A utopian but nonetheless interesting discussion

[CopyyyCattt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDHcFts ... e=youtu.be

It's a talk about renewable decentralized energy and production, the "third industrial revolution".

[zwzsg]

Can I get a text transcript?

[smoth]

you could spend your whole life listening to random old guys lecture about things, why would I give this geezer 30 minutes of my time? I mean really? I could go listen to many other geezers so why do I care?

[FireStorm_]

Jeremy Rifkin has been an advisor to the European Union for the past decade. Mr. Rifkin also served as an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Jose Socrates of Portugal, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, and Prime Minister Janez Janša of Slovenia, during their respective European Council Presidencies, on issues related to the economy, climate change, and energy security. He currently advises the European Commission, the European Parliament, and several EU heads of state.

I figured he may help (has helped) form social technological and economic policy of governments. Policy which probably affects my life (and many world citizens I imagine) and that's how the video caught some of my interest.
(Also, there was nothing good on tv )

[gajop]

A couple of minutes in the video I recalled watching it, and I remembered it annoyed me for some reason. Googling a bit, and there it was, he's narrow-mindedly anti-nuke.

This is a better (even though a lot longer) video I watched recently, about our energy-related future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1HZIQliuoA. Much more based on actual facts.

[FireStorm_]

ah yes, Elon Musk . He recently caught my attention because of the Hyperloop plan, which I thought was pretty cool, and made me think of those green-transport-tubes in futurama . I'll definitely watch this next.

[raaar]

nuclear power has the problem of safety, waste disposal and mineral resource dependency.

Theoretically all the electricity we'd need for the next few decades could come from a mix of solar/wind/hydro and using hydro and flywheel batteries for energy storage.

like the video says, there's enough room for solar in the unused space in most buildings' rooftops. If it were standardized the prices would go down.

[SinbadEV]

You see the one about Boulder yet?

http://www.upworthy.com/a-bunch-of-youn ... -for-round

[FireStorm_]

there's enough room for solar in the unused space in most building's rooftops.

On the side too, I believe. Just focus this bad boy on a Stirling engine and there you go.

[gajop]

nuclear power has the problem of safety, waste disposal and mineral resource dependency.

That's fear/propaganda talking, not actual data.
Nuclear is pretty much the safest (least deaths per produced TWh): http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html
This is with Chernobyl included, and with all the unsafe (relative to better, passive cooling/thorium based, etc.) nuclear reactors out there.

The main problem with nuclear energy is the green extremists/Neo-Luddites who tend to advocate stuff like turning off lights to burn candles and such nonsense.

[FireStorm_]

nuclear power has the problem of safety, waste disposal and mineral resource dependency.

That's fear/propaganda talking, not actual data.

I think raaar speaks of very real problems with nuclear power.
But I think it's the lesser of two evils (the other being fossil fuels of course) and that the level and ways of generating sustainable energy can not compensate for using nuclear power atm, and that it will probably stay like that longer than most people will like.

But I think if people want to change the way nuclear power is generated these days, with a preference for using as little nuclear power in the future as possible, that isn't a bad thing.

And I'm no Luddite, (although I think that is more someone rising up after losing their livelihood because of technology, like saboteurs) I understand and trust the technology of nuclear fission for energy production fairly well. I guess I don't fully trust my fellow men realising nuclear power (and getting the materials to do so) in a save and responsible way.

Also: I've seen the whole talk/video now. I wasn't quite sure I agreed with the sea-level rising being a positive thing for the Dutch; Lots of opportunities for a dyke building nation apparently.

[CopyyyCattt]

nuclear power has the problem of safety, waste disposal and mineral resource dependency.

That's fear/propaganda talking, not actual data.
Nuclear is pretty much the safest (least deaths per produced TWh): http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html
This is with Chernobyl included, and with all the unsafe (relative to better, passive cooling/thorium based, etc.) nuclear reactors out there.

