Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eh. (8+ / 0-)

    You haven't been TRed enough to make a difference.  Get over it.

    •  This is Getting Kind of Ridiculous (6+ / 0-)

      NNadir, you're like the RealityBias of the non-Circ diary field.

      Physicist Wolfgang Pauli upon reading a paper: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."

      by ChapiNation386 on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:41:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NNadir has been told many many times (0+ / 0-)

        but "can't be bothered to grasp the scale of the problem" . NNadir "couldn't care less about the real problem" . Its the "equivalent of denial".
        "Life is ironic, no?"

        "No amount of science will change Greenpeace's opinion by the way."
        Prove this !

        ""dangerous nuclear waste," which has killed zero people."
        Prove it !

        l'essentiel est invisible

        by indycam on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 06:32:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me guess. (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9, Joffan, willb48, bryfry, Matthew B

          You want me to prove that zero people have been killed by so called "nuclear waste."

          Now, I would never dream, of course, of joining Greenpeace, but um, well, ahhhh, maybe if Greenpeace insists that so called "nuclear waste" is dangerous, wouldn't the onus be on Greenpeace to show a single incident wherein someone has been injured by storage of it?

          I mean, I realize you can't get into Greenpeace if you can count, say, air pollution deaths, even those reported in the popular press.

          A recently published study, conducted by the Chinese Academy on Environmental Planning, blamed air pollution for 411,000 premature deaths - mostly from lung and heart-related diseases - in 2003. It said that a third of China's urban residents were exposed to harmful levels of pollution. More than 100 million people live in cities, such as Beijing, where the air is considered "very dangerous".

          Now I know that Greenpeace is really, really, really, really, really, really upset about so called "nuclear waste," but wouldn't such a level of hysteria about the subject if it were remotely based on science sort of behoove Greenpeace identifying 411,000 premature deaths per year from so called nuclear waste?

          No?

          Greenpeace "science" doesn't need no stinking data and no stinking observations?

          Greenpeace analyses are "science" because the members of Greenpeace say it is?

          In fact, Greenpeace can do no such thing.  It can't even identify one such death a year.  Greenpeace's claim that so called "nuclear waste" is dangerous consists entirely of "Greenpeace says."

          There's a bunch running around calling themselves "creation scientists," who wish to assert through "science" that the Bible is literally true.   Should we take their word for it?  I mean is "creation science" science because "creation scientists" say it is?

          Now let's move to elementary logic, not that this is a Greenpeace Forte either.

          It is typical of Greenpeace thinking to assert that a rational person needs to prove negative statements.   This is the intellectually weakest bit of rhetoric in the book.

          In the previous installment of this series, I showed, that Greenpeace's bullshit soothsaying about 2050 was innumerate by showing how intellectually shallow "percent talk" actually is.   It is relatively easy to show, as I did, by direct calculation that it is very easy for the percentage of energy produced by so called "renewable" means to go up while the absolute value (measured in units of mass) of dangerous fossil fuel wastes go up.

          In fact, the mass of dangerous fossil fuel wastes released into the environment has been monotonically rising for decades and still Greenpeace's main mission is to fight nuclear energy?

          Hello?

          Is anybody home?

          Any lights on?

          I also take it as a given that anybody who substitutes talk about 2050 for the reality of climate change that is occuring now has demonstrated a priori that they couldn't care less about what is happening now.

          Greenpeace opposes the form of climate change gas free energy that is, by far, the largest known - nuclear energy.   They cannot show injury or environmental damage that is comparable to any other form of energy, as I have described in more than 50 diaries - I've lost count - on this site.   Many of my diaries, if not the majority of them, have referenced the primary scientific literature.   In fact, I'm in the scientific literature all the time.  I don't encounter Greenpeace there.  OK?  I am content to compare to this to the kind of circle jerk links I get to Greenpeace websites in response.

          From these things it follows immediately that Greenpeace couldn't care less about climate change.

          Anyone who is still in Greenpeace now reciting the Greenpeace faith based rosary is never going to get it.   At this point, it is very clear that Greenpeace is a religion and nothing more.

          •  Greenpeace & TXU sitting in a tree? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plan9, willb48, bryfry, Matthew B

            http://archive.greenpeace.org/...

            In fact, Greenpeace is in bed with the large coal company TXU, to put up some wind farms in the UK.  This was in 2002 that this union was formed.

