Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-28-2011, 01:55 PM   #26
kewms
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,318
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Wasn't it you who just said "Energy consumption has come down in the last few years -- it takes about a year for a panel to generate the energy it took to make it -- but the hazardous waste is still with us." So which is it?
You're comparing two different statements, on two different topics.

The amount of energy required to make a solar panel has indeed come down substantially.

There is, in contrast, no evidence that a 50% cut in the total electricity used by humans is likely, in the short or long term.

Quote:
At any rate, why give up 12 hours of virtually free energy every day of the year, year after year, because we don't yet have perfect ways to store electricity?
Where do you live? Seattle certainly doesn't get 12*365 hours of sunshine per year, and neither does most of the northern US or northern Europe.

In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we abandon solar energy, just that it does not, in itself, meet all of the world's energy needs.

Quote:
Sure. Instead of building nuclear and coal plants, the power companies build solar roofs over parking spaces and sell that power to the stores that have the parking lots. And this will still leave a lot of power to sell to industries and homes.
Untrue. The Google corporate headquarters solar array, for example, provides only about 1/3 of the power consumed by the complex. And Mountain View is a pretty solar-friendly climate, and the Google array is one of the largest such installations in the US.

Quote:
Second, as I mentioned, the power companies could lease/mortgage solar systems to homeowners who would simply pay that bill instead of a bill for coal- or nuclear-generated electricity. And this bill would be lower, over time, than the bill for conventional power because it would generate excess power to be sold to industries, etc.
The installations of that kind that already exist are generally *not* net producers of power. Whether the bill would be less than for conventional power depends on the cost of the electricity vs. the rent paid for the space, but the site owner should still expect to draw more power from the grid than the excess he feeds back to it.

Quote:
In other words, "The fact that I believe that a nuclear power plant can blow up shows just how little I understand nuclear power"?
Frankly, yes.

Quote:
In fact, I am quite educated on this. I said a nuclear plant can blow up and Fukushima Dai-Ichi was exactly the kind of "blow-up" I meant.
Okay. Then please tell us precisely what sort of explosions occurred at Fukushima vs. Chernobyl and what the consequences of those explosions are. I don't see a gaseous hydrogen ignition by an ordinary spark as comparable to a graphite fire ignited by an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, so please explain why I am mistaken.

Katherine

Last edited by kewms : 03-28-2011 at 02:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 02:12 PM   #27
RonRagusa
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 787
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Okay. Then please tell us precisely what sort of explosions occurred at Fukushima vs. Chernobyl and what the consequences of those explosions are.
Does the type of explosion really matter? The fact is that as a consequence of both explosions radioactive material has been released into the environment. Pretty much sucks if you happen to live in the neighborhood regardless of the type of explosion.

Best,

Ron
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 02:26 PM   #28
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
The amount of energy required to make a solar panel has indeed come down substantially.
And if the US put the kind of funding behind solar that it has put behind nuclear, that price would drop further and further. There simply is no excuse for a uranium powered nuclear plant on earth.

However, we could deploy sodium fast reactors long enoug to consume existing waste and we could put some funding into thorium reactors instead of uranium-powered reactors:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/2011...VsZHRob3JpdW0-

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Where do you live? Seattle certainly doesn't get 12*365 hours of sunshine per year, and neither does most of the northern US or northern Europe.
I live in Alabama, but photoelectric cells and water heaters work very well even on cloudy (but not rainy) days. Still, there is absolutely zero risk that they will blow up and spread radiation across the planet, is there?

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that we abandon solar energy, just that it does not, in itself, meet all of the world's energy needs.
And I didn't suggest that it would, either. But combined with wind, water geothermal, tidal and other renewable sources (and uses), solar is a vital component for energy independence and what we're doing now is simply wasting a free resource because the super wealthy have not been able to formulate a way to monopolize the sun.

The fact is, we have nuclear plants not at all because they benefit people but because they benefit corporations and their investors. They are poison to humans and that poison will be released as long as we have nuclear plants.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Untrue. The Google corporate headquarters solar array, for example, provides only about 1/3 of the power consumed by the complex.
Is their entire parking lot covered with a solar roof? I don't think anyone has done that yet. And there are other elements involved, such as the type of installation they do have. But 1/3 of their power every day, year after year...that's nothing to sneeze at. Perhaps they could add geothermal and wind units to reach 2/3s and, as solar technology continues to improve, as in nanosolar, that will improve. Further, as each year goes by and the costs of other types of energy continue to soar, the cost of solar will become increasingly cheaper even if no advances are made.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
The installations of that kind that already exist are generally *not* net producers of power. Whether the bill would be less than for conventional power depends on the cost of the electricity vs. the rent paid for the space, but the site owner should still expect to draw more power from the grid than the excess he feeds back to it.
Still, it would be less than what he's drawing without the solar array. And as conventional costs soar, it becomes a better deal.

