Germany to be nuclear-free by 2022

A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness.

Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-)

Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.)

Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."

>>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development.

It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence...

>>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention

Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.)

Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.

AGAIN, "In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence".

You just made another claim. If you want to show a thesis, then quote the relevant part and show it. Here is what he wrote:

>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.

From the rest of his comments, where he seems to think that natural resources will disappear if they are used, he has no clue about anything. (Hint: People are mining scrap heaps, etc.) He was against cities -- where each individual use less land and resources than people living in the countryside (or maybe he just want to kill everyone in cities -- where are they going to go, otherwise?)

>>Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium?

First, you changed the subject. I assume you yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.

Second, nothing are going to stop e.g. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea from building nuclear power plants and getting bombs. That cat is out of the bag. So that is irrelevant.

>>There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies

Afaik, western societies pollute less and less over the last 50-60 years. I gave examples. (The energy use is increasing, but less and less for each additional unit of GNP.)

>>go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years

When the economy reaches a certain level, countries start to invest in clean technology, etc. China has already started. The dirtiest phase is industrialisation -- it is still better than what was before.

(I know what Andi wrote, I quoted it in the comment above...)

He talks about future generations -- and against technological progress being important; he is arguing against cities and some back-to-nature garbage. A confused Luddite.

He is of course welcome to go back to being too poor for education and having 30% child mortality. But he'll have to kill off most of the population that can't survive in his world, Khmer style.

Which was what I rested my case on before. You could have asked for links to his comments, instead of ignoring them in your answer.

(I meant that you repeated your claim again, without any support. Like here. Not made a new one. Sorry for any confusion.)

>>It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium.

So the West should close down a large part of the energy production -- because radioactive materials might, in ten years time, end up with dictators. The really unpleasant dictators already have nuclear reactors (and bombs, in at least two of the three cases mentioned). (I know that Pakistan isn't formally a dictatorship right now.)

That is just not coherent.

(The point about oil wells was more of a proof of principle which I've seen geologists argue -- it is not popular locally, because political parties has married another solution. We can get rid of radioactive materials, if we absolutely have to. It is not a good idea, yet.)

>>Just because China has started to invest in clean technology ... doesn't mean it's going to use it

Sigh... And China might also stop growing food?

China has to implement clean tech -- since the economy will grow multiple times the coming decades and there are already bad environmental problems.

It is just too expensive not to do it. (Popular unrest, public health and destruction of farming land.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12595872

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis

And why isn't nuclear clean? Check how many people coal kills in China/year...

And so on, I'll probably not check if this is answered.

Creative way of reading Andi's comment. Congratulations. I can see how someone could formulate a position like that, given that he/she is used to argue with people with certain opinions.

The problem, as I noted twice above, is that the other comments shows that Andi is a crazy Luddite which argues against cities. No facts, no references -- lots of claims. (There is a lower environmental impact with half the population in cities than if you spread them out all over the countryside. At leasts without doing a Green Khmer reorg...)

Here is a link:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601330

Now I have repeated that point three(?) times. You have acknowledged it without touching it twice. I've given a link. Enough.

And yes, it is theoretically possible that the Chinese commit a country-wide economic suicide by not starting to clean up e.g. pollution from coal. But stupidity is not the common sin of the Chinese leaders... (Strip mining and destroying inner Mongolia is another matter.)

Or are you claiming it is economically efficient to not clean up and accept health problems for a large part of the work force? Sure, the Chinese leadership is competent and would be cynical enough... That would be interesting -- do you have references?

Here is another weird Andi comment, which relates to his original claim -- and show you to be wrong.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601341

>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion.

So you are wrong -- Andi really meant what he said.

So much for your claim of proof.

(I accept that, given enough strange people to argue with, a reasonable person -- a non-Luddite/-econazi -- might have written what "Andi" wrote. Even if it seems unlikely. But "Andi" is not reasonable...)

>> Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant

See above -- Andi is just plain weird, your guess is very unlikely. Also, you made that claim without touching that I've commented on his weird comments three times, even gave a link.

My troll detector isn't sensitive enough.

>> ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations

And for nuclear power -- you haven't show that there is a net cost to future generations (not just creation of useful materials for their accelerator reactors).

Note also that the present humanity do research and infrastructure now, which will make future generations' lives better. (Which certainly is a religious view, according to Andi.)

(Also, there are lots of radioactive materials in nature. See my proof-of-principle solution.)