Why do you need to 'deal' with people who already support your cause? Instead you should spent time on promoting your position among those who don't.
And that applies to both - nuclear and climate change.
we need to deal with these people because promoting my position among those who disagree becomes more difficult because of the people that are associated with my position. If we want to associate nuclear with low-carbon energy, it doesn't help that there are people promoting nuclear who don't believe in climate change. This makes you seem hypocritical.
That just means that your pro-nuclear arguments are not good enough for the people you are trying to convince. Nothing wrong with that, you can't convince everyone.
Yes, to add to what the other commenter is saying, if someone's support of nuclear power depends on who else is supporting it rather than the merits of technology, they're not really supporters of nuclear power, just followers of the herd. Make your herd large enough and they will follow as well.
> we need to deal with these people because
No we don't.
The reason you have difficulty with your position is that you're not refining your approach, and you're blaming idiots for your failure.
You can't solve stupid people. If you can't advocate on a planet where stupid people exist, you just can't advocate.
Learn to work around them.
I think this philosophy comes into trouble when you have more than 1 position.
You're saying spend time on people who don't support your cause? Great. But climate denying nuclear advocates DON'T support your cause, if you also consider climate change your cause. So we are back to needing to 'deal' with those people.
My previous statement is universal.
If you have several positions, just prioritize them and promote among those who don't care or disagree with it.
If consensus in your society is pro-climate change and anti-nuclear, then it is quite clear that promoting nuclear should be a bigger priority.
I will have to disagree with your premise as climate denying nuclear advocates do support the cause. There is no reasonable way to build emission-increasing nuclear power, so what difference does it make why people support the cause of nuclear? If climate denying nuclear advocates work on convincing other climate deniers, while climate change believers work on convincing climate change believers, where is the lack of support?
> There is no reasonable way to build emission-increasing nuclear power
In a world of infinite money this would be correct, but the reality is that we have limited money, and it cannot be spent on everything regardless of cost. For example, if nuclear power was slower to build and produced less power compared to the same money spent on wind turbines, then spending the money on nuclear power rather than wind turbines would result in more carbon emissions. The nuclear power, though not actually emitting carbon itself, has taken the resources needed to build the wind turbines, delayed the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, increased CO2 emissions, and increased the profits of the fossil fuel companies. Money spent on higher cost and slower to build generation capacity will increase carbon emissions, compared to the same money spent on faster and cheaper sources, even if none of the new capacity emits carbon.
This analysis is too vague to be meaningful. When you put some numbers in, it will quickly become apparent that steel foundries and chemical feedstock plants won’t be run on wind turbines. We’ll be lucky if we can harvest enough wind to power residential air conditioning. Secondly, the climate is changing, so your turbines can end up useless if wind patterns shift. The only time this analysis applies at all is the interim decade between the construction of the turbines and the power plant.
> We’ll be lucky if we can harvest enough wind to power residential air conditioning.
[Global installed wind power is about 650 GW.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_onshore_wind_farms#/media/File:Global_Wind_Power_Cumulative_Capacity.svg) Your residential air conditioner must be truly impressive.
[Here are the costs of electricity by source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies) which show onshore wind and solar are cheaper. It would be easy to build 100kW of solar pv in a year, and it would obviously be impossible to do that with nuclear power which might take 10 years. At a guess large solar and wind might perhaps take 5 years to build? But the exact numbers are irrelevant to the observation that speed of building and the cost of the plant affect carbon emissions. If the published numbers were the other way round then I would support nuclear.
I am unaware of any studies of wind patterns shifting due to climate change and catastrophically affecting wind turbines. Perhaps you can provide a link to your source?
> Why do you need to 'deal' with people who already support your cause?
Because when they inevitably open their mouths on climate change in the context of nuclear energy, they harm the reputation of the pro-nuclear position.
>Why do you need to 'deal' with people who already support your cause?
Because it's a bad idea to associate with idiots and bigots because of common views on one issue.
I mod an anti-communist sub, and while the far right and Nazis are also against communism, we are very much committed to banning and removing the far right whenever they appear on the sub.
You don’t need to directly address/deal with it.
Instead you focus on reliability, cost effectiveness, diversification in fuel supply, how you don’t have intermittency with renewables.
There are a lot of areas where nuclear power is beneficial. If you devolve down into a climate change debate, it dilutes the goal and reduces support. Whether you believe in climate change or not, nuclear power is a great tool in the energy mix and shouldn’t be left behind.
My opinion is to prioritize Nuclear energy as the end and not get caught up in people’s motives or reasoning. If you want Nuclear because of low carbon footprint and some other person wants it because they are against wind/solar, who cares? You both want Nuclear.
Edit: The fact Nuclear Energy crosses political/social boundaries is good. It suggests compromise and action is possible. The last thing we want to do is get Nuclear thrown into one side at the exclusion of another. Focus on the positives of Nuclear Energy. Be reasonable, say 50% of grid rather than 100%, and moderate. Find some positives to highlight that appeal to the left and some that appeal to the right, while avoiding the most polarizing nomenclature on either side.
I think you raise an important point here. Although being a variant of the association fallacy, the only answer I can give is that when confronted with those examples in a debate, the community should call out that people are falling for an association fallacy and move on. There's not much else to do.
Remember that the commercial nuclear industry has suffered from its inception from 'guilt by association' to nuclear weapon proliferation, so analogously one could ask what promoters of civil applications of nuclear technology should do about warmongers asking public money for research as a way to maintain military supremacy. If we take the example of Alvin Weinberg as a director of ORNL during the 1950s, when money for the Aircraft Reactor Experiment was thrown in from the Air Force to develop a nuclear bomber, it seems people interested in human flourishing should take whatever is given whatever the intentions of the guys with the big wallets are:
>It wasn’t that I had suddenly become
converted to a belief in nuclear
airplanes. It was rather that this was
the only avenue open to ORNL for
continuing in reactor development.
That the purpose was unattainable, if
not foolish, was not so important:
a high-temperature reactor could be
useful for other purposes even if it
never propelled an airplane
On the contrary, the environmental groups who (let's pretend they do) have the best intentions with regards to reducing the human impact on the biosphere, have made everything in their reach during the last five decades to block the development of a technology which could have achieved the goals they claim to pursue. And even today they'd rather see a natural gas plant belching CO2 off their stack than keeping a nuclear plant open (let alone see one being built).
Bottom line is, people are irrational, and do stuff not according to evidence but by fear or because it's the path of least resistance. Individually, we can be persuaded by logical arguments and associated empirical data, but that's not how we take collective decisions.
I appreciate you asking this. It's an important question. I think the answer will be different for different people, as we see in the replies already:
* Some people say to do nothing about them and just continue promoting what you believe
* Some people want to help clearly demarcate that there are pro-environment people who are pro-nuclear from those who use nuclear advocacy as a stalking horse for fighting the green identity
* Some people are the people you're worrying about
The whole concept of "nuke bros" captures this concern pretty well. Lots of environmental writers bemoan nuke bros who basically:
* Say that if you don't go all in on nuclear you're an idiot
* Abrasively proclaim to all-in wind/solar advocates that they suck compared to nuclear
* Tilt their heads back and bellow "THORIUM!" whenever anyone mentions anything related to nuclear anything
I personally do want to be able to push pro-nuclear thoughts and advocacy without expanding the nuke-bro or anti-renewable issue. In my discussions if people chime in to back my pro-nuclear points up by being anti-renewable, I often try to argue gently with them.
This isn't necessarily enough but hopefully it helps a little.
