The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science

[pmp10]

This alternative energy stuff sounds great! http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/13/germans-re-thinking-turn-to-green-energy/

That's quite a lot of exaggeration.

While Germany's 'green now' plans are questionable the sky is certainly not falling on their heads.

In fact I'd like to hear about the supposed change of course from a more reliable source than a blog.

[Rostere]

The fallacy there is that "nuclear" does not equal "green". If I was Angela Merkel I'd invest in nuclear energy research.

 

Nuclear energy is the future one way or another. Abandoning it is equivalent to banning cars because they scare the horses.

[Walsingham]

I can't remember where I read it, but it was saying that there has been much expansion of what I'm going to incorrectly call 'crowdsourced' energy. But the problem in Germany is that it's too subsidised. The markets aren't at play and so there's a lot of wonky provision, and the big players are disincentivised from pouring in big projects.

[pmp10]

Nuclear energy is the future one way or another. Abandoning it is equivalent to banning cars because they scare the horses.

That is by no means clear at this point.

In fact in US the "renaissance" met with major setbacks.

[Walsingham]

I have to agree  with Rosti. Nukes are like oil supertankers. Yes, there is a risk of environmental ****storm, in a crisis. But the advantages far outweigh the risks, given that the risks are engineering focussed and therefore can be mitigated.

[TrashMan]

There's also all that nuclear waste that needs to be taken care off.

[Moose]

Don't look at it as waste, it can be used in sub critical reactors.

[Walsingham]

There's also all that nuclear waste that needs to be taken care off.

 

Given that nuclear is almost certainly going to be part of the energy mix, you have to find locations for it anyway. Given this, probably better big ones.

[Rostere]

There's also all that nuclear waste that needs to be taken care off.

 

 

 

Nuclear energy is the future one way or another. Abandoning it is equivalent to banning cars because they scare the horses.

That is by no means clear at this point.

In fact in US the "renaissance" met with major setbacks.

 

 

I don't understand your point. It has met with "setbacks" consisting of protests and sabotage from the same old Luddite faction who then says the project has failed?

 

There's also all that nuclear waste that needs to be taken care off.

 

It's exactly like dangerous materials and batteries and such - hazardous if you just drop them in nature, but eventually extremely profitable for recycling. I don't know how things are where you live, but here in Sweden where we have a well-established culture, or maybe habit is a better word, of recycling start-up companies are earning money by collecting hazardous waste, extracting rare materials and selling them. Almost all of the dangerous things which you don't want to litter nature with is worth to collect and recycle.

 

Here's an intersting article on Thorium reactors.

 

Sadly, most of the well established reactor types were constructed in conjunction with military appliances, and research into types of future reactors is very expensive and underpriotized.

[pmp10]

 

 

Nuclear energy is the future one way or another. Abandoning it is equivalent to banning cars because they scare the horses.

That is by no means clear at this point.

In fact in US the "renaissance" met with major setbacks.

 

 

I don't understand your point. It has met with "setbacks" consisting of protests and sabotage from the same old Luddite faction who then says the project has failed?

 

All I'm saying is that the nuclear future is by no mean certain.

Nuclear will be an important energy source in developing world but the west is generally moving towards renewables and fossil-fuels.

Edited July 16, 2013 by pmp10

[Walsingham]

Don't get wrong. I quite like the notion of us all making our own energy. Just on the level of security and societal resilience, what's not to like?

 

But I have a deep unease at the presupposition that the West is going to enjoy it's predominance and standards of living, and national security, if we refuse to act in economically sustainable ways. Cheap energy equals industrial strength. Industrial strength is part of the equation of national security.

 

To the best of my understanding, nuclear is cheaper across the board than renewables. Particularly in terms of infrastructure.

[pmp10]

Don't get wrong. I quite like the notion of us all making our own energy. Just on the level of security and societal resilience, what's not to like?

 

But I have a deep unease at the presupposition that the West is going to enjoy it's predominance and standards of living, and national security, if we refuse to act in economically sustainable ways. Cheap energy equals industrial strength. Industrial strength is part of the equation of national security.

 

To the best of my understanding, nuclear is cheaper across the board than renewables. Particularly in terms of infrastructure.

The price argument is hard fought all over the internet and I'm sure we won't solve it here.

The problems with nuclear are the enormous investment costs/time and adherence to safety regulations.

But the bigger issue may be that it's not flexible enough to cover off-days of renewable sources.

A coal/gas plant can always throw more fuel into the burner.

[Walsingham]

Fair. Although I think you over-estimate the problem with big capital/time investments.

[Wrath of Dagon]

This sounds promising: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/ideas-to-bolster-power-grid-run-up-against-the-systems-many-owners.html?ref=science&_r=1&

[Rostere]

 

 

 

Nuclear energy is the future one way or another. Abandoning it is equivalent to banning cars because they scare the horses.

That is by no means clear at this point.

In fact in US the "renaissance" met with major setbacks.

 

 

I don't understand your point. It has met with "setbacks" consisting of protests and sabotage from the same old Luddite faction who then says the project has failed?

 

All I'm saying is that the nuclear future is by no mean certain.

Nuclear will be an important energy source in developing world but the west is generally moving towards renewables and fossil-fuels.

 

 

Well, it doesn't matter really what the people at the top are currently deciding.

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

 

We tend to think too much about what we have, even less about that which we know exists but is at an experimental stage (and nothing at all about what could exist in the future). Fossil fuels today are pretty much as good as they will ever get - we've reached the end of the line in that technology. Of course I'm not saying we should not invest in "renewable" energy! We should definitely continue to do so. But THAT's a technology which currently requires huge amounts of investments in comparison to the returns. If we want cheap, practical energy in the future, we want to continue scientific testing on different types of nuclear reactors.

