I just read the most fascinating article by George Monbiot and I had to respond.
Still the Same
George, you still profess hatred for "the liars in the nuclear industry" (whoever they might be, I'm at quite a loss) but embrace the anti-human scumbag liars in your own "green" movement. What a paragon of truth and moral rectitude you are!
It's by no coincidence that green is the colour of money. It's because you and your ilk are just foot-soldiers of the aristocracy waging endless war against humanity. Yes, you still are an anti-human eco-zealot in my book even if you've repented of your most grievous sins.
It Almost Sounds Like ...
Your article was surprising since it almost sounds like you've read my blog posts, something I doubt. Starting with your switching from the false & misleading term "renewable" to the technically correct ambient (low-powered hence weak and useless).
But mostly, it almost sounds like you've read my scorning hatred of you self-righteous egotistical assholes that sanctimoniously decree everyone not your rich white elite selves ought to freeze in the cold and the dark, in misery, starvation, disease and poverty. "Sustainably", that is to say, forever.
Man vs Nature
I keep hearing recently all this moronic talk of "loving the land", from people who ignore the corollary "hate humanity". The converse is true of course, to love humanity you have to hate the land. Because humanity is at war with a capricious fickle nature and always will be until one of them is destroyed. And since nature is stupid, I guarantee you it won't be nature that wins.
It amazes me how anyone can be so twisted up inside, so anti-social, and let's face it downright psychopathic as to love filthy dirt above human beings! But whatever, yeah, you're still one of those moronic saps that "loves the land" George. The proof is in the fact you still haven't rejected the twisted up "deep ecology" scum that hate humanity with a passion and want us all to die. In the eternal war of man versus nature, you side AGAINST humanity.
Still a Tool
I know you haven't read my blog posts and are on the whole incapable of learning. You're just reacting to personal experience, even if that personal experience is on TV. The proof of this is you still haven't learned about the Wet Sahara effect or about Freeman Dyson's comprehensive denunciation of the whole field of "climate research".
(I note here that I didn't need that denunciation. I recognized the smell of crap coming off of the field years before Dyson weighed in to tell us exactly where the crap was and exactly how large it still is.)
George, you still harp about "climate change" as if it were a bad thing. Though I suppose it actually is a bad thing for your entrenched aristo masters. But then, it's not news that you're still a tool, is it? You're a journalist (or columnist, whatever) which obviates even the possibility of you mattering on your own terms.
What It's All About
And since you are a tool, this article had nothing to do with you and everything to do with the industrial needs of England. Coal has been written off because of those nasty coal-miners' unions. Gas has been written off because any pipelines pass through France. Which leaves nuclear and ... nothing else. It's that simple.
This article isn't about the change of heart of a person of principle, since you haven't changed your heart and you have no principles. This article is about England's industrial policy, pure and simple.
Posts
16 comments:
This isn't a response, it's silly adolescent name calling with no analysis or logic whatsoever. I'm sure you're right-- he's never read your blog. Good call.
-- Julie in Toronto
This is what I think of "greens" and their cause, a history of earth day, an outpouring of scorn, contempt and hatred.
But as I said Julie, you retarded moron, I was responding to George Monbiot and his supposed turnaround, not to his despicable position or his despicable cause. Something I've already done plenty of.
Monbiot can't even be called planet-hating pro-nuclear activist. He is just a witty, calculating asshole in pursuit of success and money.
On an environmental note: Forest fires, volcanoes, coal fired power plants pollution, oil spills - all will be healed naturally. Not so for the nuclear waste - there is no bacteria that digests plutonium. 10% of Chernobyl contamination? - How much "stuff" has been dumped into the Pacific by the Japanese heroes we will never know. Remember early official estimates on Macondo blowout?
On a technical note: Much more frequent nuclear incidents are different from accidents only in that a little crappy safety thing (such as RCIC) which miraculously worked (as it can't be tested properly in advance) and tamed out-of-control beast. Still, these are "brown trousers times" for the plant workers.
A.Ostapenko,
a professional Power Engineer who escaped Chernobyl "volunteer duty"
All I hear for the last few weeks is pathetic sobbing: "Oh, dear George, we love you so much. How could you do such a thing? You must be mistaken. Please, please take it back." On rare occasions, such as this, people notice that the guy has no principles. To my opinion, he may be witty and calculating but has little wisdom if any. Over time this will do irreparable damage to his career - the bluff will be called.
And yes, Richard, you are right - I'm not an environmentalist. But every time you hear or not that some nuclear plant released a little bit of steam, nothing to worry about, everything is back to normal - know this: they have come close.