            And perhaps it explains the massive silence from Greenpeace on the subject of the 17 dirty coal plants planned by TXU in Texas.  Yes, none of these were so called clean coal plants.  Even the mayors of Texas were outraged.  Even the Sierra Club was outraged.  Greenpeace?  crickets

            http://www.npr.org/...

            It is certainly clear that TXU knows how to grease people's palms:

            The governor's decision to speed up the permit process has drawn attention around the state. His executive order is especially not going over well with ranchers in central Texas, where many of the new power plants will be built.

            "I think he's been bought off," says rancher Ruth Pilant. "TXU has given him money to fast-track these permits and give him enough money and he'll do most anything apparently."

            One wonders how much money changed hands for Greenpeace to become such a coal enabler.

            •  You should stop by for the later part of this (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview, Plan9, willb48

              series when we take a look at the finances of the Oracle at Snowmass and the list of companies who pay him (off).

              If that same list of companies paid me $15,000-$20,000/day to say they were environmental there would be so much shill talk it would split the processor.

              I mean, Amory Lovins is about as bald faced as the Bush administration was with Halliburton.   I wouldn't be surprised if he announced he was going to do "environmental" consulting for Exxon.

            •  Your info is a bit out of date (6+ / 0-)

              In fact, Greenpeace is in bed with the large coal company TXU, to put up some wind farms in the UK.  This was in 2002 that this union was formed.

              I wouldn't exactly say that is "in bed" - and it's funny you should mention 2002. Just a few months later in October 2002 is when TXU got out of the UK electricity business, selling its UK operations due to "financial distress" as the SEC put it. I doubt TXU has had much to do with UK wind farms since.

              Regarding the "17 dirty coal plants planned by TXU in Texas" your information seems to be out of date there as well. Last I read, the 11 planned units providing up to 9000 MW new capacity have been reduced to just three (1 at Sandow, 2 at Oak Grove) which, if air permits are granted as expected by the end of this year, will result in around 2000 MW new coal capacity in 2009/2010. This is less than the new capacity of both wind energy and nuclear energy that TXU is investigating.

            •  So Green Peace (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doinaheckuvanutjob, NRG Guy

              isn't protesting everything that you wish them to , therefore they are corrupt ?
              Can you prove your accusation ?

              "coal enabler."
              http://www.greenpeace.org/...
              http://www.greenpeace.org/...
              http://weblog.greenpeace.org/...
              http://weblog.greenpeace.org/...
              http://archive.greenpeace.org/...
              http://mailman.greenpeace.org/...

              GreenPeace founder on nukes , energy and coal .
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

              l'essentiel est invisible

              by indycam on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:00:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes-because if they cared about global warming (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Plan9, NNadir, bryfry

                they would protest 17 dirty coal plants in Texas.  Maybe they haven't got time to protest everyone one of the coal plants going up in the US. But all the other environmental groups did have time for this one.  

                The fact that the 17 plants are now becoming fewer is due to the Sierra Club, the Billioniares for whatever protests at Merrill Lynch and so forth, & the mayors of Texas, no thanks to Greenpeace.

                As to the link touting the expired wind farm, it is from the Greenpeace site.  Greenpeace has never repudiated TXU.  It's not unreasonable to wonder why that is.  They had an association with TXU in 2002.  The leaders know all the right villains.

                So it's not unreasonable to wonder why Greenpeace has been fairly silent about coal everywhere in the US and why it asserts that global warming is not interesting until about 2050 when the evidence says otherwise.

                Don't you wonder why Greenpeace never protests any coal plants in the US?  Occasionally, they say a few words, but man, they are just not there.

                •  You have not proven your (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Plutonium Page, NRG Guy

                  accusation , you have merely repeated your faulty accusation . Saying they have not done something , is not proof of anything . Lack of a protest is not an approval or consent .

