TJ - quite simple, one word answer - bullshit!
Regardless, your claim is that, and I quote
10 000 died because of Chernobyl and many more peoples health was affected
ten thousand died - not might die, not potentially could die - you specifically claimed that 10,000 [b]died[/b] Which is quite simply [b]not true[/b]
it is totally pointless getting into any sort of debate with him
you cant really debate with him he just gives the facade of one [though his reasoning is not great]then he just insults you. He must be doing it by now surely
Oh indeed he is junkyard. Rather comical - because he does not agree with me I am a liar. Its laughably poor.
Aracer - what question? IIRC you did ask one or two things obvuiously intended as a rhehtorical trap that I ignored but if you have a real question I will try to answer
OIC - so it's OK to ignore rhetorical traps, but not strawmen? Not that it was one, was just trying to clarify exactly what point your strawman was trying to make.
so it's OK to ignore rhetorical traps
well it is generally considered foolish to not avoid a trap you have seen.
was just trying to clarify exactly what point your strawman was trying to make.
was it trying to misrepresent your position as that is what a straw man argument does 🙄 You could have asked a question you know.
Aracer - you have lost me. got a question for me I will try to answer it.
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts??? 😯
Aha, the Elfin defence - trash the thread with pictures and close down debate when you've been proved to be talking out of your sphincter.
Ah. How nice to be thought of. 😀 I'm very flattered, Labby.
Although I must correct you on one small point:
The [b][i]Elfinmanoeuvre[/i][/b] is employed when we've decided I am right, and there is no point in continuing a silly argument any more. Turn negative energy into something productive. Many people enjoy it actually.
This fascinating fact comes courtesy of Ernie, from whom I learned that small turtles live in Atocha station in Madrid. They're quite happy there.
[img] 
[/img]
Maybe we could have something similar here. Wombats at Waterloo, Muntacs in Marylebone, and, wait for it............
...(cos it's gonna be good).......
....BEARS IN PADDINGTON!!!!!!
😀
Good, innit? I think it'll be a winner.
(Scuttles off to discuss idea with Boris)
The question TJ was: would it be OK for us to have nuclear power if all countries in the world had it? Feel free to ignore it as a rhetorical trap, but if the answer is no, then your question about why other countries shouldn't have it is completely pointless. If the answer is yes, then that makes all your other arguments pointless (though it would at least enable me to provide a sensible answer to the other countries question, otherwise I have insufficient information). Actually I suppose it is a rhetorical trap - I can see why you don't want to answer.
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts?
I guess some of us are enjoying the argument, and have realised that this thread might make it to 1000 so long as we throw in something to keep it going now and again. 😉
Though I'm curious given your apparent disdain for this thread and that I don't think you've contributed for a couple of weeks, are you actually reading it all, or do you do a vanity search?
Wellt that is a fairly meaningless question but IMO the answer would still be no - two wrongs do not make a right and just because someone else even an overwhelming majority of people do something that you think is foolish there is no need for us to do so as well.
800+ posts? there is actually some good info in here and some good debating ponts. I have learnt a bit about thorium cycle nukes that I didn't know and I understand the arguement for nuclear expansion more even tho i still think it muddleheaded.
and we want a serious topic to get more posts than the bivvy thread
Wellt that is a fairly meaningless question
Good description. Of your "why can we have them but not other countries question". Especially if whether other countries have them or not makes no difference to your attitude to them. Clearly it's not actually worth me wasting my time answering that then.
Aracer - no its not the same at all as anyone c an see - but I knew you would use it as an excuse.
You don't want to answer that question because it points out the logical fallacies in your position.
According to the pro nukes that nukes are so good we must have them to prevent global warming but will deny them to countries we do not trust. Now if they are so useful that we should have them despite the known and serious drawbacks then how can you justify denying them to other countries?
Apoart from anything else that means they will not actually make any significant difference to CO2 outputs globally
No, I cba answering it given how apparently insignificant it is, and the difficulty of explaining to you why it's a complete strawman. If you were actually bothered I might have a go. The only logical fallacy is your question, and your assertion that if not all countries in the world have them nobody should (oh, and that 10 nuclear stations in the UK apparently makes less difference to global warming than 5 here and 5 in Iran).
Aracer - you still don't get it.
Now we know that nukes have serious drawbacks form a low supply of fuel to the issues over waste and the cost of building them. However you believe the case for having them is so good that it outweighs the disadvantages. So why would you deny them to some countries if they are that good. 10 here and 10 in Iran and 10 in Afghanistan would make more impact Global warming than just 10 here.
