Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-09-2018, 04:46 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Gruene View Post
Nuclear too.
Bill Gates is really big into this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#5e8443852c12

The countries with the most nuclear plants:
1. US: 99
2. France: 58
3. Japan: 43
4. Russia: 34
5. China: 28

So, as is almost always the case, follow the money. The title of this thread implies that Bill Gates is doing a great thing for the world. And, it may turn out that he IS doing a great thing for the world. But...he clearly has a MAJOR financial interest in climate change policy. Major.
Tying into your post to jbrown, and your links. A concern I have with relying more on wind and solar is shortfalls that can occur from it. Germany has reduced its nuclear power and gone to more solar and wind power but I've read that they've had power shortages as a result of dismantling the more reliable nuclear plants. Per one of your links Germany has increased coal output and I suspect natural gas too imported from Russia, to make up for the shortfalls. France on the other hand embraced more nuclear output and seems to be better for it in their energy usage and efficiency near as I can tell.

To me the better bang for your buck in the clean energy game seems to be nuclear over wind and solar. We have nuke plant close to where I live and they announced just a few months ago that it will be phased out in the next few years. The state has seen a large increase in the last decade with wind energy too replacing coal plants.
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #52  
Old 11-10-2018, 12:21 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Tying into your post to jbrown, and your links. A concern I have with relying more on wind and solar is shortfalls that can occur from it. Germany has reduced its nuclear power and gone to more solar and wind power but I've read that they've had power shortages as a result of dismantling the more reliable nuclear plants. Per one of your links Germany has increased coal output and I suspect natural gas too imported from Russia, to make up for the shortfalls. France on the other hand embraced more nuclear output and seems to be better for it in their energy usage and efficiency near as I can tell.

To me the better bang for your buck in the clean energy game seems to be nuclear over wind and solar. We have nuke plant close to where I live and they announced just a few months ago that it will be phased out in the next few years. The state has seen a large increase in the last decade with wind energy too replacing coal plants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuku...ter_casualties

No thanks. Always thinking money, you will die one day. It doesnít have to be from **** like this. Plus, these resources run out coal, uranium etc. we should be moving more sustainable everyday. World could have limited water and you would say it is okay for private companies to charge $300 a gallon and kill all the poor. As long as you have your govt funded healthcare and pension.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-12-2018, 03:30 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuku...ter_casualties

No thanks. Always thinking money, you will die one day. It doesnít have to be from **** like this. Plus, these resources run out coal, uranium etc. we should be moving more sustainable everyday. World could have limited water and you would say it is okay for private companies to charge $300 a gallon and kill all the poor. As long as you have your govt funded healthcare and pension.
You understand that more people have been pulled out of poverty, and the starvation, disease and death that comes with it, by way of fossil fuel consumption right?

Fukushima is certainly an outlier as far as nuclear goes. When was the last major US nuclear power incident? Three Mile Island? The industry has come a long ways since then. While I am not intricately familiar with all things nuclear, we have regular training given our close proximity to a plant. Needless to say it's surprising what classifies as an event for them. It doesn't take much, and that level of awareness and reaction gives me more faith in the nuclear industry here in the US at the very least.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-24-2018, 03:31 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
You understand that more people have been pulled out of poverty, and the starvation, disease and death that comes with it, by way of fossil fuel consumption right?

Fukushima is certainly an outlier as far as nuclear goes. When was the last major US nuclear power incident? Three Mile Island? The industry has come a long ways since then. While I am not intricately familiar with all things nuclear, we have regular training given our close proximity to a plant. Needless to say it's surprising what classifies as an event for them. It doesn't take much, and that level of awareness and reaction gives me more faith in the nuclear industry here in the US at the very least.
I don’t deny your first paragraph. But there is still **** coming in to California, wa, and Oregon coast from that nuclear disaster, not to mention 573 lives lost. I am just thinking forward, why not invest of more innovative ideas? Why fight it? You also may not know how long it takes to tear down a nuke plant, 7-10 years and over a billion dollars.

Trumps government report https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/hea...www.cnn.com%2F

Case closed

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 11-24-2018 at 03:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-25-2018, 06:03 PM
Kelly Gruene Kelly Gruene is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
I am just thinking forward, why not invest of more innovative ideas? Why fight it? ...

Case closed
Innovative ideas may be great. But, they do cost a lot, and often don't work.

