Will you temporarily stop purchasing Japanese Greens?

[Chasm]

chasm, please, why do you insist that is not possible to criticize one form of energy without implying that another form is the only viable option. perhaps that is true in the short term,

Okay, so you answered yourself there, as much as a strawman can be answered.

Look, you may not like it, but in the short term if we want to reduce greenhouse emissions, we need nuclear. In the short term, "no nuclear" means more fossil fuels. I have no idea why anyone would find those statements controversial, when they are plain fact. Perhaps you can tell me why so many people seem to assume that using the best technologies we have now for the cleanest energy we can get automatically means we will simply put a forcible halt on all invention of better options, which is what you seem to imply.

[Chasm]

as to my other comment on not relying on experts, I am simply implying that a little collective wisdom can beat narrow expertise any day.

Okay, I have to admit I cracked up over that other quote, and this one is even funnier.

"A little collective wisdom" is what has given us outdated nuclear plants still operating long after their intended lifespans in place of cleaner replacements. "A little collective wisdom" keeps coal trains bisecting poorer areas of greater Chicago because there isn't enough transmission capacity to ship in adequate amounts of renewable energy from the west. "A little collective wisdom" is a terrible thing that really mucks up a lot of people's lives. Mother nature doesn't bow to "a little collective wisdom".

However, complex problems can be dealt with pretty darned well by a vast unstoppable quantity of relentless collective wisdom that scours out every last bit of narrow expertise the world has to offer and demands more, all the while subjecting it all to the merciless rational inquiry of thousands of picky minds. A little won't do it. Tossing aside "narrow expertise" just gets you the cartoon laws of physics. But a whole lot of collective wisdom, now that is really something. But it's not easy or simple or something that can be understood on Wikipedia.

[chingwa]

I think I just fundamentally disagree about the benefits of nuclear energy. I think it is neither the best technology available nor the cleanest energy. In fact in the long term I think it is worse than fossil fuels which is why I hold the viewpoint that I do.

And no, my primary concern is not reducing greenhouse emissions(speaking of straw men), but developing a safe and viable exit from both fossil fuel and nuclear. Either way we aren't going to move forward without "breaking some eggs" so to speak, but I do think that fossil fuels may be a less dangerous egg to break than nuclear energy.

[Chasm]

I think I just fundamentally disagree about the benefits of nuclear energy.

From my perspective, I think the objections I've seen here to the use of nuclear power are perfectly reasonable. The part I don't get is why some people value some human lives highly and hold others cheap. What makes one human life something to get worked up about when a dozen others just get shrugged off? I really don't get what that's about.

Because that's fundamentally what it comes down to. Someone gets exposed to radiation from a nuclear plant? BIG EMERGENCY. A whole lot of people get exposed to even more radiation from a coal mine? Crickets. I agree the former should be a big emergency. I just don't understand the callous disregard for the latter. Why do those people not matter?

[Chasm]

but I do think that fossil fuels may be a less dangerous egg to break than nuclear energy.

Why? "A little collective wisdom"?

[fdrx]

there is no danger with nuclear, nothing happened...

please visit my website : http://www.iselljapanesetea.com

[chingwa]

Forgive me for quoting a wikipedia article (us non-experts have to get information from somewhere)... but according to wikipedia nuclear power provides about 15% of the world's electricity. I really don't think that that 15% is worth the horrible price that may have to be paid in the event of even a moderate nuclear accident... and I definitely do not think that "a whole lot of collective wisdom" and "un-narrow expertise" can't find a way to make up for this 15% energy gap should nuclear energy stop being funded.

I find it rather obvious that this is an endeavor completely out of scale. is the public money that funds the building, operation and decommissioning of nuclear reactors worth this 15% boost? Is the inherent danger of nuclear energy and maintenance of spent fuel worth this 15% boost? This is a problem only set to grow exponentially (and thus exponentially out-of-scale) as power demands rise over the coming decades.

(on to the second steeping of nissaka)

[Chasm]

Okay, you haven't answered the real question:

Why do the people who are harmed and killed by other forms of energy just plain not matter to you? Why are their lives so cheap?

