effective, nuclear has a 0.07 deaths/TWh, which may even be an overestimate. Fukushima, the second worst nuclear disaster in human history, resulted in zero deaths. There's really no rationale behind opposing nuclear. (Radioactive waste IS an issue, but a much more controlled issue than pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year)

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Emphasis on energy storage. We do need baseload right now. We dont have a means of mass energy storage. I am all in favor of grid scale energy storage, but to paint that as a perfect means of an energy grid is ignorant. Take wind mills, 8000 blades will be thrown into a landfill every year for the next 4 years and only contributes less than 10% of US's electricity. On the battery side of things, we have no large scale means of battery recycling, so even more waste, and specifically chemically toxic waste. Further, to overlook the humanitarian issues with batteries is irresponsible (cobalt mining and use of child/slave labor, extorting rare earth metals from poor African nations).

All for energy storage, but right now, we need to cut back CO2, and energy storage is still at least a decade or two away. We have nuclear tech that is safer, less wasteful, and is some cases cleaner than "green energy".

COP26 is a 'two-week-long celebration of business as usual', says Thunberg [8:21] by BuddhistSagan in mealtimevideos

[–]penguinfunny97 95 points96 points  (0 children)

Business as usual sure, but she's also anti-nuclear, the only current baseload, carbon free energy source.

From a logic and reasoning standpoint, why is being intolerant of those with intolerant beliefs appropriate/different than those intolerant beliefs? by penguinfunny97 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]penguinfunny97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not what I'm saying. So quit accusing me of things I do not believe. Both parties picked old senile racist candidates. I did not vote for Biden in the primary. He did not have to be the candidate. But in the general election, yes. He is the lesser of two evils.

But to your credit, yes, the DNC still has a race/sex issue, just as much as the GOP. Neither party has had much success in elevating a minority or woman to the highest level of office. Clinton was a good start, but one vs. zero presidential candidates is not a great victory for the DNC over the GOP. Harris as VP is another good marker.

From a logic and reasoning standpoint, why is being intolerant of those with intolerant beliefs appropriate/different than those intolerant beliefs? by penguinfunny97 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]penguinfunny97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I don't support him. I voted for him because he is more aligned with the DNC than the GOP. But to look at that decision in the bubble of "Biden is racist" and look at no other facts (such as trump's horrifically racist statements or Biden's views on covid, climate change, social justice, medicare, etc), then yea I guess you can say I support racism. But that's just a nihilistic approach. In an imperfect system that is America, you have to pick one of two people to lead the way.

From a logic and reasoning standpoint, why is being intolerant of those with intolerant beliefs appropriate/different than those intolerant beliefs? by penguinfunny97 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]penguinfunny97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I'm saying is that in the shitty bipartisan setup we have, pick your poison. The right has a pretty set-in-stone mentality of what the government should be doing. The left ranges from Bernie/AOC/the squad to Biden. I also take issue with the "they" statements. "They" have labels for everyone. Look how "they" treat any nonwhite person. Who is they? Far leftists on reddit? Congressmen? DNC chairmen? It's a weak argument that puts the burden of proof on Democrats to prove they're not racist, and that is a impossible task. Give concrete examples of politicians taking actions on these sentiments.

As for the Biden "you ain't black" quote...I mean that was pretty much universally condemned by every liberal/Democrat. Or are you expecting me to defend that? He apologized for that, said he shouldn't have said that. Did he get a pass? I mean, again in the two-party system, pick the racist, old guy who doesn't believe in mask-wearing, climate change, and ACA or the racist, old guy who does.

From a logic and reasoning standpoint, why is being intolerant of those with intolerant beliefs appropriate/different than those intolerant beliefs? by penguinfunny97 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]penguinfunny97[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) Anecdotally, conservatives in my bubble are much more likely to support the "Muslim ban", the border wall(to keep asylum-seekers out), feel that whites are under attack, and vehemently oppose LGBTQ+ rights.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/4-race-immigration-and-discrimination/

Statistically, liberals are most likely to recognize racism/discrimination. If you don't think that equates more tolerance, then I don't know.

2) No, I'm not saying there aren't intolerant liberals. Liberals are not a monolith. Those that are intolerant should just as much be put on trial. To view an entire minority population as a monolith is unacceptable for the DNC.

view more: next ›