(DWO--In other words, "The fact that I believe that a nuclear power plant can blow up shows just how little I understand nuclear power"?)

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Frankly, yes.
Well, frankly, you're wrong. The Fukushima explosions are exactly the kind of accident I referred to: a breech of core containment and release of core material to the environment. If it doesn't get far worse than it currently is, it will be a miracle--not a technological triumph.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
Okay. Then please tell us precisely what sort of explosions occurred at Fukushima vs. Chernobyl and what the consequences of those explosions are.
No question that the two explosions are different, but anyone who says the Fukushima plant didn't blow up is merely playing with semantics in a matter of grave global import. And as for the consequences? Those have yet to be seen. Explosions and releases continue to occur at Fukushima. You speak as if it's all over now, but the crisis continues to evolve and there is no indication that it will be over soon. So what do you think the consequences are? You have no way of estimating. But I do know that they all result from nuclear industry lies and underestimations of the dangers of building a nuclear plant anywhere--but especially in an earthquake prone area and dismissing the very real likelihood of a massive tsunami. We can certainly expect something at least this bad in California.

Quote:
Katherine Derbyshire wrote: View Post
I don't see a gaseous hydrogen ignition by an ordinary spark as comparable to a graphite fire ignited by an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, so please explain why I am mistaken.
First, the hydrogen ignition occurred when the hydrogen mixed with the atmosphere. And that explosion destroyed the spent-fuel cooling pool on top of the reactor building . Those spent fuel rods were left dry, exposed to the atmosphere, melting down and releasing radiation to the environment. How much radiation? We cannot tell because that information is in the hands of Tokyo Electric Power Company--a corporation covering its association for criminal negligence.

And you haven't seen the end of it yet. Or is a ruptured reactor containment a mere inconvenience, outweighed by Chinese waste dumping in a field?

What I see as your big mistake is to drastically overstate the pollution of photovoltaic manufacture and to drastically minimize the toxicity and scale of the nuclear waste problem.

Thinking forward.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 03-28-2011 at 02:31 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 02:30 PM   #29
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Does the type of explosion really matter? The fact is that as a consequence of both explosions radioactive material has been released into the environment. Pretty much sucks if you happen to live in the neighborhood regardless of the type of explosion.
My point, exactly. And we're already getting radiation from this event in the US. Fairly negligible at the moment, but this could very well get much, much worse.

This event has been ranked with Chernobyl. It's certainly one of the two worst nuclear events in history.

Best to you, Ron.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 03:04 PM   #30
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,166
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Maybe. And if so, overthrow him. What's your alternative? It sounds more or less like "Lay down and die" or as Home Simpson told Bart, "You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'."
I suspect you know just how intellectually dishonest it is to frame an argument as a false dichotomy like this and thus attempt to place a patently ridiculous argument in someone else's mouth. Putting another guy in a suit in at the top is not "trying your best".

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
We don't know what it will bring. But it does show that change can come from the bottom up. And the alternative was to just keep on with Mubarak in power.
"Change" is a value-neutral word, David. You might want to take a look at some of the results of this "change".

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
But if we force an end to nuclear, we will force ourselves to take up another approach. Buckminster Fuller's approach was that if you build something better, the people will turn to it simply because it's better.
David, I notice that you live in Birmingham, AL. People in Birmingham probably feel like they just got through a hard winter, but really, you have no idea what I'm talking about. I live in a New England community with considerable poverty. People here can't afford to "build something better". It takes everything they have and then some just to survive the winter -- and I am not using that word in the figurative sense. More than a few families end up moving everyone into the kitchen to live in one room for the winter -- the room where the woodstove is. Right now, it's 23 degrees and a 30 mph wind is blowing -- at the end of March. It's all well and good to talk about the future, but these people are struggling to survive the present. Nobody cares about them. Nobody cares if they die in the present, and nobody is doing anything to get them to this science-fiction future of yours.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Eventually, every house and every building will be replaced. Without exception. And as energy costs increase steadily, the benefits of replacing any non-efficient structure will quickly outweigh those of keeping it.
You don't get it, David. It doesn't matter if A costs less than B if you can't afford either one of them.