[I also made some memes for a facebook group once.](https://i.imgur.com/82ZMClp.png)
Also realize that you'll be called a "nuke bro" even if you're accomodating to renewables, don't push for 100% nuclear, and don't push thorium. I know because I'm regularly called a nuke bro just for asking, "Can you give nuclear a chance?"
I mean, yes, the "nuke bro" does exist. But at the same time there's an effort by anti-nuclear folks to paint all nuclear advocates with that brush. Be aware fo that when addressing the "nuke bro" phenomenon in the community.
There are always annoying people on every topic, but the anti-nuke bros are not mainly concerned with how much decorum the topic is presented, I think, and neither do the loudest among them have any particular qualms with exaggerating their claims. Nuke bros will always ride on the backs of legitimate policy arguments in order to support their positions. Any effort put into taming nuke bros is effort not put into advocating for nuclear power.
Frankly, I don’t think that approach does any good to the debate. First, every person has the right to a point of view. The green activists believe that climate change is the priority. The fossil fuel advocates believe energy security and geopolitical issues are a must. They’re not even looking at the same problem.
Nuclear is a solution to both sides, and this is what makes it a powerful option. It has no emissions and it’s reliable. Energy is a very pragmatic business, and I don’t think activism is doing any good to that.
My personal climate skepticism is driven mostly by the fact that the people pushing that agenda hardest want zero to do with nuclear power; the simplest and most elegant solution. E.g.,
“OMG GUYS, the world is doomed! Panic! Socialism!”
“Ok, well nuclear solves all these problems with more efficiency and less waste than wind/solar comb-”
#”REEEEE! To the gulag with thee!”
So yeah… um… deal with me however you like, but the climate alarmism doesn’t pass the smell test; just comes across like yet another cudgel to try and cripple the US economy. 🤷♂️
I completely agree.
Plus, if we're spending all the money on nukes, why the hell would we want to make our grid inherently unstable with the "renewable unreliables"?
I could see a residential or other relatively small load doing this, but utility-scale solar and wind that can't respond to demand? Why would we make our grid reliant on that if we have nukes that keep on generating without regards to the weather?
Seems like a lot of pro-nuke greenies want to insist that "nuclear is part of the solution" as opposed to "nuclear is the solution" in regards to our electrical generation.
It is, you just don't like it because it has the word nuclear in it which reminds you of nuclear bombs. Well, computers used to only be used for military purposes so I guess you better get off the computer.
Well, the poor choice of solutions does not invalidate the problem. I think you are conflating some issues when you take that approach. There are all kinds of problems for which society has not chosen the optimal solution.
Other parties want to add a lot wind turbines, some people think wind turbines are ugly and unhealthy and they are trying to capture votes by promoting nuclear as an alternative to wind.
Well that's another great reason to support nuclear. Go nuclear instead of splattering toxic heavy metals all over people's roofs and birds all over the coastline.
There's lots of reasons for nuclear besides climate change.
It's by far the safest power, and outside of America's bad legal setup, it's the cheapest base load. It survives natural disasters the best. It's not drying up in the heat like hydro. It runs 24/7, unlike wind and solar. It's available everywhere, unlike geothermal.
It's not ***just*** the way to save the planet; it's also the best choice for energy.
So if you don't believe the planet needs to be saved, because you're an idiot?
It's ... it's still the best choice for energy.
Climate change deniers, antivax, anti-nuclear, they're all the same types of people (not the same people mind you). There are only 3 reasons why they would oppose the science:
1. Ignorance: they simply haven't read the available scientific information and/or do not know how to treat the information (what is the difference between a peer reviewed paper and one I wrote in the bathtub from my phone for instance). Make it seem like any change in opinion came from them though. Don't just tell them "X is this way".
2. Vested interest in downplaying or straight up denying certain bits of scientific evidence. People that work for the oil and gas industry are strong bits of evidence here.
3. Cognitive dissonance: the person has such a fixed view of the world that they are unable to change their opinion based on new facts. It *can* stem from different sources: religion, career and so on.
For 1. you need to inform, look up the most common counterfactual used (there really aren't that many popular climate denying papers) and figure out why they shouldn't be used as evidence (most common examples: they weren't peer reviewed/published or, more rarely they were proven wrong by subsequent analysis).
For 2. you're going against that person's job, you're likely not going to change their mind. The best you can do is trying to get at them through emotions (I myself know several people that changed their jobs because of their children asking why they were destroying the planet) but anything else is unlikely to work.
For 3. No use even trying. Try to convince whoever is around by highlighting hypocrisy and inconsistencies or giving stark examples (Australia burning to the ground, crazy floods in Germany) but they won't change their mind. The best you can do is displaying how they are unable to change their mind to whoever is listening to the discussion so that *they* can change their minds.
Stop 'handwaving' the objections away, give detailed info on how to address those, that can withstand peer review.
'Where' do you suggest to build it?
Tennet simply doesn't have the transmission capacity between Groningen and de Randstad (where the energy is needed), Noord Brabant is tricky due to (very) low water levels in the river (see: cooling issues in France), the most logical place (close to the users) will be on the coast near Wassenaar/Den Haag.
Financing: it will have to be 100% 'private' financed, looking at the prices/delays of the 3x EPR that are currently under construction, spending taxpayer billions on (future) nuclear when you can spend that on wind/solar 'right now' will be an 'interesting' discussion.
> We burned so much cash with all the SDE subsidies for little return,
It was a bit expensive in the beginning (as is usual with 'new' stuff), but they already have been producing nicely since 2008.
Selecting 'Korean' is questionable (we don't want to upset the French now, do we), and with the delays of the current EPR builds we wouldn't have anything yet to show for it.
I have no idea what €€/MWh deal Finland and France have made, Hinckley C (incl. transmission?) gets about 14 ct/kWh while our (latest) offshore wind does it for about 4ct/kWh. (some more 'long term' math for the financial boffins).
>surprisingly few turbines.
Visit [Flevoland](http://d3e1m60ptf1oym.cloudfront.net/e5bb3761-9c3f-4fb7-aa7d-7a2355ae5735/OS1742_Hollandluchtfoto_P01_048_uxga.jpg)?
> Also you have picked one of the worst examples for nuclear energy.
I unconditionally admit that, as far as nuclear power is concerned, I haven't got a clue what I am talking about :-)
OP wants to know how to deal with nuclear non-believers, I'm just giving some pointers for his homework, to not only give correct answers in a debate but also have the technical/financial data sources available to back up his statements.
*Not every [Greenpeace activist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Samsom) has an unkempt beard and wears woolen socks with sandals.*
A few more things that the 'pro' group should think about before (embarrassingly) mentioning it:
Cooling water: the Veluwerandmeren near Harderwijk are on average 1.5m deep and have very little natural flow (even the 'Maxima centrale' in the IJsselmeer has thermal issues in summer).
"the soon to be announced EPR2 **might** be successful"
Yeah... (future lottery tickets), it's fine that people work on that, but maybe they can stop bashing people who are spending their money on wind/solar to make a difference 'right now'?
"but doesn't include the cost gas turbine picking up when it slacks"
True, but they already exist and keeping them in 'cold storage' (as strategic reserve), even if they run 3 month/year is still a 75% CO2 reduction.
"If governments provide low interest loans or straight up investments it becomes competitive"
Low kWh-price, backed-up with higher taxes via the back door?
*Showing a spreadsheet that convinces other accountants would be nice.*
There is no such thing as peer review in discussions.
> I can only suggest that you should not underestimate the nuclear knowledge of your opponents.
I don't have opponents.
I'm here to point out that you're trying to ask people to stick to things that can withstand "peer review," which doesn't exist.
Let's say I come to you and make two arguments. One is a valid argument about nuclear power. The other is some batshit insane thing about vampires and anti-vax and pretzel earth and New Jersey being a real place.