Its no strew man - its a very pertinent point tht shows just how inadequate the case for having new nukes in the UK is
Druidh was right - no pro nuke will answer it
So you don't see the contradiction with arguing on one hand that the fuel supply is low, and on the other that we should have lots more of them? Lots of us have argued the various fallacies in your question, but as usual you just keep ignoring those points, as seemingly we haven't given the answer you're after.
If you're into answering questions, how about this one for you: Given we have lots of power stations getting to the end of their life, that we're not going to manage to make huge reductions in energy consumption (much as that might be the answer in your idealised world) and that only a maximum of 3GW (peak) tidal is coming online in the next 10 years, how do you propose we generate electricity to stop the lights going out?
Of course no anti-nuke will answer that question.
Is it not fair to suggest that some states are less stable than others? Therefore some states as a whole (not talking about races or nations) can be less trusted to handle technology that *could* be used to produce nuclear weapons?
Anyway doesn't the UN allow states peaceful use of nuclear power..?
Aracer I have actually answered that several times-
I do not accept that energy usage reduction is impossible. I would go for energy usage reduction across the board - not just electricity but heating and so on as well. Massivly increased renewables - 3 GW ( actually significantly more) is what is planned for Scotland - it could be more and England could do some as well.
If there remains a gap then new efficient fossil plants mainly local CHP. We still should end up with being able to meet kyoto targets as we can reduce CO2 emissions form all areas of energy usage - and CHP reduces CO2 output even if fossil fueled as its more efficient.
As electricity productionis only waht around 25% of energy usage a 5% reduction is energy usage across the baord is equivalent in CO2 production to 20% reeduction in electricty - which is far more saving of CO2 production hat a few new nukes - as they produce a lot of CO2 especially during construction
Elfinsafety - Member
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts???
empty vessels make most noise....
I have actually answered that several times-
Dual standards, TJ? By the criteria you use to assess other people's answers to your questions, no you haven't. You can't cover it by energy use reduction as enough of that isn't feasible in the timescale - I even pointed that out in the question, so by including it you're not answering the question. Though you do actually raise a new point with your suggestion that a 5% reduction in energy usage is equivalent to 20% reduction in electricity - you can't do it that way. A 5% reduction in the amount of energy used to heat a house is a 0% reduction in energy usage if you have gas heating. A 5% reduction in the amount you drive is 0% reduction in electricity. We're talking here about keeping the lights switched on, so you have to reduce eletricity usage for it to do any good.
Massivly increased renewables - 3 GW ( actually significantly more) is what is planned for Scotland - it could be more
It won't be more - not within the timescales under discussion, otherwise there would be some sign of it already. I'm actually being pretty generous with 3GW given what is documented as in the pipeline, and given that at least one official document seems to want to include wind (and waves) in the figures we're interested in.
quite simply the 'edukator' guy is a numpty.... my comments about his own effort have been that he's effort for his own lift are laudable....
unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole....
most people do do not live in his simplistic world... most of humanity live in densly populated urdan environments.....
when you've clearly got enough funds to endulge in your own environmental experiment that's fine... but the options you've adopted at a small scale are extortionatley expensive for society.... and the burden will be carried by the poor... you may acheive a SIMPLE payback in your heavily subsidised world on your insignifiant time period but don't pretnd that that works for humanity as a whole
you should try reading other peoples posts properly instead of going around and around like a broken record........
Aracer I am looking at the energy usage and CO2 production of the country as a whole. 5% reduction in energy usage across the board would reduce the countries CO2 output by the same amount as a 20% reduction in Electricity usage.
Why you insist energy efficiency measures cannot make a 5% reduction across the board I 10 years I don't know. Lack of ambition? You don't have any hard data to back that up it is pure surmise.
My way there might be more CO2 out put from electricity production but less from the country as a whole.
so once again you fiddle the figures to get teh answer you want - wind and wave can be apart of it - of course they can. You still need back up capacity but they can generate some electricity over the year in a CO2 free way.
Your way would increase CO2 production over the next ten years due to the massive amounts of CO2 created in the building of newnukes - they payback would come in later years but the CO2 penalty of nukes is heavily front loaded.
I am talking about keeping the lights switched on whilst reducing CO2 production from the country as a whole. So a 5% reduction in energy usage for heating is a 5% reduction in CO2 output from the country - which is the critical thing.