                  "Don't you wonder why Greenpeace never protests any coal plants in the US?  Occasionally, they say a few words, but man, they are just not there."

                  http://www.greenpeace.org/...
                  ..................
                  "Activists Dump Coal And Oil Drums At Vice President's Residence To Protest Energy Plan
                  Greenpeace activists dumped five tons of coal and five faux oil and nuclear waste drums outside the Vice President Cheney's residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington today to protest the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan. Activists held a banner reading "Stop the Bush/Cheney Energy Scam: America Needs Clean Power Now." The drums were labeled with the logos of Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, BP and Enron."
                  ..............
                  "Memorial to Pittsburgh Area Power Plant Deaths Erected in the Shadow of Elrama Power Plant
                  Highlighting the deadly impacts of coal-fired power plant emissions on the residents of the Pittsburgh Metropolitan region, Greenpeace today installed 3 foot crosses for every one of the 563 people who die prematurely from power plant pollution every year. The crosses were installed in the Elrama Little League baseball field, just across the fence line from the Elrama power plant. The installation was the first stop on a Greenpeace tour of some of the area’s dirtiest power plants."
                  ...................
                  llegheny Energy- Hatfield's Ferry Coal Plant
                  Hatfield’s Ferry power plant, located in Masontown, Pennsylvania, is an exceedingly dirty coal-burning power plant. Owned by Allegheny Energy, this plant ranks as one of the worst polluters in the country, violating environmental standards and causing numerous health problems, including premature death. However, thanks to extensive Republican Party contributions, this plant is permitted to continue on its dirty energy path without consequence.
                  ................
                  "CO2 emissions
                  The primary human source of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transport. Changes in land use and deforestation also contribute significantly. Trees, for example, are natural 'carbon sinks' - they absorb carbon dioxide while alive and when they are destroyed, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, most of the carbon dioxide stays there for 50 to 200 years, and some of it stays there indefinitely."
                  .....................
                  Update! The Smokestack Six
                  Thanks to all of you who supported the Smokestack Six - the four women and two men that scaled a 700-foot smokestack to highlight the dangers of a dirty coal plant and the Bush administration's failure to protect communities living in the shadows of polluting power plants. On February 15, 2005, these activists were able to resolve their case with the District Attorney of Greene County, Pennsylvania. We're happy to report that after generating more than 7,500 faxes from supporters, the unwarranted felony charge was dropped! The group has always maintained that they were prepared to take responsibility for their actions and that's just what they did. These six activists served their jail sentences ranging from four days to one month. All are now free!
                  ...................
                  Pennsylvania Tour Promotes Clean Energy
                  We went on the road in western Pennsylvania, promoting clean energy with our Rolling Sunlight solar demonstration vehicle. We targeted dirty coal fired power plants, hosted events for our National Hair Sampling Study of Mercury Exposure, and called on George Bush and John Kerry to commit to a plan within the first 100 days in office that will ensure that 20 percent of the nation's energy comes from renewable sources by 2020.
                  ....................

                  Join Green Peace ,
                  Pay your dues ,
                  and make that your issue .
                  If you don't , then you do not care about global warming and you are in the pocket of TXU .

                  "But all the other environmental groups did have time for this one."
                  All ?
                  So sea shepard was there ?
                  WWF was there ?
                  EDF was there ?
                  Surfrider foundation ?
                     * Bellona Foundation
                     * Biofuelwatch
                     * BirdLife International
                     * Center for International Environmental Law
                     * Conservation International
                     * Earth Charter Initiative
                     * Earth Policy Institute
                     * Environmental Investigation Agency
                     * Environmental Youth Alliance
                     * FERN
                     * Forest Stewardship Council
                     * Friends of Nature
                     * Friends of the Earth
                     * Gaia Mater (the mother Earth)
                     * Global Water Policy Project
                     * Global Witness
                     * Great Transition Initiative
                     * Green Cross International
                     * International Analog Forestry Network
                     * International Institute for Sustainable Dev
                     * NatureServe
                     * Tellus Institute
                     * The Nature Conservancy
                     * Nicodemus Wilderness Project
                     * Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)
                     * Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
                     * World Business Council for Sustainable Dev
                     * Worldchanging
                     * Worldwatch Institute
                     * World Wide Fund for Nature
                     * Xerces Society
                     * Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

                  Please tell me you have photos / written accounts of the big demonstrations put on by EFN .

                  l'essentiel est invisible

                  by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:00:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  kudos on an excellent butt-kicking (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Plutonium Page, indycam
                  •  Really? Clown Acts involving smokestack climbs (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry, raoul78

                    are part of the "fight" against coal?

                    This stuff - the best part is driving around on the "solar tour" - is so bourgeois that it's laughable.

                    Unless Greenpeace has a program for phasing out fossil fuels - and it doesn't - and a real program that doesn't involve "look at me" circus stunts that offer nothing more than candidates for the Darwin Awards, you have not demonstrated that Greenpeace gives a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuel waste.

