laklak wrote:Had moronic eco-warriors not hysterically objected to nuclear power we'd already be a lot further along.

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Yep, and in 1956 someone built a 1 watt photo-voltage cell for today's equivalent of $3000.

And the first steam engines were little more than toys.

Did you have a point here?

As usual, he doesn’t have one.

And fuck you too. Just fuck off all of you. Everyone of you self assured committed social justice warriors that feel insult works better than reason.

You know what? Agenda wise i'm with you but your methods are often reprehensible.

I find it disappointing that of all the posts and rational arguments I've made in this thread you chose to respond to this one.
Name calling doesn't help you one bit.
Your lack of sincerity here just adds to my decreasing respect for your contributions here.

Oldskeptic wrote:

laklak wrote:Had moronic eco-warriors not hysterically objected to nuclear power we'd already be a lot further along.

Straight up distortion of the reality of the situation. The average man on the street has done far more to halt nuclear than any small cadre of ecowarriors who have never been so much as able to stop a motorway being built. People are generally scared shitless of nuclear in my experience and this is not confined to any political persuation or ecological standpoint. They hear horror stories of Chernobyl and recently that one in Japan and they don't want it on their doorstep. But it's easy to just point a finger at a soft target I guess.

I hope that if we do crack fusion scientists are savvy enough to drop the 'nuclear' from the title as not to alarm the ignorant masses.

I agree that public opposition to nukes is a factor, but it only just (2016) reached majority proportions, at least in the U.S.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11277574/nuclear-power-public-opinion

Oppostition to nuclear power is ill-informed hysteria. Yes there have been a couple of "accidents" (read "poor design and/or maintenance" for that), but overall it is the safest form of electrical generation ever devised. Opposition by the general public (read "scientifically illiterate unwashed masses" for that) is molded and directed by organizations like Greenpeace and others.

But the reasons don't matter. What does is we've abandoned it, and because of that we're stuck with fossil a lot longer than we would have been had we adopted a sane policy. The vast majority of people are not going to willingly give up their standard of living, regardless of what it does to ocean accidification or sea levels or weather patterns. Add in the several billions of Indians, Africans, Chinese et. al. who now want their Slice of the Modern Good Life and the future looks grim indeed.

Come on, fusion.

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Animavore wrote:

And the first steam engines were little more than toys.

Did you have a point here?

As usual, he doesn’t have one.

And fuck you too. Just fuck off all of you. Everyone of you self assured committed social justice warriors that feel insult works better than reason.

You know what? Agenda wise i'm with you but your methods are often reprehensible.

I find it disappointing that of all the posts and rational arguments I've made in this thread you chose to respond to this one.

You'd rather I responded to a post by you that wasn't so fucking shallow and biased? Sorry to disturb your bliss but you can fuck off with that to.

felltoearth wrote:Name calling doesn't help you one bit.

So, if I call you and a good half of the membership here now spineless fuckwit social justice warriors it doesn't help at all? It helps me and in this era that's what counts, right.

felltoearth wrote:Your lack of sincerity here just adds to my decreasing respect for your contributions here.

My decreasing respect here hit rock bottom when people here let people like Teague, Willie71, Crank, and others like you run wild with insults and accusations against long standing members with solid reputations.

Get me straight! Most of the people left here are pond scum compared to what this and the previous forum was. I've been a member of that and this board since 2006, the beginning, and I'm beginning to be ashamed of that.

With one line comments like yours you cast shame on all that have gone before you. You are not a shining example of rationality here. Hardly anyone here is anymore. Even the moderators are but a pale shadow of what once was.

I have little respect for anyone other than a couple of individuals on these boards right now so what you think of me means nothing to me.

Take your snide one liners and shove them up your ass. -

Animavore wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

laklak wrote:Had moronic eco-warriors not hysterically objected to nuclear power we'd already be a lot further along.

Straight up distortion of the reality of the situation. The average man on the street has done far more to halt nuclear than any small cadre of ecowarriors who have never been so much as able to stop a motorway being built. People are generally scared shitless of nuclear in my experience and this is not confined to any political persuation or ecological standpoint. They hear horror stories of Chernobyl and recently that one in Japan and they don't want it on their doorstep. But it's easy to just point a finger at a soft target I guess.

I hope that if we do crack fusion scientists are savvy enough to drop the 'nuclear' from the title as not to alarm the ignorant masses.