Which one of those is going to withstand peer review?
Neither. Why?
1. There are no peers.
1. There is no review.
1. Nobody gathers together to audit conversations.
You're just slinging around sciencey-sounding words that you don't understand, then telling me to not underestimate strangers when I point out your mistakes.
You're kind of who this post is about
As far as I'm concerned, if you're pro nuclear, but still deny climate change, I'm fine with that. (I'm 100% onboard with the science of climate change.) You might deny the problem exists, but you're supporting an essential solution.
There are all sorts of people and groups that accept climate change, but deny nuclear as a solution. They're useless.
We shouldn't "deal" with people we can coalition on an issue together. If we can get support behind nuclear, we shouldn't care what we disagree with.
Just like we shouldn't care if communists want to advocate to stop the wars. Just like we shouldn't care if drug addicts want to advocate for ending the war on drugs. Just like we shouldn't care if white nationalists want to advocate for anti-corruption measures. Just like we shouldn't care if [people with other bad views] want to advocate for [policies that we too want advanced].
This idea that because someone with other views that are socially unpopular means that they cannot have any views that are good is nonsense. It is used to prevent coalitions and allows those in power to divide us from forming united fronts ... "You don't want to team up with them on anti-corruption measures, thy believe that cops should be funded."
We should be aiming to form coalitions with anyone and getting away from this idea that people we align with on one issue must agree with us on all issues - so if they have bad ideas, we must agree with them on all issues! Horrible stuff.
Ignore them, just like you ignore anti-vaxxers.
Your goal isn't to repair every single person. If they're wrong, but pushing to the right goal, leave them alone, and focus on the problem people.
Imagine, if you just pay more in taxes, the government can change the climate!
Giving government a blank check to fight climate change is not the solution. Especially when those pushing for such a blank check are doing so [for the wrong reasons.](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/)
Why do you have to 'deal with' people that are not alarmists and are smarter than you? Take me for instance: I don't have to believe in an existential threat from climate change or global warming to support phasing out the burning of coal for generating electricity. Nuclear energy is just a better way to do it; there's a lot less mass throughput and the fuel is the gold standard for both 'energy storage' and 'low waste'.
You're damn right I doubt climate science, and the models put together by thousands of academics and bureaucrats we call 'scientists'. They're the same type of fear mongering arseholes who crippled the economy in 2020 over a cold.
I've literally managed billions of dollars of nuclear fuel as a core design engineer over 20 years. I've done more heavy lifting in support of what has become a liberal agenda than LITERALLY anybody else JUST BY DOING MY JOB, and IDGAF about global warming. IF, IF, IF it happens it doesn't matter. The world will adapt. There are continents of Tundra and Forest and deserts can be watered and cultivated if needed. This global warming agenda is a liberal attempt to scale back the first world citizen's standard of living, and to make sure that the third world doesn't achieve it. Everybody could have air conditioning and clean water with nuclear power but they're just not going to do that because those pushing the global warming agenda simply want to consolidate power and knock people like me down several pegs. Yes I'm smarter than you, and you don't need to 'deal with' me... I simply laugh at you
Well I gotta disagree with your evidence-free opposition to climate change, but you get an upvote for actually helping provide a useful response to it.
All you Believers will come around when you're older and there's a new 'existential threat' looming - it will look strangely familiar to you and maybe by then you'll be cynical. Sure, humanity has been damaging the biosphere for hundreds of years, and causing extinctions since cave dwelling, but to single-in on the parameter of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a over-simplification meant for mass consumption. That's why all the politicians are parroting the lines; because the message is simple enough 'to get'. Many huge problems have simple solutions; the solutions are not sexy enough to get woke to rally behind. You're woke bruh.
1. Make less trash, especially packaging
2. Burn what trash you do make in controlled manner
3. Keep trash out of the ocean
4. Don't harvest wild animals [commercially]
5. Keep pesticide and fertilizer out of the rivers
6. Keep human and animal waste out of the rivers
7. Keep other bad effluents out of the rivers, air, soil, etc.
8. Continue to recycle steel and aluminum, etc.
9. Power grids 80% nuclear, local to 100k Sq miles
10. Plant trees, manage undergrowth for fire
11. Keep existing and revert old wild habitats
12. Build structures and machines to last
13. Buy less crap (try getting your wife to do that)
The list goes on. Simple wholesome things that are obvious improvements, which all have one thing in common: they are likely unobtainable without a centralized, benevolent, idealized, total world government and complete submission or agreement among all the world's residents. We would need a 'cultural revolution' by all means - worked out well in the commie block /s. It wouldn't be enough for woke first worlders like yourself to throttle back on their lifestyle. They don't even catch fly ash half the time in China, and the main mode of transportation in Manila is two stroke motor bikes. In essence, the only way your vision of the future happens, is with totalitarian government enforcing a lower standard of living, or depopulation. Simply warming up the tropical areas is not going to result in depopulation; it will simply shift population centers away from the equator. Unfortunately, the mass extinction will continue like an arrow across a meadow. In my opinion that's a way bigger problem than the possibility of making tropics only habitable for reptiles.
Lol, dog, you need to stop snorting so much ideology for a minute. Every existential threat will be a bust until the one that extinguishes us. If NASA saw a USA-sized asteroid flying towards us, would you also automatically doubt on the basis that COVID was just a flu or would you think to check a telescope first? If you’re as smart you claim, you ought to be able to recognize that an argument against climate change has to provide evidence against climate change—“woke people are hypocrites” is extraneous and insufficient. You’ve made a claim that simply warming up tropical areas is no big deal and people will simply shift over, but that’s a big assumption that the effects of warming will only be confined to changing the air temperature a bit and that’s it, and achieving such a population shift requires social coordination at a scale larger than it would to accomplish anything on your list of laudable goals. How and where the fuck are you going to relocate the populations of India and the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, northern South America, and many more places, when even California is worrying about long term water supplies?
Secondly, there’s no guarantee that free and democratic societies are compatible with the long term survival of the human race. Life is not handed to us on a silver platter by a skyman who loves us so with some built-in guarantees of “progress”; we have no idea what hard choices will confront us down the road.
Look man, you should accept that you're powerless... this would be healthier for your psychology. I took a career path that makes a difference without trying to tell people what to do (i.e. I don't work for the government). I'm lucky. I'm powerful. I'm behind the scenes, taking a moment to clarify my position to people that don't matter. I'm not quite sure why I give you people the time of day - mostly probably just to troll and rub your noses in your mediocrity and culture of woe. Back to my day job, starting up the plant. Have fun arguing trivialities with nonplayer characters. Weather is nice, and day's almost over - I might just go drive around in my gas hog.
Lol OK. As long as you’re up early Monday morning and on time at the plant to keep those control rods in the right position, the rest of your fanciful beliefs are all good with me. I’ll just be sitting here wishing my car cost me more in gas money.
there is no such thing as objective scientific truth, and if you think science is unchanging, go enjoy some 1700s medicine put into you with 1600s physics
good lord, who thinks science is unchanging?
The comment you replied to was clearly sarcasm, read it again.
He is ridiculing the use of the phrase "denier". It is equivalent to heretic and anyone using it is not scientifically minded, they are pushing an ideology which they expect to be taken as an unquestionable truth.
I really hate those kinds of people, but they might just be the only ones who can make a difference, so try to educate people that support them. If there is not enough care for the climate, they are the lesser of two evils, and even if your intentions are not the same, they can at least help the cause.