Let's see what the NY Times has to say about the biofuel debacle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/m...tastrophe.html
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-25-2018, 06:43 PM
coltssb coltssb is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,834
Default

At some point our resources are going to become limited-over population/droughts etc. Global warming or not, we are going to have to figure this out. The Earth getting hotter is just going to exasperate things.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-27-2018, 01:28 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
I donít deny your first paragraph. But there is still **** coming in to California, wa, and Oregon coast from that nuclear disaster, not to mention 573 lives lost. I am just thinking forward, why not invest of more innovative ideas? Why fight it? You also may not know how long it takes to tear down a nuke plant, 7-10 years and over a billion dollars.

Trumps government report https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/hea...www.cnn.com%2F

Case closed
You mean radiation right? Otherwise debris and the like from Japan was because of the earth quake and tsunami disaster, and was washed out to the sea. Also all those deaths or a vast number of them were caused by the tsunami and not Fukushima directly.

Yep it takes awhile to decommission a nuke plant, we are just beginning that for our local plant. I'd argue the cost because it depends on the plant and how big it is, ours is relatively small and isn't approaching that amount. In the meantime I believe we are replacing it with a coal plant but I may be wrong. I prefer nuclear though because our plant has been working very well and was good for our needs, not to mention was very safe.

I'm all for innovation, it's one of the greatest hallmarks of capitalism. If people want to invest their money into new ideas and the people who create new things then awesome. I don't want my tax dollars going into it and the government picking what should be invested in, they don't have a very good track record of it and scheduling/timelines for completion isn't any better. If someone comes up with a viable, working, affordable, and long term solution to energy production I'm all for it.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-27-2018, 01:35 PM
corysold's Avatar
corysold corysold is online now
Tenured
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cortland, IL
Posts: 13,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coltssb View Post
At some point our resources are going to become limited-over population/droughts etc. Global warming or not, we are going to have to figure this out. The Earth getting hotter is just going to exasperate things.
Really though? Wind power is unlimited. Solar power is unlimited. Tidal forces are unlimited. Sure, fossil fuels have limits, but even those seem to be pretty far off, but don't you think humans will just engineer solutions?

At this point, 20-25% of the worlds' electricity comes from renewable sources and there really hasn't even been any pressure to do that. I'd imagine humans can get that very near 100% very quickly if it was shown to be needed to be done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:27 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
You understand that more people have been pulled out of poverty, and the starvation, disease and death that comes with it, by way of fossil fuel consumption right?
Oh boy...not this one

No one has said that fossil fuel didn't pull people out of poverty and didn't provide some good

The point people are trying to make is that ever since we started using fossil fuels, scientists have also discovered its negative effects and we need to switch to renewable resources
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:39 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
What's your definition of scientist, or rather how broadly or specific do you want to get with that title? Advancements in technology happen all the time, with big impacts on the world, by people with little to no formal education or titles in science. They are amateurs, they tinkered with something or had a unintended reaction to something they were working on that revolutionized a concept, a machine, a chemical, etc.
I'm actually genuinely curious, what advancements in technology and science came from people without formal education or "titles in science"? I know I'm setting myself up here because I'm sure there's a handful of people out there that innovated something interesting, but we're talking about big scientific discoveries that has lead to advancements in our lives. Such things as:

My point is that any example you list would be exceptions that prove the rule that scientists need formal education

I'm seriously getting weary from all this mistrust in scientists when our everyday lives depends on the research, and mathematical laws that they've discovered

Our phones use satellite technology that depends on Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Computers you're currently typing on to try and rebut this comment depend on Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's Law
Your car's engine was engineered applying the the laws of Thermodynamics

I'll wait till you make a list of innovations from people without any formal education. I'm sure there are some, but my point is that those innovations would not be possible without scientific laws that were discovered by scientists with formal education and with actual scientific backgrounds
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 12-06-2018 at 02:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:43 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Tying into your post to jbrown, and your links. A concern I have with relying more on wind and solar is shortfalls that can occur from it. Germany has reduced its nuclear power and gone to more solar and wind power but I've read that they've had power shortages as a result of dismantling the more reliable nuclear plants. Per one of your links Germany has increased coal output and I suspect natural gas too imported from Russia, to make up for the shortfalls. France on the other hand embraced more nuclear output and seems to be better for it in their energy usage and efficiency near as I can tell.