As for the goofy, not-quite-a-question you appear to be posing, can any 15% of our energy supply be replaced by some other form, if we all band together and decide to make it happen? I can't see why not, but at what cost? How many people are you willing to kill, before the number becomes unacceptable, for instance?

[iannon]

whew..tough crowd in here!
almost everything has a downside..Nuclear accidents are terrible of course..
coal mining kills literally thousands each and every year...
solar panels? well not a huge issue now but they dont last forever (something like 20 to 25 years currently) and UNLESS they get a good recycling program going we have a lot of e-waste (lead, flame retardants, Cadmium, Ssilicon etc etc ..most of it toxic to people and/or the environment.
just sayin...
and now..back to my regularly scheduled UJI Shincha drinkin!

[chingwa]

Why do the people who are harmed and killed by other forms of energy just plain not matter to you? Why are their lives so cheap?

I don't think I can answer your question, at least not in the double-bind form you phrased it in. These are your sentiments, not mine.

However I'm not suggesting that that 15% gap be made by increasing coal burning. I'm suggesting actual renewable(and safe) energy sources be phased in as nuclear fuel is phased out. if current renewable energy tech received the amount of funding that nuclear received this would not be a problem. And if more funding were given to further clean energy research instead of new "clean efficient nuclear" plants we would be well on our way to start offsetting this entire issue, no?

[Chasm]

Why do the people who are harmed and killed by other forms of energy just plain not matter to you? Why are their lives so cheap?

I don't think I can answer your question, at least not in the double-bind form you phrased it in. These are your sentiments, not mine.

No, that's pretty clearly what you're getting at. People who live next to coal mines or refineries don't matter as much as people who live next to nuclear plants, for some reason I can't figure out. I'm asking why.

However I'm not suggesting that that 15% gap be made by increasing coal burning. I'm suggesting actual renewable(and safe) energy sources be phased in as nuclear fuel is phased out.

*facepalm*

Okay, when you find me a completely safe form of energy, let me know, 'cause I haven't found any yet.

if current renewable energy tech received the amount of funding that nuclear received this would not be a problem.

Really? Got that all figured out? You've found a way to make the wind blow where and when you tell it to, and make the sun shine on orders as well? Whew, I'm glad that's all solved. Can you point me to the patents in question?

And if more funding were given to further clean energy research instead of new "clean efficient nuclear" plants we would be well on our way to start offsetting this entire issue, no?

Quite obviously no, if you read anything even slightly more substantive on the issues than a Wikipedia article or two. Oh wait, what is "this entire issue", again? See I keep thinking it's about saving lives, but you're obviously talking about something else. It doesn't sound like you're talking about reduced environmental footprint either. As best I can figure, all you're aiming for is "no nukes", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a goal. Why not go for the big ones, like saving lives?

And I notice you're not answering the other critical question: How many are you willing to kill? Because that's what happens when you make over-simplified changes based on feel-good principles (no nukes!) to complex systems on which lives depend.

[JBaymore]

At least it has seemed to stop all the other threads from being created; that was definitely happening

+1

One is bad enough.

[brlarson]

At least it has seemed to stop all the other threads from being created; that was definitely happening

+1

One is bad enough.

Yes, so locking this thread might be counter-productive. But do we want to leave it here? Would there be any merit in moving this thread elsewhere?

BTW, I'm finishing my TeaDay with Hibiki-an's farmer's shincha.

[Chip]

eh hem, did I mention I am still buying Japanese greens ...

This is the topic BTW ... I hinted to get back on topic 2 pages ago.

So while this is a worthwhile topic for an energy forum, we endeavor to focus on aspects of tea versus world and political discussions. This is an oasis (though some may argue it is sticking our heads in the sand, but this is what TeaChat is).

So as discussions such as this inevitably get heated and even personal (and they really do) ... I can wave my magic kyusu and say, please move on.

Thank you kindly,
Chip
Immoderate TeaDrinker who happens to Moderate

[Kevangogh]

FYI, Shizuoka teas will most likely be banned by the EU early next week.