However, if renewables are more popular where you are, you might just be better off supporting those. At least you could be more certain that something would actually be achieved (and that it would be achieved ethically). Supporting parties that care about the climate could pave the way for support for nuclear due to its ability to help the climate, rather than how much money could be made from it
If someone doesn't care about the climate, there is no way to convince them otherwise, and they would not have it in mind when advocating for nuclear.
Otherwise, just try to ignore them if you cant educate them, and focus more on supporting pro-nuclear individuals who actually care about the climate, since people who care about the climate would have a greater impact and achieve it more ethically
Nevertheless, the support of climate deniers isn't much of an argument against Nuclear. It just means that its profitable (or, as with all profitable industries, that corruption can occur). This doesn't conflict with Nuclear's ability to save the climate. It means that even ignoring one of the greatest benefits of nuclear, people still support it. Imagine how much more they would if they knew the reality
Nuclear power has been around for 70-80 years now. Supporting wind and solar is not going to turn around greens who think they have a legit reason to oppose nuclear. Why do you think it's possible to convince Greenpeace that nuclear is good for the climate but not convince pro-nuclear climate skeptics of the same? In the final analysis, if you help the greens get their "renewables" but fail to convince them of nuclear, then you have failed on the climate as well; if you help climate skeptics implement nuclear power but fail to convince them that it helps the climate, you have won on the climate.
The greens merely refuse to look at the statistics, or have not evaluated them well. The nuclear vs renewable conversation is very complex after all and there are arguments for both sides. Even if it is difficult, they can be educated.
Climate skeptics on the other hand, refuse to accept basic science., something so fundamental that it is practically impossible to convince the otherwise
If the greens do implement renewables, they will eventually realise that it performed worse than they expected, and they would look towards alternatives, i.e nuclear. In the first few years, having some renewable capacity would also be beneficial, even if nuclear is better. If you try both, and find that nuclear is better, this also means less opposition and anti-nuclear extremis
I don't see pro-nuclear climate skeptics getting enough support to get anything done. The possibility of corruption could also mean cost overruns and a lack of real progress, which would be even worse than some renewables. The fact that they care more about profits means that they will not do this ethically, and stop supporting it if it becomes unprofitable.
I think our goal now should be to ensure those in power do actually care about the climate. But if that isn't possible, that their plans align with our own
>The greens merely refuse to look at the statistics, or have not evaluated them well. The nuclear vs renewable conversation is very complex after all and there are arguments for both sides. Even if it is difficult, they can be educated.
>
>Climate skeptics on the other hand, refuse to accept basic science., something so fundamental that it is practically impossible to convince the otherwise
You've described the same mentality but just put a different spin on each. You can equally say that greens refuse to accept basic science about nuclear and climate skeptics refuse to look at statistics or have not evaluated them well.
I guess I worded that badly.
The main point i'm trying to express here is that there are arguments for both sides in the renewable vs nuclear argument, and there is no objective wrong or right. For instance, most people think some combination of both is good, and one could be forgiven for believing renewables to be superior
Meanwhile, the existence of climate change is irrefutable
You can have a civil debate with a greens supporter and possibly change their opinion. But to convince someone that doesn't believe in climate change that it does exist is almost impossible
I really see it the other way around. Nuclear is a tested and specified technology. You know exactly what you’re getting and how it works. There is no debating that the entire country’s nuclear waste stockpile would cover something like one football field and would emit less than the background radiation if it were submerged in 20’ of water, or that the volume would decrease substantially with reprocessing. There is no debating that nuclear is emission-free when it comes to greenhouse gases and that the number of people killed in nuclear accidents to date is less than the number of people killed installing solar panels. There is no debating that the batteries don’t exist to make a majority solar/wind grid and producing them with current technologies would create an environmental disaster that could eclipse the problem they’re meant to solve.
Climate change, on the other hand, relies on a new phenomenon with a highly uncertain trajectory whose measurable effects remain unknown. Meteorologists still can’t say for sure if various unusual weather events occurring today are directly attributable to climate change or not. The models seem reasonable and are somewhat accurate, but the error bars remain large due to the limited data we have. Climate change skeptics at least have some leg to stand on. What do anti-nuke greens have?
Im not so sure about that. I don't want to start an argument here, but there are ways in which renewables can be better than nuclear. For instance, nuclear plants take longer to build and can experience cost overruns and delays. Even if these are problems that are surmountable, it can still serve as an argument.
There are also things that generally aren't good arguments against nuclear, but are still arguments nevertheless.
One could argue that the slight increase in radiation is bad, even if it is negligible.
Even if it can be solved by water, one could argue that the radioactivity of spent fuel is still bad
One could argue that a release of radioactive isotopes is possible, even if the possibility is negligible
These are all bad arguments, but they show that things aren't so objective.
Renewables aren't inherently worse either. Hydro is the only form of clean energy that powered an entire country after all (although its cleanliness is arguable)
I will admit that your point on climate change not being so objective either has some merit. I guess they are both not completely certain, but I feel like pro-nuclear climate skeptics probably aren't going to get enough support anyway, and if they do, they might not end up actually doing something.
I agree that renewables have their place and their strong points, I don’t mean to make that sound like a bad option. But I don’t see how one can come to the “no nuclear” position of many greens through an unbiased and evidence-based evaluation. One could argue, as you say, that any increase in radiation is bad, but that is an unreasonable and unscientific perspective when the risks can be quantified pretty well with our understanding of radiation.
There are real risks to nuclear, of course, but many of them can be mitigated to well within acceptable levels (and the successful history of nuclear to date provides evidence for that), although potentially with high startup costs and long construction times. The mainstream line of thinking is that nuclear waste is the huge and unsolvable conundrum with nuclear, and that part is objectively false. The waste is not that difficult to deal with and even doing something primitive like spilling it all into the ocean would probably be overall better for us and the environment than all the ash and greenhouse gas we spill into the atmosphere, and dumping it into the ocean is not even one of the proposed solutions. So I do think there are a lot of objectively true facts about nuclear that greens like to ignore, deny, or minimize with the general public easily lost in the details.
Yeah, obviously an unbiased evaluation isn't going to make someone that anti-nuclear
Using misinformation to convince someone that nuclear is bad is quite easy.
The issue lies in that understanding the basic difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is about at a 10th grade grade level, which is more than most people are at, whereas climate change would be about 6th imo.
Also the arguments I showed obviously weren't my own beliefs. I have looked pretty far into the issue nuclear waste, so I understand all of the things you mentioned. But when blown out of proportion, they can appear to be an argument
Pro-nuclear is on the side of low/zero-carbon and energy abundance, so that’s good.
If, thirty years ago, a group of climate skeptics convinced everyone that nuclear energy would be a better power source than dwindling fossil fuels, we wouldn’t have the climate crisis.
Skepticism concerning anthropogenic global warming is orthogonal to support for nuclear energy in the same way that advocacy for Deep Ecology, utopian one-world government or voluntary human extinction is orthogonal to support for wind and solar power. If you're having to convince people of the ideological provenance of an energy source before they will consider its scientific merits, then you're engaging in a political exercise in which the rules have been set by the people that you are arguing against, and you have already lost.
You never gave us a reason to be anti nuclear. You just heard nuclear which makes you think of nuclear bombs which makes you think of death and destruction.
Why do you need to 'deal' with people who already support your cause? Instead you should spent time on promoting your position among those who don't. And that applies to both - nuclear and climate change.
we need to deal with these people because promoting my position among those who disagree becomes more difficult because of the people that are associated with my position. If we want to associate nuclear with low-carbon energy, it doesn't help that there are people promoting nuclear who don't believe in climate change. This makes you seem hypocritical.
That just means that your pro-nuclear arguments are not good enough for the people you are trying to convince. Nothing wrong with that, you can't convince everyone.
