Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

@Mohamoud Hassen the "technology" will force us to abuse poorer countries for their resources. Hey I hear Afghanistan has huge rare earth mineral deposits.
1
@AliothAncalagon "at least they did something" - doing "something" doesn't deflect criticism
1
It does make a huge difference because a ton of navigation, big engineering challenges, etc is based on the curvature of the Earth. If flat earth becomes so widespread that we start doing things under the assumption that the Earth is flat we will lose GPS navigation, star navigation (because the firmament proves flat earth wrong), long bridges, etc. It's as much of a problem as everyone starting to believe in homeopathy. We will go back in time as a civilization if we allow this shit to spread.
1
@hooplehead1019 fusion has been around the corner in the last 40 years.
1
@smile-tl9in renewables are not enough
1
@smile-tl9in the claim is yours so it's your burden to prove it.
1
@smile-tl9in "actually renewables could be enough. There are permanent natural phenomenon we can tap into." - 1 day ago You made the claim, burden of proof is on you.
1
@smile-tl9in you said renewables are enough, the claim is yours. The reason I'm proposing they're not enough (and most people don't consider nuclear renewable) is because "renewables" are simply indirect and inefficient forms of using nuclear energy. All renewables are based on the nuclear fusion from the Sun, or the nuclear decay within the Earth. I propose that they are not enough because they're extremely inefficient in terms of space and cannot be relied on. Renewables can't be enough if it causes the system to be dependent on the weather. You'll always need the back up.
1
@smile-tl9in ""actually renewables could be enough. There are permanent natural phenomenon we can tap into."" - you made the initial claim. "As for being inneficient it is simply that the technology is immature" - not really. The theoretical maximum for solar panels for example is around 42% and we're already close. We can't "mature" past physics. Due to the laws of the universe, you'll always have to build solar farms where in essence half the panels aren't doing anything but take up space. Wind is also another case, for example you can't build each fan too close to one another, etc. "And yes they can be relied upon since once the grid become large enough any weakness of one part can be compensated on another part" - that's extremely optimistic. "evens out on a large enough territory" - but if you are transmitting power too far away there will be transmission losses. "geothermy" - has the downsides of fracking, creates radioactive sludge because you're tapping into radioactive decay as the heat source
1
@smile-tl9in "actually renewables could be enough. There are permanent natural phenomenon we can tap into." - 2 days ago "renewables are not enough" - 1 day ago I made my comment after yours.
1
@smile-tl9in "1% of the earth surface recieve as much as energy from the sun as the world energy cunsumption several times over" - okay, and the vast majority of the Earth is covered by water. Out of the rest of the surface that has land, there's also a large percentage that has lack of accessibility, is too remote, too mountainous to build or simply would cause too much environmental damage to build. So where do you put that 1% considering that you probably only have 3% available? "Saying that we can't use solar because it only convert 42% of the sun energy" - except I didn't say that. My argument is that you can't say "technology will solve it" when we're about to reach the limits of technology. "because turbines only convert about 30% of the energy of vapor" - which doesn't mean shit because 30% out of a metric fuckton of energy is better than literally anything else we have. "No that's just a fact" - But it isn't. Things like night time and seasons are examples of phenomenons that are inescapable and cover an immense amount of land. "the grid i am speaking about would not be much more extended that it would be if we used all-nuclear" - but it would. We're talking about retrieving energy from Africa during European summer, or drawing energy from Russia when it's night in Europe. "Remember nuclear power plants are big and supposed to power a large territory. The grid to deliver said power is very extended" - but they're in that large territory. A system you're talking about would tap energy from several territories across. "you proved you know jack shit about geothermy" - It doesn't, but you can lie all you want. "If it was true every volcanoes would be a radioactive hazard" - volcanoes do spit out Radon gas which is hazardous. The thing is, if you're exposed to Radon you'll also be exposed to SO2, H2SO4, H2S, HCl, HF, CO2, etc. so you'll probably be killed before you develop cancer. But in volcanic regions Radon exposure is a concern. For example Ramsar in Iran has the world's highest natural background radiation because of the hot springs. "The radioactive elements are literally miles deeper that anywhere we can dig. " - that's false because for example the seas have uranium and thorium diluted into them because those elements are spat out from underwater volcanoes and tectonic faults. There have been cases of regions affected by high background radioactivity due to houses being built from igneous rock that contain radioactive elements that emit radiation into the house and then decay into Radon gas that hangs inside the house. You do realize that the Earth is a planet with geological activity, right? That means that what we can dig, has probably spent time very, very deep millions of years ago. https://opinvisindi.is/bitstream/handle/20.500.11815/161/Geothermal%20areas%20and%20cancer.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511870/ Remember, according to you the radioactive elements are miles deeper than we can dig. But Iceland, Sicily and Portugal (Furnas, Azores) have noticed that volcanic/geothermal areas have consistently higher cancer rates.
1
@smile-tl9in that's not my comment so how is the burden mine?
1