How Fear Drives American Politics

  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Oct 02, 2015 7:57 PM GMT
    How Fear Drives American Politics


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2015 9:39 PM GMT

    Scare America Stupid: Republican Fear Mongering
    The GOP wants you terrified, because then you'll be easier to manipulate
    http://quietmike.org/2015/03/03/republican-fear-mongering/


    Republicans are trying to scare you. ISIS/ISIL is coming to get you! Obamacare is going to set up Death Panels! Ebola! Immigrants! The Gays! God hates Democrats! The GOP hasn’t cranked the fear machine up this high since the days of Joe McCarthy and the “Red Scare.” icon_rolleyes.gif


    No, Republicans are just trying to scare Americans into thinking that the nation is safer when they’re in charge. And that’s bullshit. Sorry, that’s the nicest word for it.



    B_Image_4857.jpg?zoom=3&resize=600%2C336


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2015 9:42 PM GMT
    image.jpg
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14371

    Oct 03, 2015 12:30 AM GMT
    Fear drives more than just politics. Back in the 60s and 70s, fear was a blockbusting tactic used by unscrupulous real estate agents to scare white working class home owners to sell before it is too late in reference to mostly unfounded rumors of blacks moving into these neighborhoods.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2015 7:41 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidFear drives more than just politics. Back in the 60s and 70s, fear was a blockbusting tactic used by unscrupulous real estate agents to scare white working class home owners to sell before it is too late in reference to mostly unfounded rumors of blacks moving into these neighborhoods.


    It goes way beyond that. Read "Not in My Neighborhood" by Antero Pietila
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 05, 2015 7:11 AM GMT
    It is fear of the anti-nuclear crowd that keeps politicians from even mentioning nuclear power.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 05, 2015 5:28 PM GMT
    whitewater said
    FRE0 saidIt is fear of the anti-nuclear crowd that keeps politicians from even mentioning nuclear power.


    The fear is legitamate for our plants out west. The Diablo Canyon Nuke Plant (near San Luis Obispo and Pismo Beach) would fail if the Hangri Fault Zone had another 7.8 quake like it did in the early 1900's. The plant is only designed for a 7.0 or 7.5 quake. Recent seismic studies have confirmed the early 1900's quake of a 7.8, so that plant should definitely be shut down.

    Here's one post on Diablo Canyon -

    http://worldbusiness.org/safe-energy-project/close-diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant/


    Multiple groups want the plant closed including citizens and native americans. Sen. Diane Feinstein closed San Onofre near the Newport-Englewood Fault, which again can create a 7.8 quake.

    Also, the plant has not been operated safely with cancer risks increasing, indicating occassional leaks that are not being revealed to the public:

    Since the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant opened in the mid-1980s, San Luis Obispo County has changed from a relatively low-cancer to a high-cancer county … The current cancer rate is the highest of all 20 counties in southern California.

    - Academy commissioned nuclear power health impact study


    As for San Onofre, the fault wasn't the reason for the shutdown, although it is highly vulnerable. The plant was operated by Southern California Edison, a Mormon owned utility company with HQ's in Arizona.

    see,

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/plant-511732-radioactive-permanently.html

    On that note, Nuke Power is perfect for Arizona, since there is relatively no risk of major quakes anywhere in the state, except Yuma and Flagstaff. And, indeed, the Buckeye / Palos Verdes plant off of I-10 SW of Phoenix is the world's largest nuke plant.

    Maybe the Mormons could create a second plant up near Show Low, to stop the burning of coal that released more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuke power plants ???


    California is not a good state for nuke plants, except the central valley near Lincoln, CA. where there is plenty of open land NE of Sacramento. That area, is 70% Republican and they would have no issues with nuke plants.

    The plume,

    http://worldbusiness.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/radiation-plume-if-fukushima-happended-at-diablo-canyon-with-Arrow.jpg

    How about a nuke plant in the growing Rio Rancho New Mexico using water from the Rio Grande? The problem is, the very slight risk of a major quake every 1,000 yrs or more on the rift zone in New Mexico. Northern Arizona somewhere along the Little Colorado River is safer such as near Show Low / Taylor / etc.


    Obviously it is not a good idea to ignore earthquake risks when locating nuclear power plants. Even so, the Fukushima nuclear plants withstood, with no damage, a Richter 9 earthquake; it was the tsunami combined with the stupidity of locating the emergency Diesel generators below the level of the highest historic tsunami that caused the problem. Also, I think that it was a mistake to glom on to a nuclear technology that requires an emergency cooling system. A better nuclear technology would be melt-down proof with no need for an emergency cooling system.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 07, 2015 6:48 PM GMT
    We really do need nuclear power, but of course nuclear plants should be sensibly located for safety reasons. Also, we rushed into nuclear power before evaluating various types of reactors and therefore did not choose a good nuclear technology.

