5 ms·

Thank you. I believe all environmentalists need to curb their fear and absorb a healthy dose of science. It would limit the outpouring of outrageous, fear-monge

Thank you. I believe all environmentalists need to curb their fear and absorb a healthy dose of science. It would limit the outpouring of outrageous, fear-mongering statements to leave some room for serious adult discussions on how to tackle the energy problems we face as a species.

pflenker 4y ago
I think it’s condescending to claim that environmentalists are guided mainly by emotions and people who share your view are guided by science. The problems surrounding nuclear waste is not as clear cut as the article suggests.
- glitchc 4y ago
  The fact that you feel personally attacked by my statement suggests that your beliefs are well, beliefs, and not necessarily grounded in fact. I recommend you read "The Wizard and The Prophet" as it chronicles the dawn of the environmentalist movement in an engaging and insightful way. That environmentalism was largely funded by wealthy folks, most of whom had only a rudimentary understanding of science, should be a clue towards how much science factors into those discussions.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    This is a bogus argument. If want to discuss the relative level of science in current beliefs about, say, nuclear waste, then go ahead and do so. But please do not impugne current "environmentalists" (a group which, as far as this topic goes, includes a number of "actual scientists") with your claims about the origins of the environmental movement. As for those claims, the environmental movement in the USA is generally dated back to the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", and in its early years was not really funded by anyone at all. In addition, most things are largely funded by wealthy folks, so this observation is largely content free.
  - throwbadubadu 4y ago
    But it's also not like every scientist (vs environmentalist, can't we just stop with stupid generalization and classification like that?) would be in full support of going on with nuclear as civil power source, and there is also more than pure science to consider. Stuff fails (from waste disposal processes to planes falling out of the sky) not because we have not understood the science or almost perfect processes established, but for many various reasons? I think it's also unfair to claim poster before as feeling attacked, and then giving statement about his beliefs, which you don't know. So could do the same thing here? Those grounded facts extrapolated to the complex practical reality is again itself just belief, and could do the same here then...
  - acdha 4y ago
    Consider that your emotional desire to feel smug and contrarian are being quite effectively manipulated by the wealthy industries funding the people whose ideas you’re repeating. Environmentalism has a long history of scientists sounding alarms which turned out to be accurate, and your uninformed assertion otherwise is doing your credibility no service here.
  - pflenker 4y ago
    No, that’s not it, sorry. The line of argument which boils down to „my side is guided by logic and facts, while your side is guided by emotion and fear“ makes the one who invokes it (ironically) vulnerable to missing valuable facts that might otherwise enrich or even challenge their mental model of the discussion at hand. Note that this is a meta discussion which comments on how you were presenting your thoughts.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Environmental activism is riddled with irrational emotional appeals that don't align with objective reality. One can make an argument that this is necessary to get the majority of people to care about the intractable hyperobject that is climate change, but I think it very clearly deserves condescension and ridicule when it becomes clear that these emotional appeals from environmental activists have been accidentally fighting legitimate possible solutions (nuclear) which has indirectly helped the fossil fuel industry that they're supposed to hate.
- yCombLinks 4y ago
  The condescension is deserved. The green movement has done more harm than help to clean energy by blocking nuclear power trying to push energy sources that were not economically viable. This was mainly due to emotional backlash against nuclear energy.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Condescension is never "deserved", you just decided to apply it.
    - yCombLinks 4y ago
      Wrong, condescension is a social tool to discourage an unwanted behavior. Accepting the negative behavior encourages others to do the same thing.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Condescension is actually rude, and for that reason not a smart way to persuade people you're right. It gets you upvotes on Twaddle or whatever, but only from people who already agree with you.
    - yCombLinks 4y ago
      Yes, it is rude. That's the point. It's not to convince people that already have their minds made up. It's to convince people that don't have their minds made up. They see they will be treated rudely if they adopt whatever the unwanted behavior is.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        You seem to be advocating bullying. I stand against that.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Well, the nuclear folks need a healthy dose of economics, because nuclear is not price competitive with current solar/wind, and those generation modes are still improving 10-20% per year on LCOE. So even if some super good nuclear reactor design was finalized, proposed, funded, and constructed on a wide basis, we're looking at, what, 10 years? 10 years of solar/wind likely improving at LEAST 5-10% per year. Compounded. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry almost always blows the budget, and if there's one thing modern America hasn't fixed its government budgets from being boondoggled. I'm a pro-nuclear person, I believe that price-matured wind/solar can be competed with using a future reactor design, hopefully one that is scalable, meltdown proof, uses all the fuel/no waste, can breed from thorium, nonfissile uranium, or long-term nuclear waste, AKA a LFTR/MSR, although I admit those have real challenges. We should probably keep existing nuclear functioning as load leveling on the grid, and continue aggressive funding of research/development of test reactors. But there really isn't a price competitive design in nuclear out there. And fusion? Pfft. Even if they can sustain a reaction, I highly doubt they'll even get to fission LCOE costs, and fusion isn't as clean as people think, those fast neutrons degrade/irradiate the confinement equipment.
sacrosancty 4y ago
[dead]

pflenker 4y ago

I think it’s condescending to claim that environmentalists are guided mainly by emotions and people who share your view are guided by science. The problems surrounding nuclear waste is not as clear cut as the article suggests.