[pmp10]

Well, it doesn't matter really what the people at the top are currently deciding.

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

Since nuclear industry is utterly state-dependent it matters a great deal what people at the top think.

And I really hope you don't mean that "earth is flat" Columbus nonsense made up by hollywood.

[alanschu]

 

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

 

I don't think this is really true actually.  I believe Aristotle showed that the world was round in the Classical era.  It wasn't so much that people felt the Earth was flat and that's why Columbus was crazy.  It was more that they didn't believe a trip to India would really be feasible.

[Augusta Corvina]

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

 

I don't think this is really true actually.  I believe Aristotle showed that the world was round in the Classical era.  It wasn't so much that people felt the Earth was flat and that's why Columbus was crazy.  It was more that they didn't believe a trip to India would really be feasible.

 

Didn't the church supposedly disagree with Columbus on his calculations of the earths size? I recall someone telling me they told him that he'd made it too small or something like that. If true then it means they were correct incredibly enough.

[pmp10]

 

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

 

I don't think this is really true actually.  I believe Aristotle showed that the world was round in the Classical era.  It wasn't so much that people felt the Earth was flat and that's why Columbus was crazy.  It was more that they didn't believe a trip to India would really be feasible.

 

Didn't the church supposedly disagree with Columbus on his calculations of the earths size? I recall someone telling me they told him that he'd made it too small or something like that. If true then it means they were correct incredibly enough.

 

If you mean the scientific advisors to Spanish crown then yes - they were far closer to the real size of earth than Columbus.

Columbus had to twist things a lot to prove he could make his voyage and IIRC his argument was that earth was pear-shaped so he could still make it by charting the correct route.

[Elerond]

 

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

 

I don't think this is really true actually.  I believe Aristotle showed that the world was round in the Classical era.  It wasn't so much that people felt the Earth was flat and that's why Columbus was crazy.  It was more that they didn't believe a trip to India would really be feasible.

 

Didn't the church supposedly disagree with Columbus on his calculations of the earths size? I recall someone telling me they told him that he'd made it too small or something like that. If true then it means they were correct incredibly enough.

 

 

Eratosthenes had caluculated almost correctly Earth size in 300 BC and that estimate was widely know among scholars in Columbu's day, but they used old fashioned messurement which caused some debate about exact size of the Earth and was reason why Columbus get his way through in the end.

[Rostere]

 

Well, it doesn't matter really what the people at the top are currently deciding.

 

At some point in history there were alternative theories as to whether the Earth was flat or spherical. The people at the top went with "flat" but it only took people so long to accumulate enough evidence that it was not the case, and when people were ready to move on, they did.

Since nuclear industry is utterly state-dependent it matters a great deal what people at the top think.

And I really hope you don't mean that "earth is flat" Columbus nonsense made up by hollywood.

 

 

Sorry, it was just a figure of speech, I honestly have no idea which people believed what at the time (regarding a flat earth), only that there has been a lot of erroneous theories and only in recent times have we started to be decent at replacing them. You can replace it with "earth revolves around the sun" or any other scientific theory.

 

New technologies have always has their ups and downs. The ATM was technically invented far before it was widely used, for example. I think you and I have different opinions on what "future" means. If we imagine ourselves in a strange primitive tribal society thousands of years ago, and the shaman suddenly tells the tribe to abandon this new way of making fire, "because lots of people get scared", would you say that the way of no fire is the future? Certainly it will remain so for as long as anyone at that time can imagine.

 

Obviously, the advancement of technology hinges on many incremental steps, one building upon the other. It's like when you're playing Civilization - you can't just say "No. We won't have Writing. I'll take Horseback Riding instead". Of course you can change the focus of your research, but eventually you will have to catch up in the areas you've neglected. So the question of what the future holds is not about what political leaders are discussing right now, but about the more objective potential of nuclear energy.

[pmp10]

New technologies have always has their ups and downs. The ATM was technically invented far before it was widely used, for example. I think you and I have different opinions on what "future" means. If we imagine ourselves in a strange primitive tribal society thousands of years ago, and the shaman suddenly tells the tribe to abandon this new way of making fire, "because lots of people get scared", would you say that the way of no fire is the future? Certainly it will remain so for as long as anyone at that time can imagine.

 

Obviously, the advancement of technology hinges on many incremental steps, one building upon the other. It's like when you're playing Civilization - you can't just say "No. We won't have Writing. I'll take Horseback Riding instead". Of course you can change the focus of your research, but eventually you will have to catch up in the areas you've neglected. So the question of what the future holds is not about what political leaders are discussing right now, but about the more objective potential of nuclear energy.

 

I understand what you mean about future and potential but it's important to recognize that nuclear has much more issues that just scared public or fanatical environmentalists.  

In fact in US it was nuclear industry itself that underestimated the costs of nuclear power from next generation reactors about seventh-fold.

[Walsingham]

I'm siding heavily with Ros here. I mean when repeating rifles first became available - and breech-loaders before them - many armies turned them down. Fiddly, complex training, expensive etc etc.

 

But ultimately, the negatives were ironed out, and the fundamental benefits won out.

 

Comparing modern nuclear plants to ones built in the 50s as like for like is no more sensible than comparing aeroplanes built over the same time span.

[Iucounu]

The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science How our brains fool us on climate, creationism

I stopped reading. The author is probably fooling himself.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Iucounu

[alanschu]

Really?

 

Are you of the impression that the author believes in creationism, and that the critics of creationism are fooling themselves?