    Check out these links:

    http://seekerblog.com/2013/11/25/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/

    http://seekerblog.com/2015/03/09/james-hansen-calls-out-big-green-its-the-money-that-drives-their-anti-nuclear-dogma/
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Oct 07, 2015 7:43 PM GMT
    I would like to see Diablo closed. I have not heard of plans for one in Lincoln until now. I don't see why we even need nuclear with all of the solar panels going up and the continuous improvements in battery technology.

    I would be open to a nuclear plant that was designed to be safe and not have dangerous nuclear waste as a result.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 07, 2015 10:55 PM GMT
    metta saidI would like to see Diablo closed. I have not heard of plans for one in Lincoln until now. I don't see why we even need nuclear with all of the solar panels going up and the continuous improvements in battery technology.

    I would be open to a nuclear plant that was designed to be safe and not have dangerous nuclear waste as a result.


    Solar has greatly improved the lives of many people who live in remote areas and cannot connect to the grid. However, there have been no careful quantitive studies which have indicated that solar and wind power can adequately provide for the power requirements of most large developed countries.

    At one time it was widely asserted that if solar and wind systems were interconnected over a large area, the result would be reliable power. I have not heard that arguments used for years. Now it is generally recognized that without energy storage, wind and solar cannot do the job, but it is assumed that an adequate storage technology will soon become available. I see it as unwise to depend on a power system before there is adequate proof that currently available technology will make it practical.

    In some areas pumped storage is available. That requires pumping water up to a high altitude reservoir when excess power is available and using the water to recover the power when there is a power storage. That is a proven technology which works very well, but it is dependent on geography and therefor not available in many places where it would be needed.

    I fear that we are in danger of investing $ trillions in a power technology that will not do the job then have to expand nuclear power to do the job. As I see it, the best approach would be to phase out our current fossil fuel systems with current nuclear technology while doing the R & D necessary to prepare a better nuclear technology for production. It will make little difference what the U.S. does unless the rest of the world also moves away from fossil fuels, including China and India which, because of their much greater population density, would find renewable systems even less practical than the U.S.

    And we do need a better nuclear technology. Our current pressurized water reactors can extract only 1% of the available energy from the nuclear fuel after which the rest is discarded as waste. A better nuclear technology and fuel cycle would be able to extract about 99% of the energy from the nuclear fuel, and even use our present "waste" as fuel, resulting in a tiny amount of waste compared with what we have. Also, a better type of reactor would be incapable of melting down and would not need an emergency cooling system.
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Oct 08, 2015 3:03 PM GMT
    California only gets 8.5% of its power from nuclear. It seems to me that we could create other clean sources of energy to replace the 8.5%. Over 20% of our energy comes from renewables and Governor Brown just singed a bill to increase that even more.

    http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html


    Gov. Brown signs climate change bill to spur renewable energy, efficiency standards
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-climate-change-renewable-energy-20151007-story.html

    Renewables in California will be half of our power by 2030 if all goes well...and it sounds like the utility companies are supportive of this.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-governor-sign-aggressive-climate-change-bill-34300635
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 08, 2015 6:20 PM GMT
    metta saidI would like to see Diablo closed. I have not heard of plans for one in Lincoln until now. I don't see why we even need nuclear with all of the solar panels going up and the continuous improvements in battery technology.

    I would be open to a nuclear plant that was designed to be safe and not have dangerous nuclear waste as a result.


    At this time, we don't know whether there will ever be an energy storage technology that would make intermittent sources of power practical. Batteries, especially when deep-cycled, have a limited life and have to be replaced periodically. Presumably the materials could be recycled, but the cost of replacing and recycling batteries would, at this time, be astronomical and over time would greatly exceed the high cost of initially manufacturing the batteries.

    The global demand for power may increase by about four times by the year 2100 as poor countries increase their demand for power to lift their people out of poverty. That includes power for everything, including heating, cooling, cooking, lighting, transportation, sea water desalination, manufacturing, etc. And, unless perhaps 90% of that power comes from non-CO2 emitting sources, it is unlikely that global warming can be held to tolerable levels.

    For energy and power systems to be practical, they must be practical even in poor countries with very high population densities. For example, India has a population density about 12 times greater than the U.S. and a population about 4 times greater. Even if we in the U.S. could afford an extremely expensive power system based on renewables and energy storage, it is unlikely that India and China could. Therefore, unless a clean and affordable power system becomes available, we can expect India, China, and other poor countries to continue to burn more coal and completely nullify any action we in the U.S. take to reduce CO2 emissions drastically. Although it could change, nuclear power is the only way out.

