One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Texas
Page <<first <prev 7 of 21 next> last>>
Feb 20, 2021 09:27:08   #
son of witless
 
permafrost wrote:
It is not the liberals or progressives blocking nuclear power, it is the free market and technology.. the cost of a nuclear plant makes them prohibitive.. the product left behind has no practical disposal and the extreme accident potential makes them a nightmare to many people..

Immigration is far from a driving force on CC.. makes very little difference if the person lives in Bogata or Chicago, the location will make nearly no difference in the global problem..


You are wrong on nearly everything you just said, but thank you thank you for at least taking the trouble to actually explain your disagreements with me in detail. Most of your compadres merely condemn what I say, but never bother to try to prove my points wrong.

Bad Bob and Kevyn never explain why they believe I am wrong. You have thought about our differences and wrote them out.

Okay now here is my rebuttal. On nuclear power one of the costs are the endless permitting process during which liberal i***ts can hold up a nuclear plant for years. Also lets us look at California. It is the poster boy for stupid energy policy. Liberals rule that state with an iron fist. They are blocking the construction of new nukes and shutting down the existing ones, so do not give me that free market and technology argument. Here is my evidence.
https://reason.com/2020/08/19/california-blackouts-its-not-just-the-heat-its-also-the-anti-nuclear-power-stupidity/


As far as your other arguments against nukes, here is further evidence pro nukes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/01/17/if-progressive-democrats-care-so-much-about-the-climate-why-are-they-trying-to-k**l-nuclear-power/?sh=3b47bf57588d

Thank you again for giving me solid arguments instead of the blanket condemnations I get from the others.

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 09:30:28   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
permafrost wrote:
Better air in 2020..... that is because the previous democrat administration did such good work for the environment and inspite of trump removing regulations, the decades of work combined with the great decline in motor traffic a/c of the c***d made are air cleaner then it has been for many years..

But NO, it was not only the US which found the air cleaner.. as soon as commerce returns to normal levels the problem will also return to past levels.


Oh. Right. Of course. Silly me. After FOUR years, everything good about the US is credited to President Obama. Economy, trade improvements, etc. Everything bad is, of course, President Trumps fault, and will remain so as long as a democrat is in office.
What a surprise. Not very intelligent, but you get points for creativity. And that is what is important under the progressive education policies. Being CORRECT is unimportant, as long as you make a "sincere" attempt. Where do I send your Participation Trophy?

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 09:31:06   #
fullspinzoo
 
RandyBrian wrote:
SOUNDS like he knows what he's talking about. Sorta like President Biden's policies on immigration, economics, and dealing with Iran. All these speeches sound knowledgeable, but they are built on falsehoods and wrong assumptions, and will inevitably lead to disaster.


Don't you h**e when somebody who doesn't have a clue, calls you, SON?

Reply
 
 
Feb 20, 2021 09:57:43   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Nonsense, Permafrost. Safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel is simple and straight forward, just very expensive. It is a political and economic problem only.
As far as your remark about liberals and progressives......you are hilarious. Nuclear power plants pay for themselves in a reasonable length of time, produce no green house gases, are safe and dependable, and are blocked at every turn by liberals, progressives, l*****ts, and other flavors of environmental wackos.


Randy, many articles on cost can be found, some such as a dutch magazine article claim much cheaper cost, but then add that the figures used omit some costs.. so take your pick..

I think the cost factor is prohibitive.. but for most people the key problem is the disposal problem.. what do you favor, rocket to the sun? wh**ever the choice it is a major problem.. the French use a process that the used fuel can be recycled.. but I did not find much information on that method..

It would be great if nuclear could be made cost effective and safe.. But to date, it is not and public opinion very much opposes nuclear power.. it will not be a factor until that changes..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

Nuclear is also much more expensive, the WNISR report said.

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.

For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:03:23   #
fullspinzoo
 
permafrost wrote:
Randy, many articles on cost can be found, some such as a dutch magazine article claim much cheaper cost, but then add that the figures used omit some costs.. so take your pick..

I think the cost factor is prohibitive.. but for most people the key problem is the disposal problem.. what do you favor, rocket to the sun? wh**ever the choice it is a major problem.. the French use a process that the used fuel can be recycled.. but I did not find much information on that method..

It would be great if nuclear could be made cost effective and safe.. But to date, it is not and public opinion very much opposes nuclear power.. it will not be a factor until that changes..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

Nuclear is also much more expensive, the WNISR report said.

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.

For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.
Randy, many articles on cost can be found, some su... (show quote)


NWR

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:03:39   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
son of witless wrote:
You are wrong on nearly everything you just said, but thank you thank you for at least taking the trouble to actually explain your disagreements with me in detail. Most of your compadres merely condemn what I say, but never bother to try to prove my points wrong.

