Author Topic: Episode #727  (Read 4147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8749
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2019, 09:17:10 PM »
I interpreted the closest planet question differently from the whole world, it seems like. I interpreted it as asking which planet's orbit is closest to the Earth's orbit. So the answer would be Venus.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Morticia Addams was elegaunt.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2019, 09:38:22 PM »
I interpreted the closest planet question differently from the whole world, it seems like. I interpreted it as asking which planet's orbit is closest to the Earth's orbit. So the answer would be Venus.

That I show I have always interpreted the question.  It’s the only way the question even made sense to me, expecting as it does a single answer.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 09:44:48 PM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline mspalding

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Episode #727 Nuclear Lecture
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2019, 10:49:04 PM »
The podcast said there would be a link to Jessie Jenkins' lecture in the show notes.  I didn't see it.  There are two videos on YouTube that might be the one:



ww.libertarianism.com

Offline Zec

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2019, 12:21:03 AM »
Name that logical fallacy: Steve: “nuclear is safer than solar, is safer than wind”.
(analogy: since more people on earth die for allergic reactions than for gunshots, going to war is safer than eating peanuts)

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2019, 12:53:19 AM »
Bachfiend:

Steve explained at great length that solar panels are not infinitely scalable because there are limits to the kind of demand that they can meet.

Nor do I think that Steve is talking only about “small, modular” nuclear reactors. Much of what Steve was talking about was the potential for fourth-generation reactors with passive failsafes, closed fuel cycles, and even the ability to burn much of our currently-stored high-level nuclear waste (the actinides with horribly long half lives) into much more stable isotopes. But I believe he also advocates building large third-generation nuclear reactors with once-through fuel cycles now. While these reactors are perhaps not ideal, they are a bridge technology (perhaps the only one) that can allow us to achieve carbon-neutral electricity generation in the near term while we await better nuclear reactor designs.

Name that logical fallacy: Steve: “nuclear is safer than solar, is safer than wind”.
(analogy: since more people on earth die for allergic reactions than for gunshots, going to war is safer than eating peanuts)

The statistics Steve cited were in a per megawatt-hour basis, so they were in fact equalized based upon the prevalence of the technology.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2019, 01:16:47 AM »
Some people spend a lot of money on a backup gas generator. I won't need that.

Gas and other domestic backup gensets are not that expensive. Certainly a lot cheaper than batteries.

Gensets have the advantage of not being capacity constrained. They have the disadvantage of being mechanical with associated noise and exhaust and require a short interruption to power supply during cutover from the grid.

I will be installing a backup genset with a cut over switch in the future, due to local grid reliability issues.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2019, 03:11:21 AM »
I interpreted the closest planet question differently from the whole world, it seems like. I interpreted it as asking which planet's orbit is closest to the Earth's orbit. So the answer would be Venus.

What metric are you using to define the distance between two orbits?

Offline esterin

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2019, 03:17:31 AM »
This is a science and skepticism podcast.

You'll have to get used to hearing about studies that stir political arguments or conflict with your worldview.
You can criticise the methodology, but saying sociology and social psychology is "impossible in principal" is anti-scientific nonsense.
exactly, it supposed to be science and skepticism  hence it should show the proper contempt for a trasperantly fake political pseudo science, moreover it was already exposed as such so we dont have to speculate, at least in this case.
 most of this type of "reaserch" is politically motivated and used to attack the conservative right, it is it's only utility it was immediately obvious in this case and embarrassingly  all the media including the sgu took it seriously....where the hell is the skepticism? .

again this has nothing to do with science.

the problem is not that it "stirs discussion " the problem is that it is transparent  embarrassing and fake political hatchet job mascarading as science.

As yours and others speculations on about this question show the question is too complex, too many variables, even the amount of variables is certainly unknown, you could never make any real experiments that isolate cause and effect, hence this question will forever remain in the realm of politics, philosophy and self help.

I dont need to criticize the methodology ....there is no methodology the guy missunderstood some comments and was not bothered to check because it aligned with his ideology, same as Cara and sgu and most of media.