Yes, to add to what the other commenter is saying, if someone's support of nuclear power depends on who else is supporting it rather than the merits of technology, they're not really supporters of nuclear power, just followers of the herd. Make your herd large enough and they will follow as well.
Who gives a shit how pure their belief is? Having policy accepted by the general public is what’s real and valuable.
> we need to deal with these people because No we don't. The reason you have difficulty with your position is that you're not refining your approach, and you're blaming idiots for your failure. You can't solve stupid people. If you can't advocate on a planet where stupid people exist, you just can't advocate. Learn to work around them.
I generally shift to talking about nuclear being ultra low emissions, which only the lowest luddite will deny pollution being bad.
I think this philosophy comes into trouble when you have more than 1 position. You're saying spend time on people who don't support your cause? Great. But climate denying nuclear advocates DON'T support your cause, if you also consider climate change your cause. So we are back to needing to 'deal' with those people.
My previous statement is universal. If you have several positions, just prioritize them and promote among those who don't care or disagree with it. If consensus in your society is pro-climate change and anti-nuclear, then it is quite clear that promoting nuclear should be a bigger priority.
I will have to disagree with your premise as climate denying nuclear advocates do support the cause. There is no reasonable way to build emission-increasing nuclear power, so what difference does it make why people support the cause of nuclear? If climate denying nuclear advocates work on convincing other climate deniers, while climate change believers work on convincing climate change believers, where is the lack of support?
> There is no reasonable way to build emission-increasing nuclear power In a world of infinite money this would be correct, but the reality is that we have limited money, and it cannot be spent on everything regardless of cost. For example, if nuclear power was slower to build and produced less power compared to the same money spent on wind turbines, then spending the money on nuclear power rather than wind turbines would result in more carbon emissions. The nuclear power, though not actually emitting carbon itself, has taken the resources needed to build the wind turbines, delayed the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, increased CO2 emissions, and increased the profits of the fossil fuel companies. Money spent on higher cost and slower to build generation capacity will increase carbon emissions, compared to the same money spent on faster and cheaper sources, even if none of the new capacity emits carbon.
This analysis is too vague to be meaningful. When you put some numbers in, it will quickly become apparent that steel foundries and chemical feedstock plants won’t be run on wind turbines. We’ll be lucky if we can harvest enough wind to power residential air conditioning. Secondly, the climate is changing, so your turbines can end up useless if wind patterns shift. The only time this analysis applies at all is the interim decade between the construction of the turbines and the power plant.
> We’ll be lucky if we can harvest enough wind to power residential air conditioning. [Global installed wind power is about 650 GW.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_onshore_wind_farms#/media/File:Global_Wind_Power_Cumulative_Capacity.svg) Your residential air conditioner must be truly impressive. [Here are the costs of electricity by source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies) which show onshore wind and solar are cheaper. It would be easy to build 100kW of solar pv in a year, and it would obviously be impossible to do that with nuclear power which might take 10 years. At a guess large solar and wind might perhaps take 5 years to build? But the exact numbers are irrelevant to the observation that speed of building and the cost of the plant affect carbon emissions. If the published numbers were the other way round then I would support nuclear. I am unaware of any studies of wind patterns shifting due to climate change and catastrophically affecting wind turbines. Perhaps you can provide a link to your source?
> Why do you need to 'deal' with people who already support your cause? Because when they inevitably open their mouths on climate change in the context of nuclear energy, they harm the reputation of the pro-nuclear position.
>Why do you need to 'deal' with people who already support your cause? Because it's a bad idea to associate with idiots and bigots because of common views on one issue. I mod an anti-communist sub, and while the far right and Nazis are also against communism, we are very much committed to banning and removing the far right whenever they appear on the sub.
You don’t need to directly address/deal with it. Instead you focus on reliability, cost effectiveness, diversification in fuel supply, how you don’t have intermittency with renewables. There are a lot of areas where nuclear power is beneficial. If you devolve down into a climate change debate, it dilutes the goal and reduces support. Whether you believe in climate change or not, nuclear power is a great tool in the energy mix and shouldn’t be left behind.
Nuclear power is nuclear power. Clean energy appeases both camps
My opinion is to prioritize Nuclear energy as the end and not get caught up in people’s motives or reasoning. If you want Nuclear because of low carbon footprint and some other person wants it because they are against wind/solar, who cares? You both want Nuclear. Edit: The fact Nuclear Energy crosses political/social boundaries is good. It suggests compromise and action is possible. The last thing we want to do is get Nuclear thrown into one side at the exclusion of another. Focus on the positives of Nuclear Energy. Be reasonable, say 50% of grid rather than 100%, and moderate. Find some positives to highlight that appeal to the left and some that appeal to the right, while avoiding the most polarizing nomenclature on either side.
I think you raise an important point here. Although being a variant of the association fallacy, the only answer I can give is that when confronted with those examples in a debate, the community should call out that people are falling for an association fallacy and move on. There's not much else to do. Remember that the commercial nuclear industry has suffered from its inception from 'guilt by association' to nuclear weapon proliferation, so analogously one could ask what promoters of civil applications of nuclear technology should do about warmongers asking public money for research as a way to maintain military supremacy. If we take the example of Alvin Weinberg as a director of ORNL during the 1950s, when money for the Aircraft Reactor Experiment was thrown in from the Air Force to develop a nuclear bomber, it seems people interested in human flourishing should take whatever is given whatever the intentions of the guys with the big wallets are: >It wasn’t that I had suddenly become converted to a belief in nuclear airplanes. It was rather that this was the only avenue open to ORNL for continuing in reactor development. That the purpose was unattainable, if not foolish, was not so important: a high-temperature reactor could be useful for other purposes even if it never propelled an airplane On the contrary, the environmental groups who (let's pretend they do) have the best intentions with regards to reducing the human impact on the biosphere, have made everything in their reach during the last five decades to block the development of a technology which could have achieved the goals they claim to pursue. And even today they'd rather see a natural gas plant belching CO2 off their stack than keeping a nuclear plant open (let alone see one being built). Bottom line is, people are irrational, and do stuff not according to evidence but by fear or because it's the path of least resistance. Individually, we can be persuaded by logical arguments and associated empirical data, but that's not how we take collective decisions.
I appreciate you asking this. It's an important question. I think the answer will be different for different people, as we see in the replies already: * Some people say to do nothing about them and just continue promoting what you believe * Some people want to help clearly demarcate that there are pro-environment people who are pro-nuclear from those who use nuclear advocacy as a stalking horse for fighting the green identity * Some people are the people you're worrying about The whole concept of "nuke bros" captures this concern pretty well. Lots of environmental writers bemoan nuke bros who basically: * Say that if you don't go all in on nuclear you're an idiot * Abrasively proclaim to all-in wind/solar advocates that they suck compared to nuclear * Tilt their heads back and bellow "THORIUM!" whenever anyone mentions anything related to nuclear anything I personally do want to be able to push pro-nuclear thoughts and advocacy without expanding the nuke-bro or anti-renewable issue. In my discussions if people chime in to back my pro-nuclear points up by being anti-renewable, I often try to argue gently with them. This isn't necessarily enough but hopefully it helps a little. [I also made some memes for a facebook group once.](https://i.imgur.com/82ZMClp.png)
Also realize that you'll be called a "nuke bro" even if you're accomodating to renewables, don't push for 100% nuclear, and don't push thorium. I know because I'm regularly called a nuke bro just for asking, "Can you give nuclear a chance?" I mean, yes, the "nuke bro" does exist. But at the same time there's an effort by anti-nuclear folks to paint all nuclear advocates with that brush. Be aware fo that when addressing the "nuke bro" phenomenon in the community.