No doubt you'll get what you want some day, but it's all classic revolutionary theory: "The worse, the better," as Lenin said. It works great if you take the long view and don't care who gets hurt as part of your "worse".
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 04:21 PM   #31
dps
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,300
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

David Orange,

You are being very idealistic where you should be more realistic.

If it isn't cheaper or more convenient than what we have now, people will not want it.

dps
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 05:05 PM   #32
Janet Rosen
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
Janet Rosen's Avatar
Location: Left Coast
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,337
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

I would love to have solar power both for electricity and for hot water heating. I'm in a great location for it. I can't afford it. Period. Not even with all the tax benefits etc that were available.
A bunch of small to midsize American companies started producing solar stuff and almost immediately got undercut by Chinese technology. If the US Govt was serious about this they would actually fund in the form of subsidies both production and installation (can anybody say "creation of jobs"?) of solar stuff for both private homes and public buildings.
But nobody seems to actually want to create jobs....

Janet Rosen
http://www.zanshinart.com
"peace will enter when hate is gone"--percy mayfield
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 07:16 PM   #33
Fred Little
Dojo: NJIT Budokai
Location: State Line NJ/NY
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 632
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Janet Rosen wrote: View Post
But nobody seems to actually want to create jobs....
Actually, there are people who want to create jobs. They brought 250,000 people into the streets of London last weekend to send a simple message: don't cut our forests, don't cut our library hours, don't cut public services: cut carbon and put our brothers and sisters back to work. They call themselves the Trade Unions Council and they mean business.

They also have a program: One Million Climate Change Jobs

Imagine that: a labor movement with vision. Better yet, don't just imagine it: make it a reality here.

Cheerio,

FL

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 07:25 PM   #34
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
I suspect you know just how intellectually dishonest it is to frame an argument as a false dichotomy like this and thus attempt to place a patently ridiculous argument in someone else's mouth. Putting another guy in a suit in at the top is not "trying your best".
No, Mary. You were the one who declared that it is no good to get rid of a bad leader because you'll only get another one just like him. You said "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." In fact, you're literally saying "Never try."

I'm saying, if he's a bad leader, boot him out. If the next one is bad, boot him, too. All the way down.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
"Change" is a value-neutral word, David. You might want to take a look at some of the results of this "change".
So all change is bad? I did say "overthrow or vote them out." But we have to shake them off and I don't mean to replace them with tea partiers who let Bush run amuck, dishing out billions of dollars to corrupt warlords only to start screaming when Obama tries to take care of the citizens here at home.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
David, I notice that you live in Birmingham, AL. People in Birmingham probably feel like they just got through a hard winter, but really, you have no idea what I'm talking about. I live in a New England community with considerable poverty. People here can't afford to "build something better". It takes everything they have and then some just to survive the winter -- and I am not using that word in the figurative sense. More than a few families end up moving everyone into the kitchen to live in one room for the winter -- the room where the woodstove is. Right now, it's 23 degrees and a 30 mph wind is blowing -- at the end of March. It's all well and good to talk about the future, but these people are struggling to survive the present. Nobody cares about them. Nobody cares if they die in the present, and nobody is doing anything to get them to this science-fiction future of yours.
What's more science fiction, Mary: insulated homes and solar/wind/water/geothermal energy....or a nuclear plant that blows up and makes their land a wasteland? Science fiction is only science fiction until it becomes science fact. I've posted new solar technologies, new building technologies: all fact. No fiction about them. We can bring in leaders that support those factual technologies or we can just "never try" and keep the types that continually spend our taxes on subsidies for nuclear power. It takes more than caring, Mary. You have to care enough to take action and keep taking action until you succeed. And the first action is to shake off the defeatist attitude that you have to accept whatever the fat cats hand down to you. You first have to learn that there is a better way, that they could just as well hand down something better, for less money, with greater benefit to all.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
You don't get it, David. It doesn't matter if A costs less than B if you can't afford either one of them.
But A costs far less than B, which is what we're already paying for. Obviously, we can pay for nuclear, though in truth no one can afford it.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
No doubt you'll get what you want some day, but it's all classic revolutionary theory: "The worse, the better," as Lenin said. It works great if you take the long view and don't care who gets hurt as part of your "worse".
I'm not saying to force people to build new houses. I'm saying that every building and every home has a limited lifespan. The day will come when it will be replaced. Do we replace old building with shotgun shacks? No, because no one builds that way anymore: we changed the laws and codes. Do we replace outdoor toilets with other outdoor toilets? No, the laws and codes have changed. And the nuclear plant is an idea whose time never was. We've just let our politicians feed the super-wealthy subsidies to make us dependent on them when they could have made us independent with solar and other alternative technologies with the same subsidies.