                    Lip service and circus performances are very, very, very, very, very different than action, but I very, very, very, very, very much doubt that you have a clue about that.

                    Greenpeace opposes the largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.   It has taken part in malicious and dangerous frankly vandalous actions to destroy this infrastructure.

                    In the meantime, not one Greenpeace action in any place has ever shut a dangerous fossil fuel plant.   NOT ONE.   When was the last time that Greenpeace entered into a persistant campaign - even one that was misleading - to phase out dangerous coal?

                    On the other hand, some Greenpeace actions, have worked up public stupidity into a tizzy, notably at Rancho Seco, Yankee Maine, and Trojan, all of which were subject to misinformation campaigns and repeated referendums whipped up by Greenpeace types.  (It would appear that all of the referenda except the Sacramento one failed, but in each case Greenpeace called for new referenda.)  All of these plants have been replaced by dangerous fossil fuel plants and Greenpeace did nothing to stop them.   It did attempt to cover up what was happening by making a big innumerate deal about the 3 MW (peak) solar plant that was erected outside Rancho Seco to advance the lie that the plant was replaced by "solar energy."

                    Let's do some Greenpeace "we didn't just push for more fossil fuels in California" math.

                    3.2 "peak" = 913

                    Of course, SMUD was a terrible bunch of dunderheads - probably still are - and bungled the operation of the plant, a real "gang who couldn't shoot straight."  Even so, they really only started injuring people when they shut the plant and decided to burn dangerous fossil fuels instead.

                    Greenpeace couldn't care less.   In fact, I doubt very much that Greenpeace has ever seen a dangerous natural gas plant it couldn't love.    Greenpeace seems to be under the absurd impression that dangerous natural gas is clean.  

                    In fact, the trust fund brats at Greenpeace won't give a rat's ass when the problem of peak dangerous natural gas comes home to roost.   Probably they'll just dress up in clown suits, climb smokestacks, and march around telling everyone that everything will be fine if the poor people would stop insisting on having 200 watts of power to use.

                    And if the last statement is a mystery, as I will cover later in this series, the situation in China - let's blame China for climate change - comes down precisely to that.

                    Earlier links - and I realize that numbers are meaningless if you're a Greenpeace/Fossil Fuel apologist - have given the numbers on solar energy production, and in units of energy as opposed to the little "peak power" rating.   All of the solar electricity produced in the United States does not equal the energy output of a typical nuclear power plant.

                    The most amusing thing about Greenpeace/Fossil fuel apologists is that they think they should be taken seriously just because they've taken two minutes to offer illiterate lip service.

                    In fact, climate change is a very, very, very, very serious matter and the life of all humanity is potentially at risk.   It is hardly addressed by a bunch of middle class brats with poor educations driving around from place to place with rappeling equipment trying to get their pictures of TV.

                    •  your diaries have closed how many coal plants? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Plutonium Page, indycam, BruceMcF

                      I guess I lost track of how many coal plants you can claim credit for stopping.  

                      Last time I checked, coal has been getting a lot more flack lately and planned plants are being canceled frequently -- in part due to public concern about global warming.  I guess it's your diaries on dKos have that created this public concern, while Greenpeace toils in obscurity.

                      In the meantime, you attack natural gas yet fail to acknowledge that replacing a coal plant for a CCGT gas plant reduces GHG emissions by more than 50%.  I think it would be better to actually replace some coal plants with perhaps a gas fired CCGT, some wind, and efficiency improvements rather than just talk about nukes that companies don't seem to want to build.  One approach is based on what's happening in the US today and one is based on your rants and wishes.  

                      You say you want to have an impact NOW, then you should be pushing for the Energize America agenda and write diaries about how the gov't needs to mandate efficiency improvements for cars, appliances, and buildings and maybe even pushing for a carbon tax or more fuel switching from coal to natural gas -- these are strategies that may actually have an impact in GHG emissions in the next 5-10 years.  A doubling of new car fuel economy in the US is equivalent to building about 5 large nukes each year.  Where are your diaries on that?  In addition, dKos readers may be able to help push for the political changes needed to make these changes happen -- unlike nukes which are unlikely to be helped much by the opinions of dKos readers because companies don't want to build them.    

                      I guess it's easier for you to pretend that the choice is solar PV vs. nukes.  If I took your approach, I guess I would conclude that you don't give s shit about global warming.  But I'm more generous than that -- I think that you just care much more about promoting nukes than about anything else.