glitchc 4y ago
The fact that you feel personally attacked by my statement suggests that your beliefs are well, beliefs, and not necessarily grounded in fact. I recommend you read "The Wizard and The Prophet" as it chronicles the dawn of the environmentalist movement in an engaging and insightful way. That environmentalism was largely funded by wealthy folks, most of whom had only a rudimentary understanding of science, should be a clue towards how much science factors into those discussions.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  This is a bogus argument. If want to discuss the relative level of science in current beliefs about, say, nuclear waste, then go ahead and do so. But please do not impugne current "environmentalists" (a group which, as far as this topic goes, includes a number of "actual scientists") with your claims about the origins of the environmental movement. As for those claims, the environmental movement in the USA is generally dated back to the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", and in its early years was not really funded by anyone at all. In addition, most things are largely funded by wealthy folks, so this observation is largely content free.
- throwbadubadu 4y ago
  But it's also not like every scientist (vs environmentalist, can't we just stop with stupid generalization and classification like that?) would be in full support of going on with nuclear as civil power source, and there is also more than pure science to consider. Stuff fails (from waste disposal processes to planes falling out of the sky) not because we have not understood the science or almost perfect processes established, but for many various reasons? I think it's also unfair to claim poster before as feeling attacked, and then giving statement about his beliefs, which you don't know. So could do the same thing here? Those grounded facts extrapolated to the complex practical reality is again itself just belief, and could do the same here then...
- acdha 4y ago
  Consider that your emotional desire to feel smug and contrarian are being quite effectively manipulated by the wealthy industries funding the people whose ideas you’re repeating. Environmentalism has a long history of scientists sounding alarms which turned out to be accurate, and your uninformed assertion otherwise is doing your credibility no service here.
- pflenker 4y ago
  No, that’s not it, sorry. The line of argument which boils down to „my side is guided by logic and facts, while your side is guided by emotion and fear“ makes the one who invokes it (ironically) vulnerable to missing valuable facts that might otherwise enrich or even challenge their mental model of the discussion at hand. Note that this is a meta discussion which comments on how you were presenting your thoughts.
anonporridge 4y ago
Environmental activism is riddled with irrational emotional appeals that don't align with objective reality. One can make an argument that this is necessary to get the majority of people to care about the intractable hyperobject that is climate change, but I think it very clearly deserves condescension and ridicule when it becomes clear that these emotional appeals from environmental activists have been accidentally fighting legitimate possible solutions (nuclear) which has indirectly helped the fossil fuel industry that they're supposed to hate.
yCombLinks 4y ago
The condescension is deserved. The green movement has done more harm than help to clean energy by blocking nuclear power trying to push energy sources that were not economically viable. This was mainly due to emotional backlash against nuclear energy.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Condescension is never "deserved", you just decided to apply it.
  - yCombLinks 4y ago
    Wrong, condescension is a social tool to discourage an unwanted behavior. Accepting the negative behavior encourages others to do the same thing.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Condescension is actually rude, and for that reason not a smart way to persuade people you're right. It gets you upvotes on Twaddle or whatever, but only from people who already agree with you.
  - yCombLinks 4y ago
    Yes, it is rude. That's the point. It's not to convince people that already have their minds made up. It's to convince people that don't have their minds made up. They see they will be treated rudely if they adopt whatever the unwanted behavior is.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      You seem to be advocating bullying. I stand against that.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Well, the nuclear folks need a healthy dose of economics, because nuclear is not price competitive with current solar/wind, and those generation modes are still improving 10-20% per year on LCOE. So even if some super good nuclear reactor design was finalized, proposed, funded, and constructed on a wide basis, we're looking at, what, 10 years? 10 years of solar/wind likely improving at LEAST 5-10% per year. Compounded. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry almost always blows the budget, and if there's one thing modern America hasn't fixed its government budgets from being boondoggled. I'm a pro-nuclear person, I believe that price-matured wind/solar can be competed with using a future reactor design, hopefully one that is scalable, meltdown proof, uses all the fuel/no waste, can breed from thorium, nonfissile uranium, or long-term nuclear waste, AKA a LFTR/MSR, although I admit those have real challenges. We should probably keep existing nuclear functioning as load leveling on the grid, and continue aggressive funding of research/development of test reactors. But there really isn't a price competitive design in nuclear out there. And fusion? Pfft. Even if they can sustain a reaction, I highly doubt they'll even get to fission LCOE costs, and fusion isn't as clean as people think, those fast neutrons degrade/irradiate the confinement equipment.

sacrosancty 4y ago

[dead]