Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
3. Once again, you announce that 100,000 people "dislocated" largely out of fear and not risk, are...
Thu May 11, 2017, 10:34 PM
May 2017

...more important in this one time event than the 7 million people killed by air pollution every year.

Which is worse, 100,000 people moving every twenty years, or seven million people dying every year?

According to the world renowned climate scientist, even accounting for Fukushima and Chernobyl, the two boogie men anti-nukes prattle insipidly about all the time, usually using electricity generated by gas and coal, nuclear energy saved 1.8 million lives that would have been lost to air pollution: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power.

It might have saved more lives, but for the selective attention of fools with no scientific, engineering or mathematical training.

Among the set of people who embrace this absurd logic there are zero among them who bother to acknowledge that two trillion dollars squandered on so called "renewable" energy in solar and wind alone - which is in fact no such thing, renewable, given it's material requirements - saved very few of these lives.

This is, again, in case we have anyone here who remains too stupid to get it, why so called "renewable energy" is dangerous. It soaks up vast sums of money, equivalent to the yearly income of a nation with more than a billion people in it, and does nothing to prevent these deaths.

In my next post, I will offer some math - based on the operational history of a reactor near where I live, Oyster Creek - that operated for almost 50 years, was built in four years, using technology developed by scientists and engineers operating with slide rules and very primitive computers.

China is building nuclear reactors, training engineers and scientists to run and design them, and the US is filled with little bourgeois brats weeping and crying over Fukushima. Those reactors will be operating in 50 years. It can be shown, and I have shown it, that just one or two Chinese reactors, in one or two small buildings, can produce more energy than all of the wind turbines in that offshore oil and gas drilling hellhole Denmark that our dumb anti-nukes are always prattling on and on and on and on about.

And let's be clear. When that oil and gas is brought up by the Danes in the North Sea, it will kill people when it is used normally, no fucking tsunami required, just as the carcinogens released in the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that all our Fukushima crybabies couldn't care less about is killing people right now.

But they're a "renewable" example, aren't they, those Danes? How come they're still drilling oil and gas in a marine environment? How come?

But let's go back to the 2011 Sendai earthquake,. Which killed more people in the 2011 event, radiation or drownings?

How come none of our anti-nukes want to ban coastal cities? I mean their fear and ignorance is certainly responsible for rising seas, and between Indonesia and Japan, close to 270,000 people died from seawater raised by tsunamis. Which has proved safer in the last half a century, all the world's nuclear power plants, or living on coasts?

Arguably for people who can do math - this would exclude the entire set of innumerate scare mongers who prattle on about Fukushima while 800 people die every hour from the health consequences of air pollution while we engage in endless illiterate percent talk that's been going on for 50 years with the failed, useless, and absurdly expensive solar scam - one can examine this "percent" claim and run right through it with third grade math.

If I have a nickel and I increase by holdings by 1,000 percent, I'm not going to appear on the cover of Forbes as the next Bill Gates. I'll have half a buck. If I've announced this money as the sum I've put towards my retirement, I'll be homeless and considered, um, a failure. Of course, if I go around and announce that I'm an expert at increasing my holdings by 1000% I might find some gullible assholes who would be impressed, but I'd be a fraud, and anyone giving me money to "invest" would be scammed. My "percent" success would be entirely possible precisely and only because I'm a failure.

The continuous lies put forth using the "percent talk" are the reason that 7 million people are allowed to die each year from selective attention, because anti-nukes can't fucking think. This is comparable to the lies they tell when they attempt to represent peak power and being the same as average continuous power, or, better, energy.

Nuclear provided, in 2014, in the link provided in the OP 4.8% of the world's energy. Were it not for stupid people raising specious selective attention - as a mature technology developed by some of the smartest people in the world, obvious not members of the ignorance society Greenpeace - it might have provided more, and thus saved more lives than it already saved from air pollution, but no matter. At 574 exajoules - it appears that conservation, the other stupid idea of the renewable will save us people who expect four or five billion people to live in dire poverty so they can smugly prattle on about the electric cars of a few bourgeois dullards who buy and drive them is also a failed idea - this amounts to about 23 exajoules.

This document from the IEA, the International Energy Agency, gives in TWh the total output for 2016 for the solar PV and solar thermal industries in TWh: See table 2 page 11.

In 2016 we see that the solar PV industry produced 267 TWh, and the solar CSP industry 22 TWh, for a grand total of 289 TWh. This amounts to barely one exajoule in 2016, this at an investment cost of over a trillion dollars spent over ten years on a planet where billions of people lack access to clean water and even rudimentary sanitary systems.

If the fraudulent solar industry were able to suck another 10 trillion dollars - twice the GDP of Japan - and increase by 1000% it will still be producing less than half of what nuclear energy is producing largely using 30 year old technology put in place by a generation much smarter than this one, since they didn't let assholes who obviously know nothing about math, science or engineering pull cheap marketing tricks to hype their useless - and since it's ineffective, deadly - solar and wind toys even as more and more and more oil, gas, and coal is dug up, burned, and allowed to release seriously deadly materials into the planetary atmosphere without interruption.

Ignorance kills people.

By the way, you mentioned Japan. Which does Japan produce more electricity with now that dumb hysteria caused it to shut it's nuclear reactors? Wind power or dangerous fossil fuels? Which killed more people in Japan this year, radiation or air pollution?

Basically, the liars who are in praise of the failed, soon to be landfill wind turbines don't really a fuck about anyone, anyone at all who will be killed by Japan's very dangerous decision to close its nuclear reactors (but not its coastal cities) or else they would be able to ponder this, much as the Nobel Laureate Burton Richter pondered it: Richter, Energy and Environmental Science, 2012

Shutting Japan's reactors killed people. Excuse me if I claim you seem thrilled about these closures. Par for the course. There was no legitimate reason to shut them, other than fear and ignorance. As Nobel Laureate Richter pointed out, and world renowned climate scientist Jim Hansen before him, they were saving lives when they operated.

Later on, when I'm in the mood for confronting ignorance - it's tiresome and depressing today, given all the Trump lies flying around to confront yet another class of liars and scammers, those in the "solar will save us" industry - I'll compare what we might have done with more than two trillion dollars if we spent the same amount that previous generations spent (converted to 2017 dollars) to build lots of additional Oyster Creek reactors using the safety standards of 1969, standards that were adequate to prevent a single loss of life in 50 years of operations. I note, with due contempt, that the United States built more than 100 reactors in about 20 years time while providing some of the lowest cost electricity in the world. I'm not in the mood to hear from dumb people how what has already happened is now impossible.

In the meantime, may I suggest you sit in the corner and try to figure out how to work a pocket calculator's "percent" key? Once you learn to work it, try to see if you can calculate the difference between 1000% of five cents and 1% of a billion dollars.

You might learn something. Maybe not, but you never know, maybe you will.



Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»UNEP/Frankfurt School Inv...»Reply #3