Bad Bob and Kevyn never explain why they believe I am wrong. You have thought about our differences and wrote them out.

Okay now here is my rebuttal. On nuclear power one of the costs are the endless permitting process during which liberal i***ts can hold up a nuclear plant for years. Also lets us look at California. It is the poster boy for stupid energy policy. Liberals rule that state with an iron fist. They are blocking the construction of new nukes and shutting down the existing ones, so do not give me that free market and technology argument. Here is my evidence.
https://reason.com/2020/08/19/california-blackouts-its-not-just-the-heat-its-also-the-anti-nuclear-power-stupidity/


As far as your other arguments against nukes, here is further evidence pro nukes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/01/17/if-progressive-democrats-care-so-much-about-the-climate-why-are-they-trying-to-k**l-nuclear-power/?sh=3b47bf57588d

Thank you again for giving me solid arguments instead of the blanket condemnations I get from the others.
You are wrong on nearly everything you just said, ... (show quote)



Of course we do not agree on much, but have a look down the page at my reply to Randy.. then maybe the Dutch magazine reply would be of interest..

I do agree that California has made some very dumb choices over time.. although currently they are getting things done..

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:04:52   #
son of witless
 
RascalRiley wrote:
If Donny did not say it, it ain’t true. Period. So there is no upside to taking the time to splaining it to you. Your education is your responsibility


I was speaking of this statement you made. Please SPLAIN it ????????????????????????

" Your second point, people moving to the USA, is so ridiculous it could nullifies almost anything you write "

Reply
 
 
Feb 20, 2021 10:09:31   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Oh. Right. Of course. Silly me. After FOUR years, everything good about the US is credited to President Obama. Economy, trade improvements, etc. Everything bad is, of course, President Trumps fault, and will remain so as long as a democrat is in office.
What a surprise. Not very intelligent, but you get points for creativity. And that is what is important under the progressive education policies. Being CORRECT is unimportant, as long as you make a "sincere" attempt. Where do I send your Participation Trophy?
Oh. Right. Of course. Silly me. After FOUR yea... (show quote)



Your first paragraph shows you are beginning to understand.. keep working..

https://cen.acs.org/environment/atmospheric-chemistry/C****-**-lockdowns-had-strange-effects-on-air-pollution-across-the-globe/98/i37#:~:text=When%20viewed%20broadly%20and%20globally,Natl.

IN BRIEF
Unusually low air pollution emissions caused by C****-** lockdowns have provided atmospheric chemists with a unique data set. By studying what happened in the skies, they hope to gain insights into the basic reactions that drive atmospheric chemistry. What they’re learning will also provide guidance for policy makers who want to address c*****e c****e and improve regional air quality.

before and after...
before and after......

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:15:10   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
permafrost wrote:
Randy, many articles on cost can be found, some such as a dutch magazine article claim much cheaper cost, but then add that the figures used omit some costs.. so take your pick..

I think the cost factor is prohibitive.. but for most people the key problem is the disposal problem.. what do you favor, rocket to the sun? wh**ever the choice it is a major problem.. the French use a process that the used fuel can be recycled.. but I did not find much information on that method..

It would be great if nuclear could be made cost effective and safe.. But to date, it is not and public opinion very much opposes nuclear power.. it will not be a factor until that changes..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

Nuclear is also much more expensive, the WNISR report said.

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.

For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.
Randy, many articles on cost can be found, some su... (show quote)


After 50 years of unsupported propaganda AGAINST nuclear energy by the left and by the MSM, it is little wonder that public opinion is against it. The same tactics used against President Trump. Indoctrination education followed with selectively edited news coverage. The long term way to create a docile and easily manipulated population. Yes, on a clear pretty day nuclear power is more expensive and a very major expenditure of cash. But it also works on days that are windless, overcast, freezing cold, and at night.

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:21:26   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
permafrost wrote:
Your first paragraph shows you are beginning to understand.. keep working..

https://cen.acs.org/environment/atmospheric-chemistry/C****-**-lockdowns-had-strange-effects-on-air-pollution-across-the-globe/98/i37#:~:text=When%20viewed%20broadly%20and%20globally,Natl.

IN BRIEF
Unusually low air pollution emissions caused by C****-** lockdowns have provided atmospheric chemists with a unique data set. By studying what happened in the skies, they hope to gain insights into the basic reactions that drive atmospheric chemistry. What they’re learning will also provide guidance for policy makers who want to address c*****e c****e and improve regional air quality.
Your first paragraph shows you are beginning to un... (show quote)


Nice pictures. Seems we have stumbled on an easy solution to your concerns. Since we were able to correct a 200 year problem accumulation of pollutants with only 12 months of a p******c, we could just have one every hundred years or so!
Or is that not your point?

