Green new deal equals magical thinking

[Phil1111 1,182]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

More people died at Chappaquiddick that at Three Mile Island and Fukushima combined.  

The Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear reactor shutdown, which is set to begin no later than Sept. 30, will take nearly 60 years and $1.2 billion to complete.

Fukushima Deaths1 cancer death attributed to radiation exposure by government panel. In 2016 the government increased its cost estimate to about $75.7 billion, part of the overall Fukushima disaster price tag of $202.5 billion. The Japan Center for Economic Research, a private think tank, said the cleanup costs could mount to some $470 billion to $660 billion, however.Mar 9, 2018

In August 1986—at the first international conference on the Chernobyl disaster—the IAEA established but did not make official a figure of 4,000 deaths as the total number of projected deaths caused by the accident over the long term

 

[kallend 2,148]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

More people died at Chappaquiddick that at Three Mile Island and Fukushima combined.  

Not true.

Fukushima deaths‎: ‎1 from radiation, 2,202 from the resulting evacuation.

[brenthutch 444]

34 minutes ago, kallend said:

Not true.

Fukushima deaths‎: ‎1 from radiation

I stand corrected, TMI and Fukushima combined had the same number of deaths as Chappaquiddick.  

[JoeWeber 2,940]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

More people died at Chappaquiddick that at Three Mile Island and Fukushima combined.  

Of all of the bar lowering, childish, dog whistle, right wing and completely ridiculous analogies on offer you chose this one? Don't worry Brent, it doesn't say anything about you that was not already well known.

[DJL 235]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I stand corrected, TMI and Fukushima combined had the same number of deaths as Chappaquiddick.  

There were about 150 people who got a big enough dose that it's well established that the resulting cancer is what they'll die of but I agree with your point.  Even in the worst case scenario the resulting deaths are way below anything caused by burning fossil fuels.  I take those previous instances to be lessons on what we should and shouldn't do since nuke energy certainly needs to be more prevalent regardless of the additional life-cycle costs.  If you look at it as a system of power then going to the cheapest renewable can have the same sort of drawbacks as going to the cheapest fossil fuel power plant.

[Phil1111 1,182]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

There were about 150 people who got a big enough dose that it's well established that the resulting cancer is what they'll die of but I agree with your point.  Even in the worst case scenario the resulting deaths are way below anything caused by burning fossil fuels.  I take those previous instances to be lessons on what we should and shouldn't do since nuke energy certainly needs to be more prevalent regardless of the additional life-cycle costs.  If you look at it as a system of power then going to the cheapest renewable can have the same sort of drawbacks as going to the cheapest fossil fuel power plant.

The mean age of nuclear reactors is over 30 years. China has not planned any new reactors for four years.Once nuclear’s strongest booster, China is growing wary about its cost and safety.

[brenthutch 444]

21 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The mean age of nuclear reactors is over 30 years. China has not planned any new reactors for four years.Once nuclear’s strongest booster, China is growing wary about its cost and safety.

China is all in for fossil fuel 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal-plants-in-the-2020s

“Furthermore, the past weeks have seen the announcement of major infrastructure programmes and other stimulus to offset the economic impacts from the coronavirus, but so far no mention of initiatives prioritising clean energy or other green investment.“

Edited May 28, 2020 by brenthutch

[Phil1111 1,182]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

China is all in for coal

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal-plants-in-the-2020s

“Furthermore, the past weeks have seen the announcement of major infrastructure programmes and other stimulus to offset the economic impacts from the coronavirus, but so far no mention of initiatives prioritising clean energy or other green investment.“

Do you ever read what you post? Or is it all troll, troll?

This is a direct quote from the link you posted: "This is all despite significant overcapacity in the sector, with more than half of coal-power firms already loss-making and with typical plants running at less than 50% of their capacity."

[wmw999 2,588]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

over the long term

That's where you lost him.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 444]

25 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Do you ever read what you post? Or is it all troll, troll?

This is a direct quote from the link you posted: "This is all despite significant overcapacity in the sector, with more than half of coal-power firms already loss-making and with typical plants running at less than 50% of their capacity."

Yet they continue to build them

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

[DJL 235]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yet they continue to build them

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

Yup, there are entire cities that China built and are just sitting there vacant.  I think we all agree that China isn't a very good example to follow.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, DJL said:

Yup, there are entire cities that China built and are just sitting there vacant.  I think we all agree that China isn't a very good example to follow.

Agreed, but if we are talking CO2 China has to be in the conversation.

[DJL 235]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Agreed, but if we are talking CO2 China has to be in the conversation.

They used to be.  Do you know what changed?

[Phil1111 1,182]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yet they continue to build them

https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

So how much coal does a Chinese power plant use if its not operating? Is there a point you're making about Chinese waste and poor planning. Or are you selling a moot point?

[brenthutch 444]

4 minutes ago, DJL said:

They used to be.  Do you know what changed?

No, what?

[kallend 2,148]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I stand corrected, TMI and Fukushima combined had the same number of deaths as Chappaquiddick.  

You forgot some, directly attributable to the Fukushima incident:

"2,202 from the resulting evacuation".

[DJL 235]

24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No, what?

We abandoned our diplomatic effort to create worldwide agreements regarding emissions.

[brenthutch 444]

12 minutes ago, DJL said:

We abandoned our diplomatic effort to create worldwide agreements regarding emissions.

I'm pretty sure this

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-open-30bn-coal-railway-end-month/

and this

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/asia/china-russia-gas-pipeline-intl-hnk/index.html

were under construction during the Obama administration. China had/has no intention of cutting its CO2 emissions.

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

I'm pretty sure this

http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-open-30bn-coal-railway-end-month/

and this

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/asia/china-russia-gas-pipeline-intl-hnk/index.html

were under construction during the Obama administration. China had/has no intentions of cutting its CO2 emissions.

 

I know about those.  We also had/have pipelines and coal trains under construction for our continued use of those things.  Australia still was mining/mines a shit-ton of coal even as their country burns.  I'm driving to work in car that burns fuel.  We were/are building more nuke capability in the middle of every nuke treaty.

[brenthutch 444]

58 minutes ago, kallend said:

You forgot some, directly attributable to the Fukushima incident:

"2,202 from the resulting evacuation".

 I said "at" and not "from"

You need to work on your reading comprehension. 

[kallend 2,148]

58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 I said "at" and not "from"

You need to work on your reading comprehension. 

Brenthutch challenges Turtle for Lame Post of the Week Award.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

36 minutes ago, kallend said:

Brenthutch challenges Turtle for Lame Post of the Week Award.

Hi John,

And he is the winner.  Yee haw!!!!!!!

Jerry Baumchen

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

 I said "at" and not "from"

You need to work on your reading comprehension. 

Oh boy, that's some real masterminding you just pulled on Kallend.

[billvon 3,116]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Brenthutch challenges Turtle for Lame Post of the Week Award.

Give him time.  I am sure he will point out that, at some point, a poster here used "its" instead of "it's."

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 I said "at" and not "from"

Hi Brent,

Just so we can understand you, do you mean 'at' during the actual event; such as within the first 5 minutes, first 5 hours, first 5 days, first 5 years?

To me, the people who died months ( and maybe actually, years ) after Chernobyl, from being exposed, were a direct result of the actual event.

So, I would guess that you do not agree.

Jerry Baumchen