But it seems clear that no matter what anyone suggests, you're going to find the worst possible interpretation of that and mire yourself in hopelessness. If that makes you happy, that's strange. I know we can do better without running the risks inherent in uranium-based nuclear power plants. I know we can move to a better technology with less expense for the common people. You should look into these things and lose the defeatist attitude.

Thinking positively.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 07:33 PM   #35
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
David Orange,

You are being very idealistic where you should be more realistic.

If it isn't cheaper or more convenient than what we have now, people will not want it.
Really? Very few things in the world are more expensive than nuclear power. But the expenses are hidden. That's more than realistic: that's real. Just as the price of gasoline is artifically low here, the price of nuclear is made to seem much lower than it is.

And like all lies, that's going to come to light eventually, even if we don't have a disaster like Fukushima. But if we do have something like that, it will be clear how terribly expensive and foolish it was to trust in those lies. How "inconvenient" that will be.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 07:39 PM   #36
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Janet Rosen wrote: View Post
I would love to have solar power both for electricity and for hot water heating. I'm in a great location for it. I can't afford it. Period. Not even with all the tax benefits etc that were available.
A bunch of small to midsize American companies started producing solar stuff and almost immediately got undercut by Chinese technology. If the US Govt was serious about this they would actually fund in the form of subsidies both production and installation (can anybody say "creation of jobs"?) of solar stuff for both private homes and public buildings.
But nobody seems to actually want to create jobs....
Exactly. They want to shovel billions of dollars to people who are already wealthy and who make their living selling coal and nuclear power to a captive populace. If they gave people better jobs...why, they wouldn't be captive to the status quo anymore.

If we want it, we have to spread the knowledge of it (and the knowledge of how deadly nuclear power is) and stand up and demand the change we need and deserve.

But there are already initiatives for group buying of solar systems to bring costs way down. There are new types of solar electric cells that are cheaper and cleaner to produce. And when the economies of volume kick in, we'll see them become affordable. After all, the other forms of energy are steadily becoming more expensive. We're reaching the tipping point. If any good can come out of Fukushima, it will be global awakening to the necessity of kicking both nuclear and fossil fuels out of our societies.

Good luck with your efforts.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 08:07 PM   #37
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Latest video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...GavZ_rf4#at=75
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 08:48 PM   #38
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Skaggs wrote: View Post
You are being very idealistic where you should be more realistic.

If it isn't cheaper or more convenient than what we have now, people will not want it.
I'm sure the people from around the Fukushima plant are enjoying the convenience of being unable to return to their homes, unable to get any of their personal belongings or care for their pets, maybe unable ever to return to their homes. I'm sure the people of Tokyo find it very convenient to drink bottled water, to be unable to use their radioactive tap water. The farmers probably found it more convenient to dump their radioactive milk and discard their radiated vegetables than to sell them. It's more convenient not to have to count the money they would have made.

However, if it gets worse at the nuclear plant, it might start to seem a little less convenient.

There simply is nothing more convenient than clean, safe nuclear power, all right.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 09:18 PM   #39
Janet Rosen
  AikiWeb Forums Contributing Member
 
Janet Rosen's Avatar
Location: Left Coast
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,337
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Fred, the problem here as I see it is that between the pervasive Marlboro man/self made rugged individual myth and the belief that everybody is - with just a little luck! - about to be part of very wealthy, Americans refuse to actually identify themselves as working people or lower middle class and seem very happy to act and vote against their self interest. Oh don't get me started....This unreconstructed leftie really needs to stay off the Open Discussions....

Janet Rosen
http://www.zanshinart.com
"peace will enter when hate is gone"--percy mayfield
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 10:02 PM   #40
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,166
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
No, Mary. You were the one who declared that it is no good to get rid of a bad leader because you'll only get another one just like him. You said "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." In fact, you're literally saying "Never try."
David, do you know what the word "literally" means? It means in exactly those words. There is only one way to "literally say 'Never try'", and that's to type those exact words. I don't think you'll try to edit history and say that I did that, so now let's address your other misapprehensions. What I said is that it is no good to get rid of a bad leader if you will only get another one just like him. Once and for good, don't tell me what I said.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I'm saying, if he's a bad leader, boot him out. If the next one is bad, boot him, too. All the way down.
That's all very well and good if you view revolution as a spectator sport or the proverbial dinner party. In real life, it takes a tremendous toll on societies, on economies, on real live human beings. People die. Eggs get broken. It's not something to be cavalier about.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
So all change is bad?
There you go again! How do you get that from the statement ""Change" is a value-neutral word"? I'm baffled.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I did say "overthrow or vote them out." But we have to shake them off and I don't mean to replace them with tea partiers who let Bush run amuck, dishing out billions of dollars to corrupt warlords only to start screaming when Obama tries to take care of the citizens here at home.
Well, see, that's the problem -- change is hard to control. Take the French Revolution as an example -- or sure, take the Tea Party movement. How many people on the right do you think wish now that they'd never let that genie out of the bottle?