To me the better bang for your buck in the clean energy game seems to be nuclear over wind and solar. We have nuke plant close to where I live and they announced just a few months ago that it will be phased out in the next few years. The state has seen a large increase in the last decade with wind energy too replacing coal plants.
Can you provide a link to where you read that Germany is at risk of power shortages because I can't find it anywhere

As a disclaimer, I'm not necessarily against Nuclear Fission power plants =)
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:45 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
In all seriousness the only way to resolve this issue is to actually reverse human progress by centuries or millennia. That is all those inventions and other wonders people have come to rely on disappear because they are unsustainable to keep producing. We have to devolve back to a Stone Age way of life. That's patently absurd of course. Who in Western developed society especially is willing to give up all the wonderful perks that make life so easy to live in today? No one.
I'm with phillydomer

How would solving climate change reverse human progress?
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 12-06-2018 at 03:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:49 PM
irishwavend's Avatar
irishwavend irishwavend is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Happiest Place on Earth, FL
Posts: 6,293
Default

We whine about climate change but think we can colonize Mars....
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:55 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishwavend View Post
We whine about climate change but think we can colonize Mars....
What does that have to do with anything?

People talking about colonization are mostly pundits. But scientists are definitely planning manned missions to Mars for research
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 12-06-2018 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:15 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
Oh boy...not this one

No one has said that fossil fuel didn't pull people out of poverty and didn't provide some good

The point people are trying to make is that ever since we started using fossil fuels, scientists have also discovered its negative effects and we need to switch to renewable resources
I don't understand how the use of fossil fuels has done some good. Without them there is no world as we know it, I'd say thats a significant amount of good. You absolutely cannot refute the enormous impact for the overall good and advancement of our species. Are there negative effects, sure, and there have been many discoveries that have been created to help mitigate those effects over the years as well.

Again I'm not against innovation and other energy. Its the forced conversion.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:26 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
I don't understand how the use of fossil fuels has done some good. Without them there is no world as we know it, I'd say thats a significant amount of good. You absolutely cannot refute the enormous impact for the overall good and advancement of our species. Are there negative effects, sure, and there have been many discoveries that have been created to help mitigate those effects over the years as well.

Again I'm not against innovation and other energy. Its the forced conversion.
Now you're just getting caught up on semantics. I did use the word "some," but yes, I meant "significant." sheesh...

I'll say it again, NO ONE IS REFUTING THE ENORMOUS IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUELS ON SOCIETY

What we are saying is that since discovering the connection between carbon dioxide and temperature, we are advocating that we switch to something that doesn't have those negative effects.

Yes, it was fossil fuels brought us into the 20th century. But it will be renewable energy that brings us into the future
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:10 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
Now you're just getting caught up on semantics. I did use the word "some," but yes, I meant "significant." sheesh...

I'll say it again, NO ONE IS REFUTING THE ENORMOUS IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUELS ON SOCIETY

What we are saying is that since discovering the connection between carbon dioxide and temperature, we are advocating that we switch to something that doesn't have those negative effects.

Yes, it was fossil fuels brought us into the 20th century. But it will be renewable energy that brings us into the future
And I have no problem with new energy. I have a big problem with forced coercion by governments the world over dropping the reliable and cheap fossil fuels which most everything runs on, and converting to other resources that are not as reliable, inexpensive, and currently plentiful for use.

Every form of energy currently has drawbacks for the environment in some way. Everyone wants to have this new green energy wave and are pushing for it....until you put it in their back yard or how it might impact some species of animal. This is a big problem.

How much earth has to be moved and environments destroyed to get access to the various minerals and material to make batteries for electric cars, cell phones, the parts for solar panel cells, etc? Is there enough to go around the world over and is it renewable?

Again, is CO2 in the atmosphere a negative? Have images of the Earth from NASA satellites indicated the planet is getting greener, meaning more plant growth? CO2 is the most basic food source on the planet.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:29 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
I'm actually genuinely curious, what advancements in technology and science came from people without formal education or "titles in science"? I know I'm setting myself up here because I'm sure there's a handful of people out there that innovated something interesting, but we're talking about big scientific discoveries that has lead to advancements in our lives. Such things as:

My point is that any example you list would be exceptions that prove the rule that scientists need formal education

I'm seriously getting weary from all this mistrust in scientists when our everyday lives depends on the research, and mathematical laws that they've discovered

Our phones use satellite technology that depends on Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Computers you're currently typing on to try and rebut this comment depend on Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's Law
Your car's engine was engineered applying the the laws of Thermodynamics

I'll wait till you make a list of innovations from people without any formal education. I'm sure there are some, but my point is that those innovations would not be possible without scientific laws that were discovered by scientists with formal education and with actual scientific backgrounds
There were lots of innovators, inventors, or flat out geniuses who had very little to no formal education. Quick searches online can yield some results. Or if you really consider historically how human progress has been made through advancement in technology. I mean going to the bare basics of the ramp, wheel, fulcrum, etc were created by someone who wasn't formally educated in anything because there were no schools.