There is no methodology that can answer this, this is ridicules, you cant randomize, u cant blind women to whether they had kids or merry, it is completely different groups that choose to have kids or marry and not to have....what is cause, what is effect...
If u ever been to the lab doing endless experiments on much simpler and deterministic things an getting it wrong because of minute assumptions, or the smallest additional effect that was not sufficiently isolated, i think u would understand.

whoever says he has the proof ...and  the real answer....and just by chance it is exactly aligns with his ideology....is a dishonest idiot

This is true for most of this type of questions, note that always they find that the "real cause" is almost exactly as what they believe....the research in the ussr always found that communistic principals were upheld, and the political left in socilogy departments always finds their beliefs are correct.

At least in the ussr they had to threaten them with the kgb and gulags .... todays social "scientists" do it volunterally for  popularity...ahhh the science today
 

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2019, 03:21:09 AM »
There needs to be a little more exploration of the "new" result on distance between planets.

First, the cited result was published in Physics Today, a magazine, not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. It is written as a magazine article, and there is no published (not even a pre-print) where the authors describe their actual result.

Second, the authors note that they are considering concentric, coplanar, circular orbits. None of these apply to our solar system. I don't doubt that the resulting departures from reality are small (especially for the inner solar system), but it seems like the whole point is achieving an accurate result.

Offline esterin

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2019, 03:46:46 AM »
Reactors that can only fail safe have been around a long time. CANDU reactors are physically structured so the reaction has to be forced to happen at all. The more things fail and break down the more the reaction can't even start.

There are certainly ways bad things could happen, especially heavy water leaking or flooding out - but these have been largely mitigated too.

IIRC part of the reason the US went with reactors that can melt down was to generate weapons-grade plutonium. New reactors don't necessarily have that requirement.
"Blyat Igor, what are you suggesting? anything goes wrong you just push the az5 shut down button, the rods drop, and the reaction is killed, there are issues but its all mitigated now".....final design review for the rbmk type reactors.

I suspect similar argumentation in the Fukashima case .."man you just start the generators and pump water into them...the rest is physics, relax "

What about intentional subbotage from the inside? are u saying  it is completely foolproof, because its literally has to be so if we are to rely on nuclear and build thousands all around the world?

Offline mabell_yah

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2019, 03:52:26 AM »
Here's a link to Steven's Neurologica blog post: "There is no one energy solution"
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/there-is-no-one-energy-solution/

He references this video by Dr Jesse Jenkins: "SAGE Weston Seminar Series 3/28/2019"
https://mediasite.engr.wisc.edu/Mediasite/Play/f77cfe80cdea45079cee72ac7e04469f1d

This is the video that Steven encouraged everyone to watch before responding to his podcast comments.  Unfortunately, that video is unplayable, I watched this one and it seems like a reasonable substitute (posted previously by mspalding): "UT Energy Symposium February 21, 2019"

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8749
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2019, 04:04:27 AM »
I interpreted the closest planet question differently from the whole world, it seems like. I interpreted it as asking which planet's orbit is closest to the Earth's orbit. So the answer would be Venus.

What metric are you using to define the distance between two orbits?

I don't understand the question. The orbit of Mars averages 227.9 million km from the sun. The orbit of Earth averages 149.6 million km. The orbit of Venus averages 108.2 million km. And then simple subtraction. Venus' orbit is 41.4 million km from Earth's, and Earth's orbit is 78.3 million km from Mars'. Venus' orbit is closer to Earth's than Mars' is.

If that's not what you mean by "the metric I'm using", I suppose I could re-do the calculation in miles.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Morticia Addams was elegaunt.

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2019, 05:30:44 AM »
I interpreted the closest planet question differently from the whole world, it seems like. I interpreted it as asking which planet's orbit is closest to the Earth's orbit. So the answer would be Venus.

What metric are you using to define the distance between two orbits?

I don't understand the question. The orbit of Mars averages 227.9 million km from the sun. The orbit of Earth averages 149.6 million km. The orbit of Venus averages 108.2 million km. And then simple subtraction. Venus' orbit is 41.4 million km from Earth's, and Earth's orbit is 78.3 million km from Mars'. Venus' orbit is closer to Earth's than Mars' is.

If that's not what you mean by "the metric I'm using", I suppose I could re-do the calculation in miles.