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
What's more science fiction, Mary: insulated homes and solar/wind/water/geothermal energy....or a nuclear plant that blows up and makes their land a wasteland?
False dichotomy, David.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
IScience fiction is only science fiction until it becomes science fact. I've posted new solar technologies, new building technologies: all fact. No fiction about them.
Only the part where everyone has them and they are adequate for all our energy needs. Don't you see my point? It's a great goal, but we have to get from here to there -- and it's morally unconscionable to wave away the messy details of real human lives.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
It takes more than caring, Mary. You have to care enough to take action and keep taking action until you succeed. And the first action is to shake off the defeatist attitude that you have to accept whatever the fat cats hand down to you.
Fine, David. You preach -- when you find an audience with this "defeatist attitude" you're talking about. Don't preach to me. Realism is not defeatism.

[quote=David Orange;280141]But A costs far less than B, which is what we're already paying for. Obviously, we can pay for nuclear, though in truth no one can afford it.[/quote[

"We"? You're not paying these people's heating bills. You're not paying for A or B for them. You really can't make statements about what they can afford.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I'm not saying to force people to build new houses. I'm saying that every building and every home has a limited lifespan. The day will come when it will be replaced.
People without shelter freeze to death in three hours. They'll be dead when your day comes. It's not a "someday" problem. They need solutions now. They need a way to get from here to there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 11:09 PM   #41
Tenyu
Dojo: Aikibodo
Location: Arcata CA
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 150
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Declining energy sources and declining EROEI determine what economically viable energy is left for civilization. Wanting ff or nuclear energy, even in a utopian egalitarian world, doesn't matter when the finite energy becomes unavailable. People really can't conceive of the non-linear limits we're hitting right now.

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:03 AM   #42
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Janet Rosen wrote: View Post
Fred, the problem here as I see it is that between the pervasive Marlboro man/self made rugged individual myth and the belief that everybody is - with just a little luck! - about to be part of very wealthy, Americans refuse to actually identify themselves as working people or lower middle class and seem very happy to act and vote against their self interest. Oh don't get me started....
That explains a lot about American politics today. The common voter will give himself/herself a pay cut to give benefits to the super wealthy...apparently because they want good conditions when they get rich....

Quote:
Janet Rosen wrote: View Post
This unreconstructed leftie really needs to stay off the Open Discussions....
No way. We need you here.

Best.

David
That

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:44 AM   #43
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
David, do you know what the word "literally" means? It means in exactly those words. There is only one way to "literally say 'Never try'", and that's to type those exact words. I don't think you'll try to edit history and say that I did that, so now let's address your other misapprehensions. What I said is that it is no good to get rid of a bad leader if you will only get another one just like him. Once and for good, don't tell me what I said.
OK. You effectively said "Never try" because every example I give you turn it back to the sad-sack hopelessness that we'll only get the same result and therefore... we should never try.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
That's all very well and good if you view revolution as a spectator sport or the proverbial dinner party. In real life, it takes a tremendous toll on societies, on economies, on real live human beings. People die. Eggs get broken. It's not something to be cavalier about.
It's definitely the extreme. And if life is too oppressive under your regime, you really have to consider whether cowering under tyranny is better than the risks. We, of course, have the right to vote, but it took serious revolution to get it. I'm certainly not cavalier about it, any more than I'm cavalier about making war on other nations. But if you don't want to make some effort to change the status quo, then you should accept whatever it hands you without complaining.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
There you go again! How do you get that from the statement ""Change" is a value-neutral word"? I'm baffled.
I get it from your response to every suggestion I make toward changing the status quo. You always complain that we'll only get more of the same. It's like you've imprinted the personality of Eeyore. I believe we can change our society for the better. You seem to believe that any change can only lead to the same or worse.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
Well, see, that's the problem -- change is hard to control. Take the French Revolution as an example -- or sure, take the Tea Party movement. How many people on the right do you think wish now that they'd never let that genie out of the bottle?
I just wish they'd let it out (or that the tea partiers had given a damn) nine years ago, when people like me were warning that the President was selling out our future with crazy spending. But we complained that he was spending on foreign warlords and criminals, building schools in a country where the security was so lax that the schools were being destroyed as fast a we built them. You can't really control change, but you can be consistent in what change you demand.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
False dichotomy, David.
No it's not. I gave several examples of real technologies that are here and now, and evolutions of those technologies that are coming along even now. The falseness is when you called that my "science fiction future." The only reason it's "science fiction" is that certain people are working hard to make it seem unattainable or "too expensive" or "not convenient." And like the working class voters Janet mentions above, you seem intent on helping those people keep it that way for all of us. It's here and now and if we shifted our social priorities from nuclear to the alternatives, it would be in our hands.