          •  Why not answer directly ? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sravaka, doinaheckuvanutjob

            You put out the statement/s . Prove them !
            Don't ask someone else to prove or disprove .
            Show the data upon which your statement are based .

            "I mean, I realize you can't get into Greenpeace if you can count, say, air pollution deaths, even those reported in the popular press."
            Prove it !  
            If you can not back up your statements with provable fact , its just bullshit .

            "At this point, it is very clear that Greenpeace is a religion and nothing more."
            Prove it !

            "From these things it follows immediately that Greenpeace couldn't care less about climate change."
            Here are some "circle jerk links I get to Greenpeace websites".
            http://www.greenpeace.org/...
            http://www.google.com/...
            You think you can say "Greenpeace couldn't care less about climate change" ?
            I say your statement is pure self aggrandizing bullshit .
            If you disagree with how and what they are doing , thats fine , but to say  they "couldn't care less about climate change" is a outright lie .

            Some here on this site have said you have an intelligence , I say you are sloppy , misleading , insulting ,  self aggrandizing and at this point, it is very clear to me that you are a troll .
            You know that people here dislike some of what you write , its been pointed out , yet you keep on doing it .

            ""dangerous nuclear waste," which has killed zero people."
            Prove it !

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
            "Official UN figures predicted up to 9,000 Chernobyl-related cancer deaths."
            And thats just a few more than zero , imho .
            If you denigrated the fact that people die from waste , how is anybody to look at anything you state as fact , as anything but the ravings of a mad man ?

            http://www.greenpeace.org/...
            http://www.greenfacts.org/...
            http://www.uic.com.au/...

            When you make these statements that are not fact based , it makes everything you say worthless in my eyes .
            You might have something , but the crap gets in the way . Cut the crap .

            l'essentiel est invisible

            by indycam on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:25:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sounds like the proof is in the pudding. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plan9, bryfry

              He says Greenpeace is a religion? Well look at your post here!

              Blaming the decades old, Soviet administered Chernobyl disaster on nuclear energy is something like blaming Jonestown on Kraft foods... "Denigrated the fact that people die from waste" -- why should anyone have to respond to this sort of unlettered crap? You know you're in trouble when you have to break the very rules of the language to demonize your opponent.



              A reminder: Painting Obama as "Republican-lite" is not going to get your guy through the primary.

              by Vincenzo Giambatista on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:53:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  nuclear waste... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry
              Nuclear waste has killed zero people. Not one.

              The Chernobyl disaster did not involve nuclear waste. It involved an operational, hot nuclear reactor and its contents.

              •  The waste (0+ / 0-)

                from that nuclear reactor was spread far and wide .
                The waste from that nuclear reactor was not contained .
                The waste from that clean safe reliable nuclear reactor , killed people , is killing people and will go on killing people and you could not care less !
                Why are you in favor of killing people with nuclear reactor waste ?
                Are you so very inhuman ?  

                In reality nuclear reactor waste just like other forms of energy production waste kills .
                If you can not admit that , then we have nothing to talk about , you are in lala land .
                Once you say zero , your credibility flies out the window .  

                l'essentiel est invisible

                by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:21:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, you are so ... (0+ / 0-)

                  Why are you in favor of killing people with nuclear reactor waste ? Are you so very inhuman ?

                  Well ... you are so melodramatic.

                  Get over yourself, and learn some facts, for goodness sake!

                  When you find someone who promotes an RBMK as a "clean safe reliable nuclear reactor," then get back to me. M'kay?

                  •  So you don't care for (0+ / 0-)

                    nnadirs style ? Perfect !
                    I'm using his style to make a point , thank you for playing along .

                    "find someone who promotes an RBMK"
                    So your saying the design was the problem ?
                    Not the operators ?
                    That the design you like / promote , can't be screwed up ? The waste from your design is never going to escape into the environment . The waste products from your favorite reactors will never be let loose ?

                    "Get over yourself, and learn some facts, for goodness sake!"
                    Don't you have some school work you should be doing ?

                    l'essentiel est invisible

                    by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:20:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh yeah ... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Plan9, enochthered

                      But NNadir does melodramatic with style!  ... and verbosity.

                      After all, he is using sarcasm. As far as I can tell, you're actually serious when you make ridiculous claims. Huh??