The main problem with nuclear energy is the green extremists/Neo-Luddites who tend to advocate stuff like turning off lights to burn candles and such nonsense.

What about nuclear waste?

[gajop]

What about it?
You can use breeder reactors and thorium power plants and your problems go away. In fact switching to thorium would be the solution seeing as how it's in large abundance.
If too lazy to google for text check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY.

[FLOZi]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client= ... el=suggest

All energy generation technologies have their drawbacks and almost all of them have an environmental impact (or in fact absolutely all must by definition if you want to be technical). There is no single technology solution to energy production to meet the growing demands of humanity.

"your problems go away' is either glib exaggeration or seriously misinformed - knowing gajop I absolutely suspect the former.

Luddism as a pejorative is a right wing misrepresentation of what that movement was about. (and indeed what 'neo-luddites' are about)

"leave the machines, shoot the masters"

[gajop]

Well, we can only talk in uncertain terms unless someone here's an expert or can quote ones, but breeder reactors really do help with the nuclear waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_r ... _reduction.
And of course there is no perfection, if you check the link I mentioned before people have died from clean energy sources by falling of roofs when mounting solar panels or being killed by windmills (more than by nuclear catastrophes), but I don't think anyone would seriously call them unsafe.

About the Luddites, it's quite likely I used the term wrong to denote modern green-extremists : group of people that gets involved into sabotage of technological equipment they disagree with ideologically. While far less on the extreme side, I've seen people advocating green energy with the slogan "Think with your heart, not with your mind", and that's a problem.

[FireStorm_]

[...] Neo-Luddites [...] tend to apply the term to challenge dominant views of progress with a focus on questioning who benefits from particular technological choice.

Well, if you put it like that, I might be called a Luddites after all.

Then again, from Rifkin's point of view, supposedly in the midst of a third technical/industrial revolution, I'd had to identify the ones trying to perpetuate the use of traditional fossil fuels in favour of sustainable power as the Luddites.

Also, on nuclear waste and that it doesn't kill that much:
Maybe I shouldn't care about humans 10.000 years from now; what did they ever do for me? But there is also the idea that in the future some people might try to drill for some water and accidentally hit a forgotten ancient underground nuclear waste depot. If a solar panel killed an un-careful construction worker falling of the roof, then that's probably it; the solar panel probably won't kill anymore. But with nuclear waste i'm not so sure...

[smoth]

we are still not 100% about how our underground aquifers work. So I don't like the non-breeder reactor option but then again carter has had us disposing of our old sub reactors underground somewhere in america.

[Kloot]

You can use breeder reactors and thorium power plants and your problems go away.

You do not get a free lunch, every nuclear fuel cycle ends with fission producs.

AFAIR in the case of thorium there is less transuranic waste (and lots of U232 itself), but that tends to be unstable so it already has a comparatively (decades to centuries) short half-life. For safe waste storage however the big problems are caused by the long-term radioactive materials and thorium cycles still produce plenty of those, protactinium being one.

[knorke]

Does that site really compare "construction workers falling of roof tops while installing solar panels" vs nuclear power accidents?
To get a fair comparision you would have to wait the 20.000 or whatever years until the waste is no longer radioactive, and compare then. Also in worst case such accidents only affects the people working directly on the site, nuclear accidents could potentially many more.

While far less on the extreme side, I've seen people advocating green energy with the slogan "Think with your heart, not with your mind", and that's a problem.

Saying that is equally meaningless as the slogan itself:
Energy supply is such a complex problem that even experts are divided into different camps. If even the experts can not find a solution "with their mind" then how can the average person do anything else but decide "by heart"?

[hoijui]

i heard from several people now, that breeders woudl be the solution to the waste problem. but thye still are looking for storing the waste as is. this suggests that breeder makes no sense, at least economically (and possibly also technically, as kloot suggests). thus, i can not see how one could think it is a solution, as it is not used.
(if it is not economically viable, and thus not done, it is no solution)