And the alternative to that shift is nothing more or less than more and more disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
Only the part where everyone has them and they are adequate for all our energy needs. Don't you see my point? It's a great goal, but we have to get from here to there -- and it's morally unconscionable to wave away the messy details of real human lives.
Again, the part where everyone has them and they're adequate for all our energy needs is as simple as shifting our national priorities from things that benefit the top 2% and really getting down to what benefits and strengthens all the people. But even the wacky radical poor white trash only want to support the super rich. That's what has to change--not the technologies or the weather. People got along for thousands of years without nuclear power. We've only had nuclear since about 1940--about 70 years. And we've had three very serious nuclear accidents in the past 32 years. And the most serious have both been within the past 20 years. The worst is yet to come, and sooner than anyone seems to expect.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
But A costs far less than B, which is what we're already paying for. Obviously, we can pay for nuclear, though in truth no one can afford it.
Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
"We"? You're not paying these people's heating bills. You're not paying for A or B for them. You really can't make statements about what they can afford.
Nuclear subsidies are national, Mary. They're not local. We all pay for nuclear plants. I do pay for those folks' bills when they're nuclear provided.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
People without shelter freeze to death in three hours. They'll be dead when your day comes. It's not a "someday" problem. They need solutions now. They need a way to get from here to there.
Yes. Shift our priorities from mass, centralized power to distributed systems where the power is generated at the point of use. Terrorists can blow up that kind of network and they can't poison thousands of square miles by attacking someone's dome and solar water heater. But our government and the proud fat-heads in suits only want to build the very complex and expensive systems that funnel the people's resources up to the super rich.

And changing that begins with changing the way people think about these things. Buckminster Fuller showed that the most important part of everything is invisible--in the original conception of how it is designed and put together. Bronze--one of the strongest and most flexible metals known--is created by combining two of the softest metals on earth: copper and tin. The strongest steel is made by adding nickel or chrome to iron, both weaker than iron itself. The secret is in the invisible molecular level. And that was conceived in the utterly invisible realm of thought. You have a very hard way of thinking, but not very flexible and not very broad. Until we expand that kind of thinking with the vision of a better way, we're just going to keep on getting what the robber barons give us, which is the right to let them take from us. We've got what we need, if we'll just recognize it and refuse to allow others to keep us from accessing it.

Thinking widely, deeply, flexibly, invisibly and most of all positively.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:47 AM   #44
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Tenyu Hamaki wrote: View Post
Declining energy sources and declining EROEI determine what economically viable energy is left for civilization. Wanting ff or nuclear energy, even in a utopian egalitarian world, doesn't matter when the finite energy becomes unavailable. People really can't conceive of the non-linear limits we're hitting right now.
It will certainly affect us all, but it won't affect the sun. Our only hope is to connect up there and drop the artificial mass generation that benefits the few at the expense of the many, the environment and the very usability of the air and water and dirt of the earth.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:53 AM   #45
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
People without shelter freeze to death in three hours. They'll be dead when your day comes. It's not a "someday" problem. They need solutions now. They need a way to get from here to there.
Of course, this need has existed from the dawn of humanity. There's nothing new about it except that modern Americans have allowed themselves to be cornered into an energy "dust bowl" where the super wealthy control the resources of oil and nuclear by ownership. They control the resources of the sun and green building through mental constructs that tell us these things are unreliable and ineffective.