                      As far as RBMK's are concerned, yes, you are correct. The operators were the problem. The design is flawed when compared to standards in the West, but even so, the plant should have been safe. It required the operators to turn off the safety systems and run the plant in an unusual configuration (low power) to cause this incident.

                      Hey ... people make mistakes, including nuclear power plant operators. Other operators do as well; for example, the operators of automobiles kill between 36,000 and 40,000 people each year. Kind of makes Chernobyl look like a cake walk, doesn't it? And that doesn't even consider the "waste" produced by automobiles that you breathe, I breathe, everybody breathes, every day. I live in a city, so I'm breathing some of it as I write this.

                      And your condemnation of the "dangerous" automobile? Oh, I can smell the outrage. But I guess it's still forthcoming, ain't it? ;-)

                      •  Here we go . (0+ / 0-)

                        whether or not nuke power generation waste has or has not killed has nothing at all to do with how many have died via automobiles .

                        "As far as RBMK's are concerned, yes, you are correct. The operators were the problem."
                        I never made a statement to be correct or not correct  on . I asked you a question or two .
                        And you just steeped into it .

                        "And your condemnation of the "dangerous" automobile? Oh, I can smell the outrage. But I guess it's still forthcoming, ain't it? ;-)"
                        Absurd arguments are your specialty ?
                         

                        "After all, he is using sarcasm. As far as I can tell, you're actually serious when you make ridiculous claims."
                        "As far as I can" is the key to that statement .

                        "Hey ... people make mistakes, including nuclear power plant operators."
                        No Shit Sherlock !

                        l'essentiel est invisible

                        by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:24:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Do you actually have ... (0+ / 0-)

                          anything constructive to contribute?

                          •  Your statement (0+ / 0-)

                            "Get over yourself, and learn some facts, for goodness sake!"
                            I'm still waiting for you to show me some facts that I need to learn .
                            So far you have not come up with anything new .
                            Just the same old blathering of a whiny child .

                            So either put on screen the FACTS or don't .
                            Its on you . If you can not , so be it .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:43:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's a fact: coal waste kills 24,000 (0+ / 0-)

                            Americans every year.

                            Here's another fact:
                            Spent nuclear fuel has never killed any member of the American public.

                            Here's a 3rd fact:
                            Worldwide, nuclear plants avoid 2 billion tons of CO2 per year.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 01:47:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here are some more facts . (0+ / 0-)

                            Rain is wet .
                            Sunshine is warm .

                            Are those new facts to you ?

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:35:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So it turns out you do not want facts. (2+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview, bryfry
                            Hidden by:
                            indycam

                            Your mind is already made up.  You prefer being sarcastic, attacking the messenger, ignoring the terrible toll that fossil fuels are taking --quite possibly on people you know, etc. And maybe your exertions will somehow make wind and sunshine generate more than .02% of the world's electricity.

                            I certainly hope so, because we need them, along with an expansion of nuclear power, to respond to the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:18:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Prove it ! (0+ / 0-)

                            "ignoring the terrible toll that fossil fuels are taking"
                            If you can not prove it , then thats a personal attack and a lie .  

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:18:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  bryfry (0+ / 0-)

                    I was reading up on , thinking about , debating on ,
                    "clean safe reliable nuclear reactors" before you were born .
                    If you think you have some facts that I am missing or need to know , go ahead , spit it / them out !

                    As is now , you seam to me just like one of the punks who claim the ford rules and chevy sucks ,
                    or vice versa .

                    l'essentiel est invisible

                    by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:32:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yep... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      enochthered

                      It's called science. You might want to check it out. Your local library might have a book or two on physics.

                      Start there, then move on to critical thinking.

                      You'll soon see what I mean.

                      •  Your post is (0+ / 0-)

                        devoid of anything of use .
                        If you have a FACT that you would like to share , cough it up . If not , thats fine .

                        l'essentiel est invisible

                        by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:03:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Facts (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Plan9, enochthered

                          And I'll use short phrases for those of you who need their information in sound bites:

                          The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in the US has been outstanding since the dawn of the nuclear age 50 years ago.

                          The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in France has been outstanding. The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in Germany has been outstanding. The operation of commercial nuclear reactors in Japan has been outstanding (this is in spite of a culture that seems reluctant to admit mistakes. I am not saying that the Japanese nuclear industry is perfect -- but all things considered, their record is still remarkable). I can point to many other places in the world where the performance has been outstanding for an industrial technology.