I do not accept that energy usage reduction is impossible.
No, just extremely difficult.
But Aracer does think its impossible. He has nothing to base that on. 10 years to reduce energy consumption by 5% accross the board is a perfectly achievable target.
But it suits aracers argument to pretend that its impossible.
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts??
Because the energy question, and climate change, are crucially important topics.
10 years to reduce energy consumption by 5% accross the board is a perfectly achievable target
Based on what? Our sterling efforts at reducing energy usage to date?
What efforts? We haven't made any significant ones.
Lets see - sensible achievable measures that we could do.
Proper insulation of all housing stock.
Creat mechanisms to prevent commercial buildings leaving lights on overnight ( could be legislative could be financial)
Stop lighting up historic buildings all night
Move to LED lighting
Turn some streetlighting off in the small hours of the morning
Build local CHP plants
Give consumers a greater financial incentive to reduce consumption.
And many many more.
Of course if you ignore what is achievable in energy reduction and in use of renewables then it does make nukes look reasonable which is why Aracer does this
Neatly glossing over the enormous CO2 production burden in building the nuclear plants and the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.
What efforts? We haven't made any significant ones.
That's exactly my point - the post was sarcastic.
Of course if you ignore what is achievable in energy reduction
No-one's ignoring it - I'm certainly not.
to those of you still arguing, it's best to remember the serenity/engineers prayer,
“Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
the implausibility in bringing new nukes on line in the 10 year timescale.
I was wondering just how long it would take you to lie about something where you'd already been proven wrong.
When the vast majority of people can't afford anything other than either a load limiting or expensive time of use peak tariff that should help solve the energy reduction conundrum. The problem is that it will inevitably be seen as a tax on the poor, so whilst the rich will still be able to consume energy, the less well off simply won't be able to afford to put (all) the lights on. Look at countries like SA, using aircon in peak demand is prohibitably expensive for all but the rich.
Of course we will need to be a significant way into the smart meter roll out programme for that to start to have an effect and Distribution Networks are predicting supply issues as early as late next year.
Lord, grant me the stamina to keep hammering away at TJ till he admits an alternative viewpoint may have merit and/or gives up and I can win by default.
Lord, grant me the stamina to keep hammering away at TJ till he admits an alternative viewpoint may have merit and/or gives up and I can win by default.
I'll check back in another 800 odd posts then...
I'll check back in another 800 odd posts then...
Give it 8000 to be on the safe side
Aracer - Its not a lie its an opinion based on looking to the record. to build ten new nuclear power stations in 10 years when the sites to build them have not been selected let alone the tender documents written or contractor appointed is a very tall order.
Look at thelead times for other major construction projects and for reactor builds in other countries.
DJGlover - again - scaremongering. Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor. 🙄
It does amuse me how the pro nukes make loads of assertions without a shred of evidence but atttack me for the same. Gross hypocrisy
Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor
Like your fuel duty increase idea from a few weeks back?
quite simply the 'edukator' guy is a numpty.... my comments about his own effort have been that he's effort for his own lift are laudable....
Do you often praise numpties for their efforts? 🙄
unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole....
no need to be so personal but if one person can live like this it is therefore possible to do it. I am a vegan it is possible to do this. The fact you choose not to does not make it impossible.
DJGlover - again - scaremongering. Its perfectly possible to do energy reduction without it being a tax on the poor
Could well be, but I predict that the stick will have more effect than the carrot in years to come..!
For example a programme of real house insulation. In rented accommodation the landlord pays, in owner occupier the owner pays unless they are on benefits when the taxpayer pays.( obviously simplified) Thats an energy reduction measure that is no tax on the poor
Do you often praise numpties for their efforts?
Particularly laughable 😀
For example a programme of real house insulation
But gas provides most of the heat in UK homes and insulation won't solve that problem, its the lights, TVs and white goods we are talking about really TJ.
I predict that the stick will have more effect than the carrot in years to come
Hmm, but there's an easy way round the stick - it's called democracy.
Eh? Insulating homes won't save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won't save gas?
I am talking about reducing energy usage thus CO2 production accross the whole country in every energy using way.
unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole....
if you are referring to Edukator there, he's not german he's a British faux Frenchman call John with a chip the size of the eiffel tower on his shoulder.
Eh? Insulating homes won't save gas? You mean making houses so that they take less energy to heat them won't save gas?
No, he's saying that saving all the gas in the world won't address the nuke issue. Which is true.