I was just asking how you were assigning a single number for distance to two trajectories in space. For example, one possible metric is:
d(orbitA, orbitB)= |rA-rB|, where rA is the minimum distance between a point on orbit A from the sun and rB is the minimum distance between a point on orbit B from the sun.

The metric you mentioned, which uses "average", runs into the same ambiguity as the "average" distance between planets. For example, average could be interpreted as the semi-major axis of the orbit, or the time-average, or something else.

Sorry, I'm being way too pedantic about this. I was just curious about how your interpretation of the question differed from the ones described on the show. I think I get it now. Thanks!  :)

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2019, 08:12:08 AM »
Bachfiend:

Steve explained at great length that solar panels are not infinitely scalable because there are limits to the kind of demand that they can meet.

Nor do I think that Steve is talking only about “small, modular” nuclear reactors. Much of what Steve was talking about was the potential for fourth-generation reactors with passive failsafes, closed fuel cycles, and even the ability to burn much of our currently-stored high-level nuclear waste (the actinides with horribly long half lives) into much more stable isotopes. But I believe he also advocates building large third-generation nuclear reactors with once-through fuel cycles now. While these reactors are perhaps not ideal, they are a bridge technology (perhaps the only one) that can allow us to achieve carbon-neutral electricity generation in the near term while we await better nuclear reactor designs.

Name that logical fallacy: Steve: “nuclear is safer than solar, is safer than wind”.
(analogy: since more people on earth die for allergic reactions than for gunshots, going to war is safer than eating peanuts)

The statistics Steve cited were in a per megawatt-hour basis, so they were in fact equalized based upon the prevalence of the technology.

I didn’t write that solar is ‘infinitely scalable.’  I wrote that it’s readily scalable.  If you need more power, you can add a single extra panel, or as many as you need.  You can’t add anything less than another nuclear reactor.

I haven’t listened to the current episode.  I haven’t listened to any episode for around 2 months, with the exception of last week’s episode, of which I managed to listen to only the beginning.

Steve might have been talking about the 4th generation reactors (which aren’t commercially available), rather than the small modular reactors (which he’s hyped repeatedly in the past).

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Episode #727
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2019, 08:29:48 AM »
Bachfiend:

Steve explained at great length that solar panels are not infinitely scalable because there are limits to the kind of demand that they can meet.

Nor do I think that Steve is talking only about “small, modular” nuclear reactors. Much of what Steve was talking about was the potential for fourth-generation reactors with passive failsafes, closed fuel cycles, and even the ability to burn much of our currently-stored high-level nuclear waste (the actinides with horribly long half lives) into much more stable isotopes. But I believe he also advocates building large third-generation nuclear reactors with once-through fuel cycles now. While these reactors are perhaps not ideal, they are a bridge technology (perhaps the only one) that can allow us to achieve carbon-neutral electricity generation in the near term while we await better nuclear reactor designs.

Name that logical fallacy: Steve: “nuclear is safer than solar, is safer than wind”.
(analogy: since more people on earth die for allergic reactions than for gunshots, going to war is safer than eating peanuts)

The statistics Steve cited were in a per megawatt-hour basis, so they were in fact equalized based upon the prevalence of the technology.

I didn’t write that solar is ‘infinitely scalable.’  I wrote that it’s readily scalable.  If you need more power, you can add a single extra panel, or as many as you need.  You can’t add anything less than another nuclear reactor.

I haven’t listened to the current episode.  I haven’t listened to any episode for around 2 months, with the exception of last week’s episode, of which I managed to listen to only the beginning.

Steve might have been talking about the 4th generation reactors (which aren’t commercially available), rather than the small modular reactors (which he’s hyped repeatedly in the past).

No, he’s talking about nuclear power.  Third generation, fourth generation, large or small.  We have the ability with technologies that are commercially available to use nuclear power to replace much of our fossil fuel generation that can’t be replaced by renewables. That’s the reality.

Also, China is currently building a 600 MW 4th-generation fast breeder reactor. They have plans to build 1000 MW generators by 2030. And there are many companies designing such reactors that could be ins service on similar timescales but that are facing uphill regulatory and political battles. The technology is here, we just need the will to pursue it.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

 

personate-rain
personate-rain