    But we do need a better, less expensive, and safer nuclear technology that generates far less waste. If R & D funds to develop such nuclear technologies were not cut of in the late 1960s, probably we would by now be using such a superior technology. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) looks especially promising; it was successfully tested in prototype form but is not ready for production. There are probably also other possibilities.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Oct 08, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    metta saidI would like to see Diablo closed. I have not heard of plans for one in Lincoln until now. I don't see why we even need nuclear with all of the solar panels going up and the continuous improvements in battery technology.

    I would be open to a nuclear plant that was designed to be safe and not have dangerous nuclear waste as a result.


    lol, do you have ANY clue how much 18,000 GigaWatt·hours of electricity annually, about 7% of the electricity California uses, is? that's Diablo (one nuke plant)

    that's BILLIONS of batteries and solar cells
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Oct 08, 2015 7:00 PM GMT
    ^
    As I said, the Governor just singed a bill requiring 50% of California's energy to come from renewables by 2030. By law, It is already going to happen.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Oct 08, 2015 7:01 PM GMT
    metta said^
    As I said, the Governor just singed a bill requiring 50% of California's energy to come from renewables by 2030. By law, It is already going to happen.


    not a chance in hell that will happen, even Germany had to lie

    you're not going to replace 100,000 GigaWatt Hours per year of power with renewables in 15 years - no way, no how
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Oct 08, 2015 7:22 PM GMT
    California requires a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal by 2020. Again, it is currently over 20%.

    We can do it...we will do it...just watch us! California will lead the way as it has on many issues. icon_smile.gif

    icon_smile.gif
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 08, 2015 7:54 PM GMT
    tj85016 said
    metta said^
    As I said, the Governor just singed a bill requiring 50% of California's energy to come from renewables by 2030. By law, It is already going to happen.


    not a chance in hell that will happen, even Germany had to lie

    you're not going to replace 100,000 GigaWatt Hours per year of power with renewables in 15 years - no way, no how


    Right.

    Many people constantly use Germany as an example of a country which has successfully replaced nuclear power. However, to do so they are building more coal-burning power plants and, to make things even worse, the coal they are burning is lignite which is the most dirty kind of coal. In addition, they are importing power from other countries, including from France which gets about 75% of its power from nuclear power plants. In 17 years, France went from zero nuclear power to 80% nuclear power for electricity which shows how rapidly nuclear power can be expanded when red tape delays are not intentionally introduced for the purpose of slowing things down to "prove" that it takes too long to build nuclear plants and that they are too expensive.

    There have been brief periods, including even a full day, when Germany has got all of its power from renewable sources, including wind-generated electricity imported from Holland. But the available power from renewable sources is so variable that, with current technology, they cannot be relied upon. In theory storage could solve that problem, but a storage technology capable of economically storing enough power does not currently exist. Even if it did, because of the intermittent output of renewables, the peak capacity of the renewables would have to be about four times greater than the average requirements thereby greatly increasing costs.

    Tj85016,
    I see that you have an engineering background. That makes it easier for you to understand these issues than it is for someone who has not had even one course in physics at the college level.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 08, 2015 8:08 PM GMT
    metta said^
    As I said, the Governor just singed a bill requiring 50% of California's energy to come from renewables by 2030. By law, It is already going to happen.


    There is a limit to what laws can do.

    That reminds me of what Indiana almost did in 1897; they considered enacting a law to define the value of π. Fortunately a professor persuaded them that it was inappropriate for a legislature to do that.

    The California legislature could enact a bill requiring doctors to increase the life expectancy of their patients to 150 years, but that doesn't mean that it would happen.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 08, 2015 8:12 PM GMT
    metta saidCalifornia requires a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal by 2020. Again, it is currently over 20%.

    We can do it...we will do it...just watch us! California will lead the way as it has on many issues. icon_smile.gif

    icon_smile.gif


    Yes, that could be done, but why? Keeping global warming within acceptable limits will require that the entire world generate about 90% of its power with non-CO2 emitting sources. 20% in California not enough to make much difference. Besides, California is a very prosperous state. A poor country like India, with its high population density, could never afford to do that with current renewable technology.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Oct 09, 2015 8:44 AM GMT
    lol, you Californians make me laugh (yeah, I lived in Sanata Monica and Hermosa Beach for 3-4 years and traveled up the 101 to Morro Bay quite often)

    but Diablo generates 7-8% of the state's power - and it's going nowhere any time soon
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 09, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    Regarding earthquake danger, the nuclear plants at Fukushima withstood a 9.0 earthquake with zero damage. It was the resulting tsunami that caused the nuclear disaster, not the earthquake. Thus, it would seem that nuclear power plants could be safely built in earthquake areas. However, whether it is reasonable to do so is another matter. Obviously it would cost more to design power plants to survive an earthquake so it might be more economical to build them where earthquakes are unlikely. Also, it is possible that an earthquake could stronger than expected.

    At least adequate thought should go into deciding where to build nuclear power plants.