                          These are facts: half a century of facts.

                          And you? What do you have to offer, except for ridiculous claims and troll ratings?

                          •  Your statements , are your opinion, (0+ / 0-)

                            not facts . Thats the problem .
                            If you have no FACTS to share .....

                            "It's called science. You might want to check it out."
                            Science is not just a blowhard spewing opinions .
                            In fact , blowhard spewing opinions , could be said to be the opposite of science .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:42:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You say that I am wrong? (0+ / 0-)

                            PROVE IT!!!!

                          •  Its still on you , (0+ / 0-)

                            till you back up your opinions ,
                            "learn some facts" , "It's called science. You might want to check it out."

                            So far no the fact / science front , you are doing zip zero nada .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 12:09:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tell you what ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview

                            Go tackle my claims here and here. I use numbers. These numbers come from the EIA. These are facts. Prove that I'm wrong, and then we can talk.

                            Or, you can try to prove that I was wrong earlier in this thread. Your choice.

                            I have provided facts, I have provided "proof," or at least I have provided numbers. You have only provided annoying BS. See if you can do better than that.

                          •  Your not covering any new ground (0+ / 0-)

                            Unless you have some NEW facts , just reposting the same old stuff isn't anything .

                            You posted "learn some facts" , I'm still waiting for them , if what you are telling me to learn is old , well then I say your statement is wrong and boring .

                            "It's called science. You might want to check it out."
                            Still waiting on this also , I was into , doing , etc
                            it before you were born , I am still waiting for you to show me something new . So far you have shown me nothing new .

                            "You have only provided annoying BS."
                            Funny that You should say that .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:46:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not new ground, but it is real. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry

                            It might not be any "new facts", but it is the established scientific case for nuclear energy. The scientific case for nuclear energy, and the body of fact that supports it is nothing new, but it's well founded.

                            When people like you can successfully rebut this scientific case, I might consider the need for "new facts".

                          •  Indycam is being helpful (2+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview, bryfry
                            Hidden by:
                            indycam

                            She's deliberately parading her ignorance so that people who have science-based information can rebut her and therefore address lurkers who may be unsure or confused about the risks and benefits of nuclear power.

                            So I say hurray for Indycam and Greenpeace-paid bloggers who show up on NNadir diaries.  They help us illuminate clearly the positives for nuclear power and permit us to repeat, yet again, that we are not opposed to renewable energy.

                            The big problem for the anti-nuclear-power movement people is that the facts are not on their side.  So they are forced to make up stuff, to resort to ancient, debunked "studies" and to otherwise lie and exaggerate.  But then there are the innocent foot soldiers who fall for all this blather and dutifully repeat it.  A little course in the scientific method might help these foot soldiers go AWOL.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I must say ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            that I've had some exercise this time around. You may be right.

                          •  Kos FAQ on troll-rating (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry

                            Dealing with trolls

                            Trolling is a sad reality of internet life. Most trolls tend to be blatant, posting comments or diaries that are clearly intended to provoke an angry response. Other trollish messages are posted simply to disrupt the conversation in a diary. Directly replying to the content of a trollish message is usually a waste of time; trolls tend not to be interested in actual debate.

                            QED.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  She's deliberately parading her ignorance (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm still waiting for you to bring something new to the table that I have not already read . So far you have brought nothing new . How am I to learn something , as you claim I need to , if you bring nothing new ?

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh and you have said something (0+ / 0-)

                            absolutely 100% wrong .
                            And I can positively absolutely 100% prove it .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 07:07:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "It might not be any "new facts"" (0+ / 0-)

                            Bingo .

                            "The scientific case for nuclear energy, and the body of fact that supports it is nothing new, but it's well founded."
                            Please try to stay on topic .
                            Has nuke waste ever killed anyone .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:59:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no, it hasn't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bryfry
                            The storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel (most of which is actually NOT waste) from civilian nuclear power has not killed anyone.  (Being extra precise so you don't retreat into mincing words.)

                            The storage of nuclear waste from military operations might kill some people (unlikely in the case of Hanford, more likely in the case of Mayak), and the spreading of nuclear waste from an accident in a military plutonium production facility (Chornobyl) might kill at most 9000 more people (an upper limit based on a discredited, pessimistic theory).