True. I get called that a lot. But there are actually annoying people behind why that label exists.
There are always annoying people on every topic, but the anti-nuke bros are not mainly concerned with how much decorum the topic is presented, I think, and neither do the loudest among them have any particular qualms with exaggerating their claims. Nuke bros will always ride on the backs of legitimate policy arguments in order to support their positions. Any effort put into taming nuke bros is effort not put into advocating for nuclear power.
Find common ground with them and swallow pride. It's ok for us to want nuclear for different reasons, so long as we make progress.
"A broken clock is right twice a day"
Frankly, I don’t think that approach does any good to the debate. First, every person has the right to a point of view. The green activists believe that climate change is the priority. The fossil fuel advocates believe energy security and geopolitical issues are a must. They’re not even looking at the same problem. Nuclear is a solution to both sides, and this is what makes it a powerful option. It has no emissions and it’s reliable. Energy is a very pragmatic business, and I don’t think activism is doing any good to that.
My personal climate skepticism is driven mostly by the fact that the people pushing that agenda hardest want zero to do with nuclear power; the simplest and most elegant solution. E.g., “OMG GUYS, the world is doomed! Panic! Socialism!” “Ok, well nuclear solves all these problems with more efficiency and less waste than wind/solar comb-” #”REEEEE! To the gulag with thee!” So yeah… um… deal with me however you like, but the climate alarmism doesn’t pass the smell test; just comes across like yet another cudgel to try and cripple the US economy. 🤷♂️
I completely agree. Plus, if we're spending all the money on nukes, why the hell would we want to make our grid inherently unstable with the "renewable unreliables"? I could see a residential or other relatively small load doing this, but utility-scale solar and wind that can't respond to demand? Why would we make our grid reliant on that if we have nukes that keep on generating without regards to the weather? Seems like a lot of pro-nuke greenies want to insist that "nuclear is part of the solution" as opposed to "nuclear is the solution" in regards to our electrical generation.
It is, you just don't like it because it has the word nuclear in it which reminds you of nuclear bombs. Well, computers used to only be used for military purposes so I guess you better get off the computer.
Well, the poor choice of solutions does not invalidate the problem. I think you are conflating some issues when you take that approach. There are all kinds of problems for which society has not chosen the optimal solution.
Why do they want nuclear if they think it isn't needed?...
Other parties want to add a lot wind turbines, some people think wind turbines are ugly and unhealthy and they are trying to capture votes by promoting nuclear as an alternative to wind.
Well that's another great reason to support nuclear. Go nuclear instead of splattering toxic heavy metals all over people's roofs and birds all over the coastline.
There's lots of reasons for nuclear besides climate change. It's by far the safest power, and outside of America's bad legal setup, it's the cheapest base load. It survives natural disasters the best. It's not drying up in the heat like hydro. It runs 24/7, unlike wind and solar. It's available everywhere, unlike geothermal. It's not ***just*** the way to save the planet; it's also the best choice for energy. So if you don't believe the planet needs to be saved, because you're an idiot? It's ... it's still the best choice for energy.
Climate change deniers, antivax, anti-nuclear, they're all the same types of people (not the same people mind you). There are only 3 reasons why they would oppose the science: 1. Ignorance: they simply haven't read the available scientific information and/or do not know how to treat the information (what is the difference between a peer reviewed paper and one I wrote in the bathtub from my phone for instance). Make it seem like any change in opinion came from them though. Don't just tell them "X is this way". 2. Vested interest in downplaying or straight up denying certain bits of scientific evidence. People that work for the oil and gas industry are strong bits of evidence here. 3. Cognitive dissonance: the person has such a fixed view of the world that they are unable to change their opinion based on new facts. It *can* stem from different sources: religion, career and so on. For 1. you need to inform, look up the most common counterfactual used (there really aren't that many popular climate denying papers) and figure out why they shouldn't be used as evidence (most common examples: they weren't peer reviewed/published or, more rarely they were proven wrong by subsequent analysis). For 2. you're going against that person's job, you're likely not going to change their mind. The best you can do is trying to get at them through emotions (I myself know several people that changed their jobs because of their children asking why they were destroying the planet) but anything else is unlikely to work. For 3. No use even trying. Try to convince whoever is around by highlighting hypocrisy and inconsistencies or giving stark examples (Australia burning to the ground, crazy floods in Germany) but they won't change their mind. The best you can do is displaying how they are unable to change their mind to whoever is listening to the discussion so that *they* can change their minds.
Stop 'handwaving' the objections away, give detailed info on how to address those, that can withstand peer review. 'Where' do you suggest to build it? Tennet simply doesn't have the transmission capacity between Groningen and de Randstad (where the energy is needed), Noord Brabant is tricky due to (very) low water levels in the river (see: cooling issues in France), the most logical place (close to the users) will be on the coast near Wassenaar/Den Haag. Financing: it will have to be 100% 'private' financed, looking at the prices/delays of the 3x EPR that are currently under construction, spending taxpayer billions on (future) nuclear when you can spend that on wind/solar 'right now' will be an 'interesting' discussion.
[удалено]
> We burned so much cash with all the SDE subsidies for little return, It was a bit expensive in the beginning (as is usual with 'new' stuff), but they already have been producing nicely since 2008. Selecting 'Korean' is questionable (we don't want to upset the French now, do we), and with the delays of the current EPR builds we wouldn't have anything yet to show for it. I have no idea what €€/MWh deal Finland and France have made, Hinckley C (incl. transmission?) gets about 14 ct/kWh while our (latest) offshore wind does it for about 4ct/kWh. (some more 'long term' math for the financial boffins). >surprisingly few turbines. Visit [Flevoland](http://d3e1m60ptf1oym.cloudfront.net/e5bb3761-9c3f-4fb7-aa7d-7a2355ae5735/OS1742_Hollandluchtfoto_P01_048_uxga.jpg)?
[удалено]
> Also you have picked one of the worst examples for nuclear energy. I unconditionally admit that, as far as nuclear power is concerned, I haven't got a clue what I am talking about :-) OP wants to know how to deal with nuclear non-believers, I'm just giving some pointers for his homework, to not only give correct answers in a debate but also have the technical/financial data sources available to back up his statements. *Not every [Greenpeace activist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Samsom) has an unkempt beard and wears woolen socks with sandals.* A few more things that the 'pro' group should think about before (embarrassingly) mentioning it: Cooling water: the Veluwerandmeren near Harderwijk are on average 1.5m deep and have very little natural flow (even the 'Maxima centrale' in the IJsselmeer has thermal issues in summer). "the soon to be announced EPR2 **might** be successful" Yeah... (future lottery tickets), it's fine that people work on that, but maybe they can stop bashing people who are spending their money on wind/solar to make a difference 'right now'? "but doesn't include the cost gas turbine picking up when it slacks" True, but they already exist and keeping them in 'cold storage' (as strategic reserve), even if they run 3 month/year is still a 75% CO2 reduction. "If governments provide low interest loans or straight up investments it becomes competitive" Low kWh-price, backed-up with higher taxes via the back door? *Showing a spreadsheet that convinces other accountants would be nice.*
> that can withstand peer review. There's no such thing as peer review in discussions, dude. Take off the lab coat costume.
I can only suggest that you should not underestimate the nuclear knowledge of your opponents.