It wasn't the energy industry or conservative politicians creating the anxiety and panic over nuclear energy and today it hasn't changed much.

laklak wrote:I agree that public opposition to nukes is a factor, but it only just (2016) reached majority proportions, at least in the U.S.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11277574/nuclear-power-public-opinion

Oppostition to nuclear power is ill-informed hysteria. Yes there have been a couple of "accidents" (read "poor design and/or maintenance" for that), but overall it is the safest form of electrical generation ever devised. Opposition by the general public (read "scientifically illiterate unwashed masses" for that) is molded and directed by organizations like Greenpeace and others.

But the reasons don't matter. What does is we've abandoned it, and because of that we're stuck with fossil a lot longer than we would have been had we adopted a sane policy. The vast majority of people are not going to willingly give up their standard of living, regardless of what it does to ocean accidification or sea levels or weather patterns. Add in the several billions of Indians, Africans, Chinese et. al. who now want their Slice of the Modern Good Life and the future looks grim indeed.

Come on, fusion.

Nobody is asking anyone to give up their lifestyle. This ridiculous caricature needs to die. It's preventing progress by creating a cynicism about renewables and causing doubt of a better way. Most of us are asking for future tech and that the trillions in subsidies for the fossil industry be put into renewables, which includes fusion research, instead. They opposite of wanting to go back to caves.

As for China and India, both are doing far more than anyone else right now for renewables. China recently cancelled a load of coal plants in favour of renewables and look set to become the World's leading energy superpower. Of course they're not hindered by the free-market fundamentalism which believes the invisible hand is going to sort them out which is stopping sensible policy in the West. They're just getting shit done.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

laklak wrote:Had moronic eco-warriors not hysterically objected to nuclear power we'd already be a lot further along.

Straight up distortion of the reality of the situation. The average man on the street has done far more to halt nuclear than any small cadre of ecowarriors who have never been so much as able to stop a motorway being built. People are generally scared shitless of nuclear in my experience and this is not confined to any political persuation or ecological standpoint. They hear horror stories of Chernobyl and recently that one in Japan and they don't want it on their doorstep. But it's easy to just point a finger at a soft target I guess.

I hope that if we do crack fusion scientists are savvy enough to drop the 'nuclear' from the title as not to alarm the ignorant masses.

It wasn't the energy industry or conservative politicians creating the anxiety and panic over nuclear energy and today it hasn't changed much.

It wasn't anyone in particular. Chernobyl scared people to death. Fukishima terrified them. And as safe as people keep trying to say it is (the Titanic was unsinkable), if it does go wrong there's no denying serious problems arise.

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

As usual, he doesn’t have one.

And fuck you too. Just fuck off all of you. Everyone of you self assured committed social justice warriors that feel insult works better than reason.

You know what? Agenda wise i'm with you but your methods are often reprehensible.

I find it disappointing that of all the posts and rational arguments I've made in this thread you chose to respond to this one.

You'd rather I responded to a post by you that wasn't so fucking shallow and biased? Sorry to disturb your bliss but you can fuck off with that to.

felltoearth wrote:Name calling doesn't help you one bit.

So, if I call you and a good half of the membership here now spineless fuckwit social justice warriors it doesn't help at all? It helps me and in this era that's what counts, right.

felltoearth wrote:Your lack of sincerity here just adds to my decreasing respect for your contributions here.

My decreasing respect here hit rock bottom when people here let people like Teague, Willie71, Crank, and others like you run wild with insults and accusations against long standing members with solid reputations.

Get me straight! Most of the people left here are pond scum compared to what this and the previous forum was. I've been a member of that and this board since 2006, the beginning, and I'm beginning to be ashamed of that.

With one line comments like yours you cast shame on all that have gone before you. You are not a shining example of rationality here. Hardly anyone here is anymore. Even the moderators are but a pale shadow of what once was.

I have little respect for anyone other than a couple of individuals on these boards right now so what you think of me means nothing to me.

Take your snide one liners and shove them up your ass. -

Maybe you could go back and address some actual points instead of lumping me in with others on this board who have apparently dun u wrong.

laklak wrote:As it is now we need fusion, and quickly.

Come on, fusion.

Indeed.

We may be one large step closer to a future driven by fusion power — the elusive, limitless, and zero-carbon energy source that’s even a step-up from renewables. A collaboration between MIT and a new private company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), aims to bring the world’s first fusion power plant online in the next 15 years, using a novel approach.