For the price of building a small addition to one's house, it's possible to build a 20' diameter monolithic dome with kitchen and bath, that is super insulated and will stand up to hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. With a tiny input of heat, it can stay warm all winter and cool all summer. Very few Americans really could not afford this kind of dwelling, but most are convinced that it is out of reach. Let's not be Okies and stay in the failing situation until our only hope is four patches of rubber on the unforgiving road.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 06:24 AM   #46
Nicholas Eschenbruch
Dojo: TV Denzlingen
Location: Freiburg
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 318
Germany
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Of course, this need has existed from the dawn of humanity. There's nothing new about it except that modern Americans have allowed themselves to be cornered into an energy "dust bowl" where the super wealthy control the resources of oil and nuclear by ownership. They control the resources of the sun and green building through mental constructs that tell us these things are unreliable and ineffective.

For the price of building a small addition to one's house, it's possible to build a 20' diameter monolithic dome with kitchen and bath, that is super insulated and will stand up to hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. With a tiny input of heat, it can stay warm all winter and cool all summer. Very few Americans really could not afford this kind of dwelling, but most are convinced that it is out of reach. Let's not be Okies and stay in the failing situation until our only hope is four patches of rubber on the unforgiving road.
Here is what has been done in my town regarding energy efficient housing, I believe it may be the largest such project worldwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban,_Freiburg
(and of course, it has a disproportionate number of aikido clubs...)
It's mainly "post-materialist" middle class though, and moderate climate.

On a more festive note, in the wake of the Fukushima catastrophe we just ousted the conservative government in my federal state, and will now have a green party prime minister in one of the most technologically innovative regions of the world. So there will be ample occasion to observe what leadership can contribute to changes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 07:36 AM   #47
lbb
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,166
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I get it from your response to every suggestion I make toward changing the status quo. You always complain that we'll only get more of the same. It's like you've imprinted the personality of Eeyore. I believe we can change our society for the better. You seem to believe that any change can only lead to the same or worse.
This tells me that you didn't bother to read my very first contribution to this thread, just knee-jerked off a few isolated phrases in it. If you had, you'd know that my contention, then and now, is absolutely not that change isn't possible -- it's that you seem to me to be approaching change from the wrong direction. But it's a perspective that most people who want change, or say they want change, are pretty much stuck in. You say I have to change my thinking? I say you don't understand my thinking, and that that shows that you may need to change yours in an even more radical way. Perhaps if you go back and re-read, you'll see what I'm talking about, and you'll stop making incorrect and frankly insulting statements about my beliefs and attitudes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 08:40 AM   #48
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
This tells me that you didn't bother to read my very first contribution to this thread, just knee-jerked off ...
Classy, Mary.

Quote:
Mary Malmros wrote: View Post
....my contention, then and now, is absolutely not that change isn't possible -- it's that you seem to me to be approaching change from the wrong direction. But it's a perspective that most people who want change, or say they want change, are pretty much stuck in.
No. It's clear that you read my statement backward. Where do you get that I advocate a "top-down" solution?

Mary Malmros wrote: you seem to have the view that many pro-renewables people have, that the solution to all this is through some kind of top-down policy initiative. You say, "Either the people of a nation will vote out or overthrow their leaders who support nuclear poisons or international coalitions will eventually get it done." Either way, a top-down approach.(end of quote)

How is the people voting out bad leadership a "top-down" approach. That's what's called a "grass-roots" or "bottom-up" approach.

Mary Malmros wrote: That will never happen. We're past the point of top-down solutions working, in energy or anything else.(end of quote)

And I didn't advocate any kind of top-down approach. You have to make your own home energy-efficient, compost your leaves instead of bagging them off to the landfill, grow a good garden and produce as much of your own food as you can, limit driving as much as possible, conserve electricity and natural gas, etc., etc., etc. That is the opposite of top-down.

Mary Malmros wrote: All you have to do is look at US politics to see why: our system is designed to allow those with disproportionate influence to get a lot done. The only power available to the rest is the power to obstruct -- sometimes necessary, sometimes critical, but it never gets anything done.( end of quote)

There, you explicitly said that all the power is in the hands of the wealthy and "The only power available to the rest" is the power to obstruct....but it never gets anything done. How else can that be interpreted than that there is no hope, so we should never try?

Mary Malmros wrote: You can obstruct the nukes, but what are you building to take their place? (end of quote)

And I clarified that as well. As David South, of Monolithic Domes says, the best alternative energy is to not need the energy. Build monolithic domes that need very little utility input. Supply the rest with a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power sources, etc.

Mary Malmros wrote: You will never build anything new using a top-down policy initiative -- the power of entrenched interests guarantees that. The solution is to stop spending all your energy on national and international policy, and start building what you want from the ground up. (end of quote)

Which is what I advocated. However, at the same time, we have to force the government to pay attention to the facts of our energy world, stop pouring money into these huge, expensive projects and recognize that the real human need is on a human scale, shifting the money from nuclear plants, with all their problems to the simple and direct solutions such as efficient building, solar research and implementation, and other direct solutions.