I guess we also need to define education etc. Someone like Nikola Tesla never completed his college studies and never earned a degree. Gregory Mendel was an uneducated monk who brought about genetic research. The Wright Brothers never had degrees in anything. The Indian mathmetician (sorry for lack of name) who was dirt poor and uneducated and came up with entirely new theorems in mathematics that were utterly brilliant yet unrecognized. The pages of history are filled with many examples of tinkerers, inventors, thinkers, etc who came up with new and better ideas of how to do something that revolutionized the world. More often their names are lost to antiquity, but they existed nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:26 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
There were lots of innovators, inventors, or flat out geniuses who had very little to no formal education. Quick searches online can yield some results. Or if you really consider historically how human progress has been made through advancement in technology. I mean going to the bare basics of the ramp, wheel, fulcrum, etc were created by someone who wasn't formally educated in anything because there were no schools.

I guess we also need to define education etc. Someone like Nikola Tesla never completed his college studies and never earned a degree. Gregory Mendel was an uneducated monk who brought about genetic research. The Wright Brothers never had degrees in anything. The Indian mathmetician (sorry for lack of name) who was dirt poor and uneducated and came up with entirely new theorems in mathematics that were utterly brilliant yet unrecognized. The pages of history are filled with many examples of tinkerers, inventors, thinkers, etc who came up with new and better ideas of how to do something that revolutionized the world. More often their names are lost to antiquity, but they existed nonetheless.

Your point of bringing up innovators that never had a science degree or formal education was a rebuttal to statement that people take scientists' discoveries for granted every day. And that's the thing, Nikola Tesla and any other person who didn't have a formal scientific background but contributed to science...Again, those are exceptions to the rule and while Nikola Tesla was brilliant, my point is he bases his innovations on previous scientific discoveries from other scientists. So he at least accepted established science
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:38 PM
Franco's Avatar
Franco Franco is online now
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 5,427
Send a message via AIM to Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
And I have no problem with new energy. I have a big problem with forced coercion by governments the world over dropping the reliable and cheap fossil fuels which most everything runs on, and converting to other resources that are not as reliable, inexpensive, and currently plentiful for use.
1) Wind and solar are about to become less expensive than energy derived from fossil fuels (I believe it's expected by 2020), and continues to become less expensive as more innovations happen
2) Governments subsidize new technologies all the time. That's how it works. Governments will prop up technologies that will benefit them in the future because they understand the market just isn't there yet. And then in time, those technologies will become cheaper through economies of scale, just as reliable, and plentiful

Quote:
Every form of energy currently has drawbacks for the environment in some way. Everyone wants to have this new green energy wave and are pushing for it....until you put it in their back yard or how it might impact some species of animal. This is a big problem.
That's why governments require an environmental impact report

Quote:
How much earth has to be moved and environments destroyed to get access to the various minerals and material to make batteries for electric cars, cell phones, the parts for solar panel cells, etc? Is there enough to go around the world over and is it renewable?
It's funny that you ask that when the same exact questions can be asked about fossil fuels. But fine, I'll answer. With new innovations that are leading to aluminum-ion batteries, batteries will be able to last significantly longer than lithium batteries. By all accounts, aluminum-ion batteries will replace lithium-ion batteries in the near future. And t here's plenty of aluminum, it being one of the most abundant elements on earth. It's also recyclable, which fossil fuels aren't.

And yes, mining for nickel, lithium, is bad for the environment. But 1) they've been cleaning up operations and imposing regulations to minimize those effects, and 2) the overall ability to reuse and recharge batteries more than make up for the effect on the environment. Something you can't say about fossil fuels.

And like I stated earlier, recent innovations will allow batteries to last longer and be reused more and more, and be more reliable

Just because it's not where it needs to be now, doesn't mean it will never be

Quote:
Again, is CO2 in the atmosphere a negative? Have images of the Earth from NASA satellites indicated the planet is getting greener, meaning more plant growth? CO2 is the most basic food source on the planet.
I've addressed this in a previous post so I'll just repost it here:
No one said that CO2 isn't a bonus for vegetation and farmland, but what the study below IS saying is that drought, flooding, and heat stress due to climate change will more than offset the benefits derived from higher concentrations of CO2 for plant growth

"Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/...production.pdf
__________________
"Disaster strikes in the form of number 23"

Last edited by Franco; 12-10-2018 at 02:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Last Updated: December 18, 2018

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.