Close to what you nutball? Close to the kind of environmental damage that is created by a coal plant every single hour of every single day of every single month of every single year? You're spewing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt like some kind of nitwit traumatized moron who can't see past the end of his nose.
You think Chornobyl was a disaster? BULLSHIT! It didn't even kill 4000 people! 4000 is just the official worst-case scenario by the known-hostile UN. The Banqiao Reservoir Dam collapse in China killed 171,000. 40 times greater than the greatest nuclear disaster! And that's confirmed deaths for the most human-friendly of the "environmentally friendly" technologies!
You're just a sack of lies and/or a moron incapable of any perspective. Go ahead, why don't you tell me of any other kind of industrial facility that can survive a super-earthquake AND a massive tsunami!
Oh and as for nuclear power plants releasing a bit of steam, I wouldn't worry if that happened every single day! Why? Because I've got some fucking perspective. Because I bother myself with learning what's dangerous and what isn't!
You know what appalls me? The fact anyone who's lived through it, or even who cares to know about it, can think Chornobyl was a worse disaster than the collapse of the USSR's economy after its dissolution.
Or maybe it's the fact people can't grasp the implication that inevitably follows from the previous. That a nuclear power plant shutting down for any reason is a far greater disaster for purely economic reasons than the people it supposedly kills due to radiation.
BAD ECONOMIES KILL PEOPLE. Shutting down nuclear plants is a great way to make economies turn bad.
Many thanks for your insightful comments, Richard. Releases of mildly radioactive steam (which use to be reported by media)mean that a reactor's containment is being vented in order to reduce its temperature as well as pressure. Which means control of the reactor has been lost.
I had much fun reading your piece "Reply To People Who've Put Up Solar Panels" - your idea of reactor vessels as some sort of gigantic boilers cast in a way similar to 16th century cannons is truly amusing. (I'm not implying that solar is suitable for Britain)
Now, if you had a bad tooth would you go to a dental surgeon or trust a "know all" guy like you are to mend it?
Lots of people have this ridiculous fetish for control. The traditional names for this fetish are Bondage & Discipline and Dominance & Submission.
What I'd really like to know though is what the fuck your sexual fetishes have to do with operating a nuclear power plants within predefined safety margins.
And with your last question, you just demonstrate that your fetish for dominance & submission patterns pervades your entire life. Proving you are without a doubt too stupid to live.
It really doesn't surprise me that you are so backwards since I have found Eastern Europeans to be consistently 2 or more generations behind Canadians, both socially and psychologically. And Canadians aren't even that advanced.
As final proof of your retardation, I need nothing more than your blatant lying hypocrisy and double standards.
When it's convenient for you to try to score a point, you scream KNEEL TO THE ALL-KNOWING AUTHORITY. But when it's inconvenient to your agenda of spreading mindless Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, then you say 'ignore the nuclear regulation agency'.
Dear Richard,
I appreciate your essay on G. Monbiot as well as interesting links and thoughts (borrowed or not) in your blog. You are absolutely correct stating that Monbiot has no principles. But may I ask what exactly do you, personally, stand for? According to your other blog posts you are both anti and pro nuclear - meaning that you have no principles too.
Next, I'm not a Nuclear Engineer, just a Power Engineer. Whatever I've been taught about nuclear is kind of a layman course, so I would be able to speak common language with these guys. Nuclear Engineers are not your common engineering
folk. Their well-being depends on government guarantees and subsidies. They commented on the recent tragic events so little, that they could almost be thought of as government spooks. Only retirees and outcasts voiced their concerns. Strictly controlled release of information and engagement of the US navy is another side of the same coin.
And last but not least - if you write on a subject as complex as nuclear energy, please pick a good popular book in a public library and spend some time learning. General specs on most reactors are available on the net. Please compare them to the exact conditions at Fukushima 1 site on "that" day. Attention to detail, recognition of its significance is important. Nuclear plants are indeed very reliable these days, but they are not a 100 percent fail safe. From standpoint of the Control Theory their reactors are terrible, grossly non-linear objects. There is no algorithm that suits even the same reactor as its fuel undergoes fission and dynamic behavior changes. The processes inside the fuel rods are amazingly complex. I'm sure that if you spend a little effort learning nuclear you would think that coal fired plants are kind of nice in comparison because never-ever fail publicity is just that, publicity.
It takes a hefty stretch of the imagination to interpret anything I've ever said as anti-nuclear.
> Their well-being depends on government guarantees and subsidies.
This is blatant lies.
> They commented on the recent tragic events so little, that they could almost be thought of as government spooks.