[...]

“The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate change,” Bob Mumgaard, CEO of Commonwealth Fusion Systems, told The Guardian. “We think we have the science, speed and scale to put carbon-free fusion power on the grid in 15 years.”
https://futurism.com/mit-fusion-power-c ... -it-works/

My objection to nuclear isn't that it's unsafe, it's that it is a very expensive form of generating electricity. Nuclear should be part of an energy mix, it isn't a panacea.

Exactly ...too expensive and over regulated....very safe.

and OS ...you get dissed for good reason.

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

And fuck you too. Just fuck off all of you. Everyone of you self assured committed social justice warriors that feel insult works better than reason.

You know what? Agenda wise i'm with you but your methods are often reprehensible.

I find it disappointing that of all the posts and rational arguments I've made in this thread you chose to respond to this one.

You'd rather I responded to a post by you that wasn't so fucking shallow and biased? Sorry to disturb your bliss but you can fuck off with that to.

felltoearth wrote:Name calling doesn't help you one bit.

So, if I call you and a good half of the membership here now spineless fuckwit social justice warriors it doesn't help at all? It helps me and in this era that's what counts, right.

felltoearth wrote:Your lack of sincerity here just adds to my decreasing respect for your contributions here.

My decreasing respect here hit rock bottom when people here let people like Teague, Willie71, Crank, and others like you run wild with insults and accusations against long standing members with solid reputations.

Get me straight! Most of the people left here are pond scum compared to what this and the previous forum was. I've been a member of that and this board since 2006, the beginning, and I'm beginning to be ashamed of that.

With one line comments like yours you cast shame on all that have gone before you. You are not a shining example of rationality here. Hardly anyone here is anymore. Even the moderators are but a pale shadow of what once was.

I have little respect for anyone other than a couple of individuals on these boards right now so what you think of me means nothing to me.

Take your snide one liners and shove them up your ass.

Maybe you could go back and address some actual points instead of lumping me in with others on this board who have apparently dun u wrong.

Nope, you'll do. You joined the dipshit brigade, if you hadn't before, when you let off with your insult and snide one liner. So, I'm lumping away. And I'll just be one of those pointless cherry picking deniers that y'all feel so fucking free to denigrate rather than respond to.

You want to have actual points addressed? Try this and right after you respond to my post, where I spell out my position, point by point I'll pay some fucking attention to your rude nonsense.

Position??? ....as i said respect is earned and that "position" is ludicrous. No one denies that fossil fuels drove our expansion.

It's trying to defend fossil fuel companies who mislead and the public for years about the consequences and delayed the move to carbon neutral.
If knock on consequences in health care and climate change damage were included in the cost of fossil fuels they would be out of business as coal pretty much is now.

Companies are responsible for the harm their products do.
So the courts will determine their share of the cost of that harm to society and award compensation.

Polluter pays ...

UK car industry must pay up for toxic air 'catastrophe', super-inquiry finds
Unprecedented joint inquiry by four committees of MPs demands polluters pay for air pollution causing ‘national health emergency’

more
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... uiry-finds

Oldskeptic wrote:
I'm thinking that Aunald should do a Roseanne Roseannadanna about now:

Point of order: that is Emily Litella

Macdoc wrote:

Companies are responsible for the harm their products do.
So the courts will determine their share of the cost of that harm to society and award compensation.

At what point does the responsibility of the consumer come in? Cigarettes are now known to be bad. Surgeon general warnings persist on all packages of cigarettes. Does Marlboro still share responsibility for those who continue to use their product?

Generally we know climate change is real. We know pollution is real. At what point do we as consumers not share in the fiscal responsibility?

In the case of cigarettes Big Tobacco denied addiction and denied cancer link....both were coverups plus there was aggressive marketing of the harmful habit as desirable life style .....eg Marlborough Man etc.

In the case of fossil fuel ...again covering up of known harm and active funding of the deniosphere, working against mitigating laws and not factoring into pricing the harm done.......they got a free ride fucking up the atmosphere and regardless of the consumer ....they are responsible for the harm.
Coal companies will get away with it as the industry is currently worthless and tax payers will pay for the clean up ..the oil companies still have assets worth encumbering to pay for damages.

They have no Cheney law protecting them or the ridiculous protections the gun manufacturers have.

If you piss upstream ....you pay for the damage downstream.

Up to the courts to determine the damages as they did with SO2.