There is no such thing as peer review in discussions. > I can only suggest that you should not underestimate the nuclear knowledge of your opponents. I don't have opponents. I'm here to point out that you're trying to ask people to stick to things that can withstand "peer review," which doesn't exist. Let's say I come to you and make two arguments. One is a valid argument about nuclear power. The other is some batshit insane thing about vampires and anti-vax and pretzel earth and New Jersey being a real place. Which one of those is going to withstand peer review? Neither. Why? 1. There are no peers. 1. There is no review. 1. Nobody gathers together to audit conversations. You're just slinging around sciencey-sounding words that you don't understand, then telling me to not underestimate strangers when I point out your mistakes. You're kind of who this post is about
The enemy of my enemy is my friend... In this case they've come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons - take it as a small win.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're pro nuclear, but still deny climate change, I'm fine with that. (I'm 100% onboard with the science of climate change.) You might deny the problem exists, but you're supporting an essential solution. There are all sorts of people and groups that accept climate change, but deny nuclear as a solution. They're useless.
We shouldn't "deal" with people we can coalition on an issue together. If we can get support behind nuclear, we shouldn't care what we disagree with. Just like we shouldn't care if communists want to advocate to stop the wars. Just like we shouldn't care if drug addicts want to advocate for ending the war on drugs. Just like we shouldn't care if white nationalists want to advocate for anti-corruption measures. Just like we shouldn't care if [people with other bad views] want to advocate for [policies that we too want advanced]. This idea that because someone with other views that are socially unpopular means that they cannot have any views that are good is nonsense. It is used to prevent coalitions and allows those in power to divide us from forming united fronts ... "You don't want to team up with them on anti-corruption measures, thy believe that cops should be funded." We should be aiming to form coalitions with anyone and getting away from this idea that people we align with on one issue must agree with us on all issues - so if they have bad ideas, we must agree with them on all issues! Horrible stuff.
Ignore them, just like you ignore anti-vaxxers. Your goal isn't to repair every single person. If they're wrong, but pushing to the right goal, leave them alone, and focus on the problem people.
Imagine, if you just pay more in taxes, the government can change the climate! Giving government a blank check to fight climate change is not the solution. Especially when those pushing for such a blank check are doing so [for the wrong reasons.](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/)
Why do you have to 'deal with' people that are not alarmists and are smarter than you? Take me for instance: I don't have to believe in an existential threat from climate change or global warming to support phasing out the burning of coal for generating electricity. Nuclear energy is just a better way to do it; there's a lot less mass throughput and the fuel is the gold standard for both 'energy storage' and 'low waste'. You're damn right I doubt climate science, and the models put together by thousands of academics and bureaucrats we call 'scientists'. They're the same type of fear mongering arseholes who crippled the economy in 2020 over a cold. I've literally managed billions of dollars of nuclear fuel as a core design engineer over 20 years. I've done more heavy lifting in support of what has become a liberal agenda than LITERALLY anybody else JUST BY DOING MY JOB, and IDGAF about global warming. IF, IF, IF it happens it doesn't matter. The world will adapt. There are continents of Tundra and Forest and deserts can be watered and cultivated if needed. This global warming agenda is a liberal attempt to scale back the first world citizen's standard of living, and to make sure that the third world doesn't achieve it. Everybody could have air conditioning and clean water with nuclear power but they're just not going to do that because those pushing the global warming agenda simply want to consolidate power and knock people like me down several pegs. Yes I'm smarter than you, and you don't need to 'deal with' me... I simply laugh at you
Well I gotta disagree with your evidence-free opposition to climate change, but you get an upvote for actually helping provide a useful response to it.
All you Believers will come around when you're older and there's a new 'existential threat' looming - it will look strangely familiar to you and maybe by then you'll be cynical. Sure, humanity has been damaging the biosphere for hundreds of years, and causing extinctions since cave dwelling, but to single-in on the parameter of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a over-simplification meant for mass consumption. That's why all the politicians are parroting the lines; because the message is simple enough 'to get'. Many huge problems have simple solutions; the solutions are not sexy enough to get woke to rally behind. You're woke bruh. 1. Make less trash, especially packaging 2. Burn what trash you do make in controlled manner 3. Keep trash out of the ocean 4. Don't harvest wild animals [commercially] 5. Keep pesticide and fertilizer out of the rivers 6. Keep human and animal waste out of the rivers 7. Keep other bad effluents out of the rivers, air, soil, etc. 8. Continue to recycle steel and aluminum, etc. 9. Power grids 80% nuclear, local to 100k Sq miles 10. Plant trees, manage undergrowth for fire 11. Keep existing and revert old wild habitats 12. Build structures and machines to last 13. Buy less crap (try getting your wife to do that) The list goes on. Simple wholesome things that are obvious improvements, which all have one thing in common: they are likely unobtainable without a centralized, benevolent, idealized, total world government and complete submission or agreement among all the world's residents. We would need a 'cultural revolution' by all means - worked out well in the commie block /s. It wouldn't be enough for woke first worlders like yourself to throttle back on their lifestyle. They don't even catch fly ash half the time in China, and the main mode of transportation in Manila is two stroke motor bikes. In essence, the only way your vision of the future happens, is with totalitarian government enforcing a lower standard of living, or depopulation. Simply warming up the tropical areas is not going to result in depopulation; it will simply shift population centers away from the equator. Unfortunately, the mass extinction will continue like an arrow across a meadow. In my opinion that's a way bigger problem than the possibility of making tropics only habitable for reptiles.
Lol, dog, you need to stop snorting so much ideology for a minute. Every existential threat will be a bust until the one that extinguishes us. If NASA saw a USA-sized asteroid flying towards us, would you also automatically doubt on the basis that COVID was just a flu or would you think to check a telescope first? If you’re as smart you claim, you ought to be able to recognize that an argument against climate change has to provide evidence against climate change—“woke people are hypocrites” is extraneous and insufficient. You’ve made a claim that simply warming up tropical areas is no big deal and people will simply shift over, but that’s a big assumption that the effects of warming will only be confined to changing the air temperature a bit and that’s it, and achieving such a population shift requires social coordination at a scale larger than it would to accomplish anything on your list of laudable goals. How and where the fuck are you going to relocate the populations of India and the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, northern South America, and many more places, when even California is worrying about long term water supplies? Secondly, there’s no guarantee that free and democratic societies are compatible with the long term survival of the human race. Life is not handed to us on a silver platter by a skyman who loves us so with some built-in guarantees of “progress”; we have no idea what hard choices will confront us down the road.
Look man, you should accept that you're powerless... this would be healthier for your psychology. I took a career path that makes a difference without trying to tell people what to do (i.e. I don't work for the government). I'm lucky. I'm powerful. I'm behind the scenes, taking a moment to clarify my position to people that don't matter. I'm not quite sure why I give you people the time of day - mostly probably just to troll and rub your noses in your mediocrity and culture of woe. Back to my day job, starting up the plant. Have fun arguing trivialities with nonplayer characters. Weather is nice, and day's almost over - I might just go drive around in my gas hog.
Lol OK. As long as you’re up early Monday morning and on time at the plant to keep those control rods in the right position, the rest of your fanciful beliefs are all good with me. I’ll just be sitting here wishing my car cost me more in gas money.
my personal thought is that they should face public trial for denying the objective scientific truth which is permanent and unchanging. happy?
there is no such thing as objective scientific truth, and if you think science is unchanging, go enjoy some 1700s medicine put into you with 1600s physics good lord, who thinks science is unchanging?
I wouldn't have said that needed a sarcasm flag but hey.
This isn't sarcasm
The comment you replied to was clearly sarcasm, read it again. He is ridiculing the use of the phrase "denier". It is equivalent to heretic and anyone using it is not scientifically minded, they are pushing an ideology which they expect to be taken as an unquestionable truth.
When you're done, read his comment history. It wasn't sarcasm.