                            So, there you have it.  Now it's your turn to jump up and down and go all PROVE IT, PROVE IT!; but before you do so again, pray tell, what would you consider proof that nobody was ever killed by the handling of used nuclear fuel?  On the other hand, DISproving would be very easy, if indeed somebody was killed by used nuclear fuel.

    •  Reading between the Whines ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NRG Guy

      Okay, the whining about TR's ... so what.

      But, NNadir has points that are worth listening to (even if you don't agree).

      • Renewables remain far behind nuclear power in terms of power generation
      • We should understand all pollutants, and understand them in a balanced way

      On the other hand, does NNadir

      • emphasize past / existing renewable over future potential -- should he even think of "potential". I seek multi-gigawatt contracting for solar CSP in California and think that there is a there there
      • 40% Solar growth/year-after-year. Even starting with a low number, it gets somewhere
      • Wind growth at 25+% per year ...

      And, well, I don't see nuclear (or anything) as a silver bullet.

      In terms of this diary, I don't agree with the vilification of Amory Lovins.

      •  Although you and sometimes disagree, we certainly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry

        respect one another, Adam.

        We're going to disagree about Mr. Lovins and please keep in mind as the disagreement proceeds, that my respect for YOU is unchanged.

        I am hardly done with Mr. Lovins.   In fact, I'm just getting started.

        This summer I went back and checked out some of his early publications.   I feel like a grandson who just found out that his beloved grandmother had been embezzled out of the family farm by a dishonest, intinerant, carny, tent preacher.

        In the Grandson analogy, I have in mind the sort of Grandson whose anger does not derive from anything he wanted for himself, but instead, simple outrage that anyone could be so predatory toward the innocent.

        This guy is BAD news, big time.

        I can only imagine what people might say here if mean, old, vicious, whiny NNadir were taking money from the people Amory Lovins takes money from.

      •  There is one quantitative flaw ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, NRG Guy

        ... which is that the primary "ready for prime time" contributions of solar are passive solar, in both heating/cooling and lighting, and energy avoided is simply not counted in the numbers.

        The real situation is that wind, active solar, tidal, etc. are all infant industries, and require support in order to become established, and nuclear is a mature industry that already received the infant industry support it required when it was an infant industry.

        Government policy positions placing nuclear at the top priority, ahead of energy efficiency and sustainable renewable power is not going to substantially increase the contribution of nuclear electricity in the next 20 years, while government policy positions placing energy efficiency and sustainable renewable power at the top priority will substantially increase the contribution of negenergy over the next decade and sustainable renewable power over the next twenty years.

        SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

        by BruceMcF on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 06:55:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Basically in agreement ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry

          well stated ...

          Wind as "infant", not quite sure, however ... "toddler"?

        •  This kind of thinking has been nonsensical for (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LIsoundview, Plan9

          many decades now.

          Maybe you think that per capita energy consumption in the United States is lower now than it was in 1986.

          I hate to contradict happy face talk with data but I am compelled to confess at the risk of great pain that data exists.

          I am particularly amused by this alleged 20 year figure.

          In 1987, the per capita energy consumption of an American was 320 MBTU/person/year.  In 2006, it was 334 MBTU/person.

          I guess this "savings" is pretty ethereal.

          US per capita energy consumption is today precisely the same as it was in 1970.

          Now let's return to the "conservation and renewables is fast" and "nuclear is slow" myth that never gets challenged and therefore routinely gets believed in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it.

          We have had continuous cheering about the potential of solar energy for more than 50 years now.   It doesn't produce even a tenth of an exajoule.   If we divide the number of joules it does produce by 50, and then the number of seconds in the year we get the average power increase of 47 MWe per year.   The average power of a nuclear plant may be taken to be around 1000 MWe - some are much larger but some are smaller.   Thus it would take 20 years of growth in solar to be equivalent to one nuclear power plant.

          The vast majority of US nuclear reactors, most of which are still now running, representing, by far, the largest climate change gas free source of energy in this country, were built between 1965 and 1985.

          As engineers began to understand these machines, they quickly rose to become the fourth largest source of energy in the United States, and the only form of energy among the top four that does not generate massive amounts of dangerous fossil fuel waste.

          Again, data.

          Nuclear energy production in this country has roughly quadrupled on an exajoule scale since 1980 despite a huge chorus of nonsense continually sung about the cleanest and safest exajoule scale energy industry in the United States.

          At no point in the last 20 years has energy consumption actually fallen.

          World energy consumption, broken down by country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site