And this is nothing but FUD. The typical monolithic Grand Conspiracy that spans a dozen nations. Because we all know only the American government uses nuclear power. And we all know the German government secretly LOVES nuclear.
What a load of lying crap.
> Nuclear plants are indeed very reliable these days, but they are not a 100 percent fail safe.
You are horribly mistaken if you think this matters. In fact, your even bringing this up as if it were worth discussing, let alone concern, is just FUD. THIS DOESN'T MATTER.
> From standpoint of the Control Theory their reactors are terrible, grossly non-linear objects.
Neither does this matter. So fucking what? I've never been impressed with the pathetic crap peddled as "control theory". So control theory doesn't encompass nuclear reactors ... SO FUCKING WHAT?!
> There is no algorithm that suits even the same reactor as its fuel undergoes fission and dynamic behavior changes.
Not physicists' reactors anyways. Which is probably why I prefer chemists' reactors. But it doesn't matter anyways.
> I'm sure that if you spend a little effort learning nuclear you would think that coal fired plants are kind of nice in comparison
and there you prove that you're a typical retarded engineer.
Hey retard, I am a systems designer. Do you know what that means? No you don't. In fact, you can never comprehend what a systems designer IS or DOES because the subject is beyond your cognitive capacities.
Creativity is beyond your cognitive capacities. And above all, JUDGEMENT. Including judgement of good vs evil. And by my standards that means you're mentally handicapped.
You think coal plants are better ... because you're mentally handicapped. The fact you think YOUR personal capacity to comprehend and fully characterize the behaviour of a coal plant is MORE IMPORTANT than its killing millions of people ... PROVES YOU ARE A MENTALLY HANDICAPPED FUCKING RETARD.
We've reached the end of this discussion. You are an engineer and I am something forever beyond your understanding. I am as far above you as the average person is above a dog. And just like dogs can't hope to understand people, you can't hope to understand me. And just like dogs can't hope to comprehend math, you can't hope to comprehend good vs evil.
And because I know you didn't understand the lesson,
nuclear plants = good.
coal plants = evil.
and since you're incapable of comprehending the concepts, they're not worth explaining, debating or arguing with you.
Anyone who bothers giving 60 seconds of thought to characterizing the effects of the arsenic, mercury, and other toxic compounds which coal plants produce every single day and their effect upon human beings in real life. Let alone the variability of coal's impurities as it's dug up from the ground, and characterizing the effects of mining it!
Any such people can see that you're a lying hypocritical double-dealing bastard. Something which characterizes every single engineer on Earth given the fact you all universally lack the cognitive capacity to NOT lie and/or to see beyond the end of your myopic noses.
Oh and thank you for confessing the reason you hate nuclear power is because you work for the coal industry!
Dear Systems Designer,
Please think for a second of a multi-billion dollar investment (i.e. a nuclear plant) which can potentially turn to zero in a matter of minutes and become unlimited liability in a matter of hours. Without government guarantees and/or subsidies in one form or another, people with capital would hardly be interested in such an investment opportunity. (Your another priceless essay on people's reactors in the US doesn't even touch the subject.) So, highly respected Nuclear Engineers would have to become small business operators unless they learn some other trade.
Governments, not people, have always given green light for nuclear plants construction. The reasons are many. Weapons manufacture is one of them. This is why most of the reactors built are of light water type as sort of a trade off between safety and weapons production efficiency, because graphite reactors in which the rods could be re-located were too dangerous to operate. Fuel assembly would normally include a few rods which have little to do with power generation. Safer molten salt plants were never built for the reason of their uselessness in military terms.
Politics is another reason. As you correctly pointed the Great Britain wouldn't be so great if her energy supply was coming from abroad. So, lets build a lot of nuclear plants and pray that none of them would turn the island into a wasteland for centuries to come. And in the meantime you and other System Designers can be proud playing war games in foreign lands.
Finally, why do you attack Monbiot while being pro-nuclear? Just because you wanted to nail a successful journalist??? As far as I can see your blog is just one gigantic sociological diarrhea. I genuinely hope that you aren't older than twenty something and in the future you can smarten yourself up a bit. Please be careful choosing your swear words, especially in conjunction with elasticities and nationalities - someone will report you one day. This is my last comment here. Knowing you, Richard, must be quite nauseating experience.
People like you are the reason we still have coal plants
You guys probably knew this but coal plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants on a daily basis. Of course, it's probably still negligable, but wanted to put it out there. release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants on a daily basis. Of course, it's probably still negligable, but wanted to put it out there.
Damn it! I don't know why it keeps copying itself D:<
Post a Comment