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:26:00   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
son of witless wrote:
I was speaking of this statement you made. Please SPLAIN it ????????????????????????

" Your second point, people moving to the USA, is so ridiculous it could nullifies almost anything you write "



If I recall, your point is that when people move to the US they will use more energy products which increase the green house gases and hence CC..

But pick any number for the inflow you wish and yes the amount used by Americans is the highest in the world. but the additional use by the people is negligible when considered against the use from the old country.. however much the difference it will not be a factor.. the infrastructure will not change because of a few millions people. and the total usage will not be great when you subtract the amount they would use in the home country..

US vs Mexico is an extreme difference but one we need to consider.. do the math and see how it works out..


List of countries by production-based emissions

Metric tons of CO2e per capita

Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013


United States (see: Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States) 23.23 23.26 23.86 22.92 20.97 19.9

Mexico 5.0 5.1 5.74 6.28 6.19 5.98

Reply
 
 
Feb 20, 2021 10:32:10   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
RandyBrian wrote:
After 50 years of unsupported propaganda AGAINST nuclear energy by the left and by the MSM, it is little wonder that public opinion is against it. The same tactics used against President Trump. Indoctrination education followed with selectively edited news coverage. The long term way to create a docile and easily manipulated population. Yes, on a clear pretty day nuclear power is more expensive and a very major expenditure of cash. But it also works on days that are windless, overcast, freezing cold, and at night.
After 50 years of unsupported propaganda AGAINST n... (show quote)



do you think Chernobyl, 3 mile island and the even in Japan are propaganda??

come on,, be logical.. events like these are what does and will keep the popluation form endorsing nuclear power plants.. it is real and it is dangerous..



Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:40:29   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Nice pictures. Seems we have stumbled on an easy solution to your concerns. Since we were able to correct a 200 year problem accumulation of pollutants with only 12 months of a p******c, we could just have one every hundred years or so!
Or is that not your point?


Gee Randy, be real... we need a solution, not unending disasters..

The path is clear, it is the money of the f****l f**l companies which are fighting it tooth and nail..

The market has nearly ended the use of Coal.. natural gas in cleaner, but should in fact be called; less dirty..

Things have been so delayed over the years.. think of it, Exxon knew about CC in the 50s and kept the information locked up..

Now we are near the tipping point.. that is what your fish wrap press calles the end of the world per the liberals. not so the term and event is "tipping point" if you are not familiar with that. look it up.. the disinformation even on this single term is what makes the right wing positions so hard for the world to accept as anything to take seriously..



Reply
Feb 20, 2021 10:55:04   #
son of witless
 
permafrost wrote:
If I recall, your point is that when people move to the US they will use more energy products which increase the green house gases and hence CC..

But pick any number for the inflow you wish and yes the amount used by Americans is the highest in the world. but the additional use by the people is negligible when considered against the use from the old country.. however much the difference it will not be a factor.. the infrastructure will not change because of a few millions people. and the total usage will not be great when you subtract the amount they would use in the home country..

US vs Mexico is an extreme difference but one we need to consider.. do the math and see how it works out..


List of countries by production-based emissions

Metric tons of CO2e per capita

Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013


United States (see: Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States) 23.23 23.26 23.86 22.92 20.97 19.9

Mexico 5.0 5.1 5.74 6.28 6.19 5.98
If I recall, your point is that when people move t... (show quote)


Again I disagree, but I like the way you made your point. You actually took the time, which your compadres never ever do, to understand my argument and then make your counter points. If others on this board would bother to do that we could have some very productive conversations. That said, here is my rebuttal.

Over 40 or so years we are talking far more than a few millions. Also in the old countries most of these people lived extremely poor lives. If they did not, they would never endure the hardships and take the risks to march thousands of miles through hostile countryside to come here.

That dirt poor existence was far more in accordance with the Liberal model of good Earth citizenship. They did not have the wealth to emit much carbon. Ecologically the Earth wanted them to stay in brutal poverty instead of moving north and becoming fat rich carbon spewing ugly Americans.

So millions come north and their carbon emissions spike. But it gets worse. Where they left, the area had a certain carrying capacity, for the human population. If the population increased, the death rate increased and brought things back into balance.

Now when you move millions north, you create a population vacancy or hole. The remaining population will quickly fill that hole until equilibrium is restored. So by moving millions north you have increased the total population of the Earth, thus more Green House Warming.

{Please expose the flaws in that perfect logic. }

Reply
Feb 20, 2021 12:13:00   #
peg w
 
I really can see why Texas was unprepared. they have not had shuch a long cold snap in over 50 years. As long as it doesn't happen you don't prepare for it. What I don't understand, is the burst pipes. Everyone in New England knows to leave a faucet dripping when you loose power for a while

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 21 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.