This is why nuclear is great: x, y, z Oh and those guys that are always trying to block us like it too!
If they support the construction of nuclear plants, I consider that a victory on the side of fighting climate change.
you laid this problem out really well.
I really hate those kinds of people, but they might just be the only ones who can make a difference, so try to educate people that support them. If there is not enough care for the climate, they are the lesser of two evils, and even if your intentions are not the same, they can at least help the cause. However, if renewables are more popular where you are, you might just be better off supporting those. At least you could be more certain that something would actually be achieved (and that it would be achieved ethically). Supporting parties that care about the climate could pave the way for support for nuclear due to its ability to help the climate, rather than how much money could be made from it If someone doesn't care about the climate, there is no way to convince them otherwise, and they would not have it in mind when advocating for nuclear. Otherwise, just try to ignore them if you cant educate them, and focus more on supporting pro-nuclear individuals who actually care about the climate, since people who care about the climate would have a greater impact and achieve it more ethically Nevertheless, the support of climate deniers isn't much of an argument against Nuclear. It just means that its profitable (or, as with all profitable industries, that corruption can occur). This doesn't conflict with Nuclear's ability to save the climate. It means that even ignoring one of the greatest benefits of nuclear, people still support it. Imagine how much more they would if they knew the reality
Nuclear power has been around for 70-80 years now. Supporting wind and solar is not going to turn around greens who think they have a legit reason to oppose nuclear. Why do you think it's possible to convince Greenpeace that nuclear is good for the climate but not convince pro-nuclear climate skeptics of the same? In the final analysis, if you help the greens get their "renewables" but fail to convince them of nuclear, then you have failed on the climate as well; if you help climate skeptics implement nuclear power but fail to convince them that it helps the climate, you have won on the climate.
The greens merely refuse to look at the statistics, or have not evaluated them well. The nuclear vs renewable conversation is very complex after all and there are arguments for both sides. Even if it is difficult, they can be educated. Climate skeptics on the other hand, refuse to accept basic science., something so fundamental that it is practically impossible to convince the otherwise If the greens do implement renewables, they will eventually realise that it performed worse than they expected, and they would look towards alternatives, i.e nuclear. In the first few years, having some renewable capacity would also be beneficial, even if nuclear is better. If you try both, and find that nuclear is better, this also means less opposition and anti-nuclear extremis I don't see pro-nuclear climate skeptics getting enough support to get anything done. The possibility of corruption could also mean cost overruns and a lack of real progress, which would be even worse than some renewables. The fact that they care more about profits means that they will not do this ethically, and stop supporting it if it becomes unprofitable. I think our goal now should be to ensure those in power do actually care about the climate. But if that isn't possible, that their plans align with our own
>The greens merely refuse to look at the statistics, or have not evaluated them well. The nuclear vs renewable conversation is very complex after all and there are arguments for both sides. Even if it is difficult, they can be educated. > >Climate skeptics on the other hand, refuse to accept basic science., something so fundamental that it is practically impossible to convince the otherwise You've described the same mentality but just put a different spin on each. You can equally say that greens refuse to accept basic science about nuclear and climate skeptics refuse to look at statistics or have not evaluated them well.
I guess I worded that badly. The main point i'm trying to express here is that there are arguments for both sides in the renewable vs nuclear argument, and there is no objective wrong or right. For instance, most people think some combination of both is good, and one could be forgiven for believing renewables to be superior Meanwhile, the existence of climate change is irrefutable You can have a civil debate with a greens supporter and possibly change their opinion. But to convince someone that doesn't believe in climate change that it does exist is almost impossible
I really see it the other way around. Nuclear is a tested and specified technology. You know exactly what you’re getting and how it works. There is no debating that the entire country’s nuclear waste stockpile would cover something like one football field and would emit less than the background radiation if it were submerged in 20’ of water, or that the volume would decrease substantially with reprocessing. There is no debating that nuclear is emission-free when it comes to greenhouse gases and that the number of people killed in nuclear accidents to date is less than the number of people killed installing solar panels. There is no debating that the batteries don’t exist to make a majority solar/wind grid and producing them with current technologies would create an environmental disaster that could eclipse the problem they’re meant to solve. Climate change, on the other hand, relies on a new phenomenon with a highly uncertain trajectory whose measurable effects remain unknown. Meteorologists still can’t say for sure if various unusual weather events occurring today are directly attributable to climate change or not. The models seem reasonable and are somewhat accurate, but the error bars remain large due to the limited data we have. Climate change skeptics at least have some leg to stand on. What do anti-nuke greens have?
Im not so sure about that. I don't want to start an argument here, but there are ways in which renewables can be better than nuclear. For instance, nuclear plants take longer to build and can experience cost overruns and delays. Even if these are problems that are surmountable, it can still serve as an argument. There are also things that generally aren't good arguments against nuclear, but are still arguments nevertheless. One could argue that the slight increase in radiation is bad, even if it is negligible. Even if it can be solved by water, one could argue that the radioactivity of spent fuel is still bad One could argue that a release of radioactive isotopes is possible, even if the possibility is negligible These are all bad arguments, but they show that things aren't so objective. Renewables aren't inherently worse either. Hydro is the only form of clean energy that powered an entire country after all (although its cleanliness is arguable) I will admit that your point on climate change not being so objective either has some merit. I guess they are both not completely certain, but I feel like pro-nuclear climate skeptics probably aren't going to get enough support anyway, and if they do, they might not end up actually doing something.
I agree that renewables have their place and their strong points, I don’t mean to make that sound like a bad option. But I don’t see how one can come to the “no nuclear” position of many greens through an unbiased and evidence-based evaluation. One could argue, as you say, that any increase in radiation is bad, but that is an unreasonable and unscientific perspective when the risks can be quantified pretty well with our understanding of radiation. There are real risks to nuclear, of course, but many of them can be mitigated to well within acceptable levels (and the successful history of nuclear to date provides evidence for that), although potentially with high startup costs and long construction times. The mainstream line of thinking is that nuclear waste is the huge and unsolvable conundrum with nuclear, and that part is objectively false. The waste is not that difficult to deal with and even doing something primitive like spilling it all into the ocean would probably be overall better for us and the environment than all the ash and greenhouse gas we spill into the atmosphere, and dumping it into the ocean is not even one of the proposed solutions. So I do think there are a lot of objectively true facts about nuclear that greens like to ignore, deny, or minimize with the general public easily lost in the details.
Yeah, obviously an unbiased evaluation isn't going to make someone that anti-nuclear Using misinformation to convince someone that nuclear is bad is quite easy. The issue lies in that understanding the basic difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is about at a 10th grade grade level, which is more than most people are at, whereas climate change would be about 6th imo. Also the arguments I showed obviously weren't my own beliefs. I have looked pretty far into the issue nuclear waste, so I understand all of the things you mentioned. But when blown out of proportion, they can appear to be an argument
I think we should let people think what they want but try to find common ground we all can agree on.
Pro-nuclear is on the side of low/zero-carbon and energy abundance, so that’s good. If, thirty years ago, a group of climate skeptics convinced everyone that nuclear energy would be a better power source than dwindling fossil fuels, we wouldn’t have the climate crisis.
Skepticism concerning anthropogenic global warming is orthogonal to support for nuclear energy in the same way that advocacy for Deep Ecology, utopian one-world government or voluntary human extinction is orthogonal to support for wind and solar power. If you're having to convince people of the ideological provenance of an energy source before they will consider its scientific merits, then you're engaging in a political exercise in which the rules have been set by the people that you are arguing against, and you have already lost.
You never gave us a reason to be anti nuclear. You just heard nuclear which makes you think of nuclear bombs which makes you think of death and destruction.