The downside of dependence

[mike3]

He said in the link in the OP that the US would be a third world country in the near future. Are you serious that the world's predominant economy; only superpower; the most innovative and enterprising nation on earth, magically attaining the same status of Zimbabwe would not lead to worldwide economic, social and military collapse? Pull the other one.

Greer clearly wants this to happen, and you seem to as well. It simply won't. Learn to live with this reality, and not your fantasy.

How do you know that it is impossible for it to happen? What happens if we get more and more incompetent politicians? What if the US defaults on its debt? Bam, default. Then what?

Add: And what would you think if, somehow, it actually did start happening? The US began to go down, maybe not necessarily to the level of Zimbabwe, but just enough to precipitate a major worldwide economic, social, and military collapse. Just as a hypothetical.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

Is that a trend over the last few years (since the housing bubble and economic crisis) or a longer term trend that you're pointing to?
If the former, I don't really see the relevance.

Well it isn't really relevant, it's TFian linking things that shouldn't be linked.

The longer trend though is declining wages that's started much before the 2008 crash.

 

[Roboramma]

I agree we should look at the big picture.

But issues of one meltdown (or four) should also be taken into account. Which communities get the short end of the stick and thus, a meltdown? And how will people react after said community is devastated after X meltdown?

I agree we need to keep all our options open, nuclear included, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the risks either.

By the way, I didn't respond to this earlier, but that's mainly because I agree with it.

We should certainly take into account the risks of meltdown and the repercussions that flow from them. I am simply suggesting that those risks are much less than the cost of not using nuclear power.

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

We should certainly take into account the risks of meltdown and the repercussions that flow from them. I am simply suggesting that those risks are much less than the cost of not using nuclear power.

I agree. Nuclear is (should?) be part of the energy solution.

 

[Roboramma]

How do you know that it is impossible for it to happen? What happens if we get more and more incompetent politicians? What if the US defaults on its debt? Bam, default. Then what?

I don't think he means to suggest that it's impossible. Rather that it's extremely unlikely and none of the things that TFian is talking about point toward it. Put simply there is no reason to expect that the US will become a third world country any time soon. Sure, if a huge comet smashes into the earth we're all in trouble, but TFian isn't suggesting that there may be some unknown catastrophe. Rather, he's suggesting that there is a known, predictable catastrophe coming: energy contraction leading to economic downturn/collapse. And that is simply not in evidence.

 

[Roboramma]

I agree. Nuclear is (should?) be part of the energy solution.

Smiley face.

 

[mike3]

I don't think he means to suggest that it's impossible. Rather that it's extremely unlikely and none of the things that TFian is talking about point toward it. Put simply there is no reason to expect that the US will become a third world country any time soon. Sure, if a huge comet smashes into the earth we're all in trouble, but TFian isn't suggesting that there may be some unknown catastrophe. Rather, he's suggesting that there is a known, predictable catastrophe coming: energy contraction leading to economic downturn/collapse. And that is simply not in evidence.

What happens if incompetence/stupidity on the part of politicians/governors/etc. simply runs its course to the bitter end?

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

So you are once again conflating "the internet" with "the internet as it exists today"?

I'm sure it would be possible to build simple computers with current scientific knowledge with steam based technology that could run simple DOS prompt usenet interfaces run off of Ham radio. That's the rub I have with these "Peak Oil back to the 1700" scenarios. I've not seen a convincing case to be made that we'll forget a majority (or even a significant) amount of our scientific knowledge come such a decline happening. Especially if it's a "long descent", I can imagine governments, private organizations, communities, and even individuals across the nation (and world) will make great efforts store and maintain such knowledge, maintaining books and printing resources online into book form (Wikipedia has a service that does this). With current knowledge, even with reduced energy supplies, we could probably maintain a lot of what we have now even in more simple incarnations. It seems Greer doesn't want this to happen though, and wants to direct his followers to only be interested in 1970s "appropriate technology". He has no love for modern technology, which is evident.

 

[Roboramma]

You may find this TFian thread interesting: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183412


It goes over his claim that the internet will collapse, and the refutations to that claim.

 

[lionking]

What happens if incompetence/stupidity on the part of politicians/governors/etc. simply runs its course to the bitter end?

What happens if I win Lotto?

Really, extraordinary claims like this need some evidence. There isn't any.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

ah yes, nuclear power. the clean, safe energy of the 20th century.
until....BOOOOM!!!! Chernobyl.
or BOOOOM!!!!!! Fukoshima.

Two accidents in 30 years that killed less than 70 people.

Meanwhile, 30,000 people across the United States die every year due to exposure to coal pollutants.

No one in the United States has died to causes unique to nuclear power generation since 1960.

 

[mike3]

What happens if I win Lotto?

Really, extraordinary claims like this need some evidence. There isn't any.

What would happen? It's fun to speculate, after all.

How "extraordinary" would the evidence have to be to prove the governors/politicians/etc. to be incompetent?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nonsense
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/thorium1.jpg[/qimg]
Utter nonsense
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/thorium2.jpg[/qimg]
Pure nonsense
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/thorium3.jpg[/qimg]
Nonsensical gibberish
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/thorium4a.jpg[/qimg]
Bilgewater
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/thorium5.jpg[/qimg]

Er, advertisements make for compelling evidence not.

That's not an advertisement.

Are you able to disprove any of the individual claims made in that infographic?

Still waiting for you to dispute any of the facts presented in the infographic, TFian.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

delete

 

[mike3]

Two accidents in 30 years that killed less than 70 people.

Meanwhile, 30,000 people across the United States die every year due to exposure to coal pollutants.

No one in the United States has died to causes unique to nuclear power generation since 1960.

This makes me wonder if we couldn't get a little more "carefree" with nuclear waste -- by that I mean just dumping it down 3,000 foot shafts without care for the stability over multi-millennia, and not have much of a problem. What would happen if we just decided to drop multimillennial stability as a criterion for waste disposal sites? It might make nuclear cheaper, and help to speed up its adoption. I can't imagine it'd cause as much damage as FFs are doing right now.

 

[TFian]

Lol, no.

An LFTR could probably be built with steam age technology. All you need to have is the ability to put together a big ass steel drum, seperate pure thorium from ore and mix it with flouride salts.

The process described there requires an intense industrial process.

No, it absolutely is not. Stop lying.

But it absolutely is. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379

It's not untested. You're lying again.

I said "on a large scale". Keyword...

The fact that no one in the nuclear community agrees with you, for one.

"Nuclear community" Oh lulz

 

[excaza]

The process described there requires an intense industrial process.

Not particularly. Even if it was, so what?

But it absolutely is. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379

An article that dismisses pretty much every nuclear technology other than traditional fission as "not being serious." Yawn.

I said "on a large scale". Keyword...

And? The main obstacle to thorium is cost, not technology. As technology matures, cost goes down. Unlike in your universe, in this one technology doesn't exist in a bubble, nor does it regress.

"Nuclear community" Oh lulz

I'd rather listen to experts than doomsayers who handwave away inconvenient facts.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The process described there requires an intense industrial process.

And "intense industrial scale processes" didn't exist during the industrial revolution?

Besides, the beauty of Thorium based reactors is that they don't require the seperation of isotopes of the same element. You don't need to worry about the number that goes after the element name, just throw straight Thorium into the tank.

And mankind has been refining metals out of ore since the Bronze Age.

But it absolutely is.

The author of your article doesn't have the qualifications of Meneley, Stanford, Manheimer, et al.

There's 4.5 billion tons of Uranium suspended in seawater that is recoverable at ~300 dollars per kilogram.

I said "on a large scale". Keyword...

Yes, and you were lying.

"Nuclear community" Oh lulz

There's a general rule I've discovered when talking to people like you.

9/11 truthers don't have structural engineers in their movement.

Anti-vaxxers don't have epidemiologists and immunologists in their movement.

Apollo Moon Landing Hoaxers don't have astronomers, astrophysicists and aerospace engineers in their movement.

The anti-nuclear lobby doesn't have nuclear engineers and reactor physicists in their movement.

And their response to having this pointed out to them is usually a childishly dismissive hand-wave as you "oh lulz".

 

[TFian]

And "intense industrial scale processes" didn't exist during the industrial revolution?

Sure, but given both petroleum and coal are peaking beyond return, we'll have to regress to a stage before the industrial revolution.

The author of your article doesn't have the qualifications of Meneley, Stanford, Manheimer, et al.

The author is a physicist.

There's 4.5 billion tons of Uranium suspended in seawater that is recoverable at ~300 dollars per kilogram.

It's not commercially viable.

Yes, and you were lying.

No no I wasn't. Thorium reactors are the perfect definition of "Vaporware". Quit peddling the snake oil already.

The anti-nuclear lobby doesn't have nuclear engineers and reactor physicists in their movement.

Actually I gave you a physicist. That's pure BS that there's no nuclear engineers or reactor physicists in the "anti nuclear lobby". Most of course will be biased towards where their check comes in, but some have more integrity than that.

 

[Roboramma]

It's not commercially viable.

In what way is $300/kg not commercially viable?