Mary Malmros wrote: Getting caught in an endless "yes it will" "no it won't" argument about whether renewables will work is a complete waste of time. Build what you want. Make the change in your house, on your block, in your neighborhood, in your community. If it works, it'll be adopted, and if it's too slow for you, consider that your alternative is to make zero to negative progress. (end of quote)

Good ideas, but woefully incomplete. We know and have proven that these approaches work. We must not only implement them but also bring a screeching halt to the massive waste of resources and land, as well as the unnecessary risks of the current approach. It's not just enough to improve your own home if the government allows a private company to spray fall-out over your city.

The people of Japan are some of the most advanced in solar usage. Even the old yoseikan hombu--a sixty-year-old schoolhouse, had a solar water heater and it pumped out hot water as soon as the sun came up in the morning. You can bet that most of the people displaced by the radiation threat in Fukushima also had solar water heaters and probably photoelectric, as well. Now they can't use those devices because the behemoth of nuclear power has put them off limits. Now, those people who invested in a better way, are shivering in high school gyms because the nuclear genie has poisoned their homes.

Look at Nicholas Eschenbruch's post, what the people of Germany have done. They experienced the fall-out from Chernobyl. They have recognized that they must build fromt the bottom up, but they also have to make change from the top down. It's not a one-sided proposition. You have to do the best you can with your own situation, but if you don't change your national priorities, all your work can be nullified in a matter of hours.

Thinking real.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 08:48 AM   #49
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

Quote:
Nicholas Eschenbruch wrote: View Post
Here is what has been done in my town regarding energy efficient housing, I believe it may be the largest such project worldwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban,_Freiburg
(and of course, it has a disproportionate number of aikido clubs...)
It's mainly "post-materialist" middle class though, and moderate climate.
Beautiful!

And we can do that here, too. Despite Katherine's claims, in the US, some states have a system called "net metering" by which unused solar electric production feeds back into the energy grid and the homeowner's electric meter runs backward! If we re-prioritized and put these units on every house and public building, along with steady implementation of energy efficiency standards, in a decade or two, we could transform this nation.

Sadly, it's more likely that we'll have two or three Fukushima-style nuclear disasters in that time, while simultaneously becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil and mired in the pollution of that whole approach.

Quote:
Nicholas Eschenbruch wrote: View Post
On a more festive note, in the wake of the Fukushima catastrophe we just ousted the conservative government in my federal state, and will now have a green party prime minister in one of the most technologically innovative regions of the world. So there will be ample occasion to observe what leadership can contribute to changes.
Sadly, in the US, the voters vote against what's really good for them out of some illusion that they're soon going to be among the super wealthy, so they have to create prime conditions for the super-wealthy at the expense of the masses of citizens held captive to their whims. History will look back on this era with dropped jaws. So many little Neros fiddling while the nation burns to the ground.

Best to you guys.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 08:58 AM   #50
phitruong
Dojo: Charlotte Aikikai Agatsu Dojo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,935
United_States
Offline
Re: The fact that you believe a nuclear plant can explode....

i like solar and wind powers and such. however, i also know that high tech society cannot use those alone. when it comes to nuclear power and its hazardous conditions, it creates such a deep psychological fear. interesting though that Japan, a nation that experienced two major nuclear episodes during WWII, chose to use nuclear power to power their society; yet many part of the world, fear of it. say if they decided to drop all their nuclear power plans, what can they replace it with? can't see them power those maglev trains with solar and wind. or elevators or hospital equipments. the amount of batteries to hold such power would be enormous, not to mention the amount of hazardous materials (and waste) those batteries represent.

just want to throw out some thing to contrast. here is the number of automobile deaths from NHTSA (USA) statistics http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx . we have more kill in a year than all the death from nuclear radiation in the US, yet i don't see us banning automobile anytime soon. also, most of the US Navy vessels are nuclear powered. we don't see anyone complaint there do we?
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 18 Peter Goldsbury Columns 187 09-08-2011 03:41 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 17 Peter Goldsbury Columns 41 06-03-2010 10:46 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 14 Peter Goldsbury Columns 38 08-01-2009 12:19 AM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 12 Peter Goldsbury Columns 32 05-16-2009 07:05 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 10 Peter Goldsbury Columns 200 02-04-2009 07:45 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:27 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate