Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 18, 2018 3:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 15, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 186
Well, that was fun. On a blog I used to frequent, I saw someone arguing that we should make our grid run entirely on solar. I argued with him. At first it was cordial. I would cite numbers, he would just invent things. After a little, he called me an industry shill, and still didn't make any precise argument. I called him dishonest for that and various other reasons of ducking, dodging, strawmanning, inventing facts, etc. Shortly thereafter, I seem to have been banned from the blog for being "impolite" for saying people are dishonest when they are being flagrantly dishonest.

We got into a big spat about how photovoltaic kills more people per watt-hour produced than nuclear. We didn't get much further than that. I was just trying to make the point that nuclear is incredibly safe, but it seems that he understood me to mean that solar is incredibly dangerous, because it never occurred to him that it's actually both are quite safe. Unfortunately, I didn't get to reply to that before I was banned.

Anyone have any advice for how to approach conversations like this in general? What has worked for you?

/sigh

PS: This is appropriate for general conversation forum, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
yes this appropriate. i am finding previous posts on the subject

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4251&p=55381#p55381
Quote:
solar powered America wont be able to complete with nuclear china.


DougC wrote:
Skeptical Science has a good handbook about debunking myths that can be reinforced instead of corrected by taking certain approaches.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunki ... nload.html

First off, repeating the misinformation can often reinforce it.

Quote:
To debunk a myth, you often have to mention it -
otherwise, how will people know what you’re talking
about? However, this makes people more familiar
with the myth and hence more likely to accept it
as true. Does this mean debunking a myth might
actually reinforce it in people’s minds?
To test for this backfire effect, people were
shown a flyer that debunked common myths
about flu vaccines.

Afterwards, they were asked
to separate the myths from the facts. When
asked immediately after reading the flyer, people
successfully identified the myths. However, when
queried 30 minutes after reading the flyer, some
people actually scored worse after reading the
flyer. The debunking reinforced the myths.


Also providing too much information can be counterproductive and sometimes confusing.

Quote:
The Overkill Backfire Effect occurs because processing many arguments takes more effort than
just considering a few. A simple myth is more cognitively attractive than an over-complicated
correction.

The solution is to keep your content lean, mean and easy to read. Making your content easy to process means using every tool available. Use simple language, short sentences, subheadings and paragraphs. Avoid dramatic language and derogatory comments that alienate people. Stick to the facts.


Confronting someone's worldview with contradictory information can often reinforce their biases.

Quote:
The third and arguably most potent backfire effect
occurs with topics that tie in with people’s worldviews
and sense of cultural identity. Several cognitive
processes can cause people to unconsciously
process information in a biased way. For those who
are strongly fixed in their views, being confronted
with counter-arguments can cause their views to
be strengthened.


Effectively debunking a lot of the myths around nuclear power is probably going to be more complex than merely presenting the actual facts about risks and benefits.


NicholasJanssen wrote:
Show pictures of people suffering coal lung. Show pictures of blown up windmills, show solar panels destroyed by wind, show in pictures what is wrong with their idea. show little stunted men covered in coal dust. Show the poverty that exists for coal miners. Show bp oil spill birds. Then, show the flip* of devistation in japan. show the bodies of the dead in the tsunami, on each tsunami picture, show 8800 died in tsunami -- 0 died from radation. Show coal exhaust and side by side kids suffering from lukemia...

SPICE >>YOUR LONG TECHNOBABBLE>> BETWEEN GRAPHIC PICTURES. YOUR AUDIENCE MUST BE THE UNIFORMED MASSES.



viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4216&hilit=SkepticalScience
Eino wrote:
"If you want to bring Thorium technology to the average Joe on the street you need to discuss how the technology can benefit him personally."

Excellent - Right out of the Dale Carnegie books. It is amazing how many people do not realize this simple truth.

I can visualize it. "Sir! Do you want cleaner air? Sir! Do you want less expensive electricity? Sir! Do you want your children to grow up ina cleaner, happier safer world? Then, let me tell you about Thorium!"

Technical people can be bought. People persons are what truly make this world go around. Edison would have gone no where if he hadn't known how to market his products. The Wizard of Menlo Park would have gone far with Thorium.


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4216&hilit=SkepticalScience
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4209


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
In the absolute simplest terms, keep to talking points like the politicians do.

chinese Solar wont work at night, use candles instead. (hail + solar panels = complete fing disaster)
(if anyone plans to use batteries to store solar for nighttime, remind them the part that fails the most in cars is the battery)

windmills wont work without wind, and explode in high wind, ( youtube exploding windmills)

anytime a nuclear plant has been shutdown, it has ALWAYS been replaced with coal or natural gas.

solar america cant compete with nuclear china

dozens of solar companies took money from the government, wasted the money, and went bankrupt

want a fat paycheck? ask the government to buy your chinese solar panels, government will give you all the money you need


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
I just got the same, banned from a site by arguing that solar+wind oscillates so much that its impossible to do 50% solar+wind and 50% natural gas load following, without large electrical battery banks to do the second by second load following.

I tried to state that he needed some serious electrical transmission and generation training to understand why this wouldn't work (without the large chemical battery banks).

They proceeded to tell me that I was somebody else that already had been banned, and banned me.

This is what you get by arguing with a fundamentalist. Yeah, there are solar+wind fundamentalists.

I always get at them by stating there is no country with a population of at least one million people running at least 50% solar+wind, none at all.

By base case is Hawaii, Hawaii has very expensive electricity, so solar+wind would be a no brainer right, humm, they are having serious problems with too much Solar PV rooftop on the grid.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
this isnt an argue with facts war.

it is a propaganda war against the people with vested interests in solar, wind, coal, and natural gas.

there are millions of people that get money from solar, wind, coal, and natural gas. all of them will back (solar, wind, coal, and natural gas) without hesitation.

stick to simple talking points. solar wont work at night, and batteries are the part of a car that fails most often.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
NicholasJanssen wrote:
this isnt an argue with facts war.

it is a propaganda war against the people with vested interests in solar, wind, coal, and natural gas.

there are millions of people that get money from solar, wind, coal, and natural gas. all of them will back (solar, wind, coal, and natural gas) without hesitation.

stick to simple talking points. solar wont work at night, and batteries are the part of a car that fails most often.


exactly. also nuclear has the bad safety rap.
they tried the same with electric vehicles, but since they don't have the plutonium is nasty, wicked and evil problem, it's going well.

batteries reliability isn't the problem. with enough batteries it could work, but the cost as of today would be prohibitive.
li-ion have come a long way. I suggest you look at how Tesla motors is doing. The stock recently hit an all time high of 265 bucks, with many analysts having a price target as low as 65 bucks.
very close to 40 thousand cars delivered (model s + roadster), with an average price north of 80 thousand bucks, that's north of 3 billion USD in total sales so far.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2014 10:30 pm 
Online

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
Greenpeace now has revenues drastically greater than any reactor vendor - in an 'even' propaganda battle we can't hope to win.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Here and There
Greenpeace now has revenues drastically greater than any reactor vendor

That is interesting. It looks like you've followed the money. I'll bet that certain industries are supporting them. I wonder if there is a way to do an end run around them and work on their donors. Companies that support them may respond to a letter writing campaign or a very vocal stockholder making noise at their annual meeting.

It may be oil money squeezing potential competition out. Those guys aren't dumb. They've been at this since old J. D. Rockefeller.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Eino wrote:
Greenpeace now has revenues drastically greater than any reactor vendor

That is interesting. It looks like you've followed the money. I'll bet that certain industries are supporting them. I wonder if there is a way to do an end run around them and work on their donors. Companies that support them may respond to a letter writing campaign or a very vocal stockholder making noise at their annual meeting.

It may be oil money squeezing potential competition out. Those guys aren't dumb. They've been at this since old J. D. Rockefeller.


if you follow the money of greenpeace, it will lead you to a drilling platform and underground.

Quote:
Judgment of Rockefeller will be left to the ages. The difficulty of that task is best summarized when Chernow relates a meeting between Henry Ford and a frail Rockefeller shortly before his death at age 97. "Good bye, I'll see you in heaven," Rockefeller says, to which Ford replies, "You will, if you get in."


One interesting tactic in promoting nuclear is to make Americans afraid of the nuclear powered dragon, china. America has always had a desire to be the best, and when china takes nuclear, goes fully ahead with nuclear, America will be left with 1900's technology.

Solar powered America cannot compete with nuclear powered china.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 5:12 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 129
Greenpeace's annual report for 2012 gave total world fundraising as 265 million Euro. Areva's reactors and services group turned over 3.4 billion Euro in 2012. http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2 ... ar-maffia/
Areva's total revenue was 8.9 billion US dollars, well behind Rosatom ( $US 15 billion ) and KEPCO ( $39 billion ), though those figures include a lot of other income besides reactor building.Of course these companies are selling actual products, whereas Greenpeace is just selling publicity, but that business model seems to work for Facebook and the like.
Greenpeace's largest source of funding was Germany, with the Netherlands, the USA and Switzerland each providing about half as much. http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... rt2012.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 5:16 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
This is a tough problem. Here is my attempt to solve it (posted here before, but updated):

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/ ... layms=3000


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
We need a good article that articulates this relationship with best clarity possible.
Now it makes sense why we have anti nuclear, climate change deniers out there, how else on earth we would see this kind of two headed dragon.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 15, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 186
@Russ. That's good stuff. Thanks.

One nit. You say thorium will last only thousands of years? From what I can tell, it's entirely practical, economical, and energy positive to mine literal granite for the uranium and thorium content, which IIRC is on the order of 1 ppm. And granite, being the most common constituent of the continental crust of this planet, we will never run out. I would go with "Limitless (to the same extent that solar and the sun are limitless)". Probably would need some explanation about the granite. I personally do need to check how much accessible granite there is, and what that comes to in terms of tons of uranium and thorium. I assume ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 06, 2014 3:49 pm 
Online

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
Uranium content of typical granites is about 3g/t. That gives granite a rather higher energy value than coal before you even consider thorium which is hard to extract.

Also its not really fair to call enrichment tails as part of the fuel mass, it never even makes it to the plant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Advocating nuclear
PostPosted: Mar 07, 2014 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
Joshua Maurice wrote:
@Russ. That's good stuff. Thanks.

One nit. You say thorium will last only thousands of years? From what I can tell, it's entirely practical, economical, and energy positive to mine literal granite for the uranium and thorium content, which IIRC is on the order of 1 ppm. And granite, being the most common constituent of the continental crust of this planet, we will never run out. I would go with "Limitless (to the same extent that solar and the sun are limitless)". Probably would need some explanation about the granite. I personally do need to check how much accessible granite there is, and what that comes to in terms of tons of uranium and thorium. I assume ridiculous.


As far as public policy is concerned, I see no difference between Thorium lasting for 2000 years or a million years. Let's say for the sake of argument that we will run out of Thorium in 2000 years. We can wait 1800 years to even think about it, and we will still have plenty of time to find an alternative. At the rate we're going, we will be lucky if the human race is still around in 1000 years anyway. Hell, make that 50 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group